C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If God does not exist, where does the buck stop?
In other words, what is the point of rank determinism?
- Status
In other words, what is the point of rank determinism?
D
davidv
Guest
If “We (humans) are not omnipotent or omniscient.” then I submit that you are in no position to declare that this sign belongs on God’s desk.Not likely? The understatement of the year.
To be exposed to pain and suffering is NOT inherently “evil”. We (humans) are not omnipotent or omniscient. So for us it is possible that even employing the best possible means and acting as benevolently as we can we must still cause some lesser pain and suffering. There is no problem with that. But it is logically necessary to cause as little pain and suffering as possible, while achieving that greater good. To cause or allow ANY amount of pain and suffering which is unnecessary (gratuitous) is evil.
Are you with me?
If yes, then we can continue. The point is that God is not limited, unlike us. He can create a state of affairs, without afflicting any pain or suffering, just by snapping his imaginary fingers.
Now some people argue (incorrectly, of course) that NEARLY unbridled free will is “valuable” per se. My question is: “to whom”? Not for the victim. Not for the relatives and friends of the victim. Not for the people who know about the attack… For WHOM is it valuable? For the psychopath who committed the act? Why should we respect the “free will” of a psychopath? Should we get rid of the police and the judicial system to allow the psychopath even MORE freedom?
Both the “free will defense” and the “greater good defense” are logically incorrect. There is no defense for causing and allowing unnecessary pain and suffering.
Some nincompoops will ask: “how do you know that certain pain and suffering” are unnecessary? The answer is obvious. God’s omnipotence is only limited by logically impossible states of affairs. It is logically possible to perform a “selective creation”. God is also supposed to know how will a certain person behave in any and all circumstances, IF he were created. So God could “bypass” the creation of those people who would perform evil acts, IF created.
That puts the full responsibility for ALL the evil acts onto God’s shoulders (if he existed and had any shoulders).
You can’t hide behind: “why should God be responsible for the evil”? Why not the humans? Because we are NOT omniscient and NOT omnipotent. Of course, if someone KNOWS about an impending evil (terrorist) action, and he is able to prevent it, and stays inactive, then obviously that person is held responsible.
But this is very rare. If God existed, and he had a desk, on that desk there would be famous sign: “The buck stops HERE!”.
Many words were used above that could have been simply stated “I am not going to be held accountable for my actions.” That is not surprising, that attitude has be with us since the beginning.
Genesis 3:11-12:
Not weeping because it does not begin to answer my question. "The rapist chose to misuse his free will. Why didn’t he keep her best interest in mind?"
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Not to my knowledge. Plantinga attempted some, but he failed. If something is a logically valid argument, from that it does not follow that it is also logically sound.
All elephants can play the piano.
Jumbo is an elephant.
Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.
This would be a syllogistically valid argument, but a semantically unsound one. Logically valid (but unsound) arguments are useless. Only logically sound arguments are worthy of contemplation.
If you wish to participate, I suggest a few ideas. Do not just “vomit” a bunch of vowels and consonants onto a page. Use paragraphs. Also use the “quote” feature, to indicate whose post are you referring to. Don’t use “parables”, be as specific as you can be.
With the individual, who either performed the act, or was in the position to prevent it.
Our whole judicial system is based upon the assumption that we are free agents. This assumption cannot be “proven” in a rigorous manner, but it is still a basic one.
Sure we are. The responsibility always lies with the final authority. This is a basic philosophical principle. If there is a God, then he is the most powerful and most knowledgeable entity, therefore he is responsible for everything.
See directly above.
That question is generic, and cannot be answered. Each rapist has something on his (or her) mind, usually the desire to dominate. The point is: “if there is someone who knows about the impending rape, and has the power to prevent it, then he is responsible for the inaction”. This is also a basic judicial principle.
I don’t know if you took time to read the linked text, but you should. It shows the usual “defenses” in the problem of evil, and it also show how inept they are.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Yes, the assumption is one of natural law and common sense, and does not require proof.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
There is no “natural moral law”, and many people have no common sense.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Is there objective morality? Or is it all made up? If it’s made up, what criteria do you use to determine “good”?
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Morality is the sum of the written and unwritten rules that govern a socially acceptable behavior in a given society at a given time. (Some of it is codified into laws, other parts belong to decent behavior.) Yes, it is OBJECTIVE, because it is independent from the opinion of individuals, but it is NOT absolute, because it changes from time to time and from one society to another. Many people confuse “objective” with “absolute”, which is just another sign of lack of “common sense”.
What is considered “moral” or acceptable in one society could be totally unacceptable in another. Public nudity in a western culture is usually considered immoral, while it is perfectly acceptable in tribal arrangements close to the Equator. In some societies in the Far East to use a handkerchief to blow your nose is considered very rude, impolite or immoral. It does not invoke punishment, but it does invoke “social stigma”.
Of course, this has NOTHING to do with topic of the thread, namely the “value” of unbridled free will. Let’s talk about it somewhere else.
V
Vico
Guest
The Catechism refers that what is the natural moral law:
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are overlooking the difference between ultimate responsibility and direct responsibility. God is not an autocrat who imposes His Will on us, thank God…Not likely? The understatement of the year.
To be exposed to pain and suffering is NOT inherently “evil”. We (humans) are not omnipotent or omniscient. So for us it is possible that even employing the best possible means and acting as benevolently as we can we must still cause some lesser pain and suffering. There is no problem with that. But it is logically necessary to cause as little pain and suffering as possible, while achieving that greater good. To cause or allow ANY amount of pain and suffering which is unnecessary (gratuitous) is evil.
Are you with me?
If yes, then we can continue. The point is that God is not limited, unlike us. He can create a state of affairs, without afflicting any pain or suffering, just by snapping his imaginary fingers.
Now some people argue (incorrectly, of course) that NEARLY unbridled free will is “valuable” per se. My question is: “to whom”? Not for the victim. Not for the relatives and friends of the victim. Not for the people who know about the attack… For WHOM is it valuable? For the psychopath who committed the act? Why should we respect the “free will” of a psychopath? Should we get rid of the police and the judicial system to allow the psychopath even MORE freedom?
Both the “free will defense” and the “greater good defense” are logically incorrect. There is no defense for causing and allowing unnecessary pain and suffering.
Some nincompoops will ask: “how do you know that certain pain and suffering” are unnecessary? The answer is obvious. God’s omnipotence is only limited by logically impossible states of affairs. It is logically possible to perform a “selective creation”. God is also supposed to know how will a certain person behave in any and all circumstances, IF he were created. So God could “bypass” the creation of those people who would perform evil acts, IF created.
That puts the full responsibility for ALL the evil acts onto God’s shoulders (if he existed and had any shoulders).
You can’t hide behind: “why should God be responsible for the evil”? Why not the humans? Because we are NOT omniscient and NOT omnipotent. Of course, if someone KNOWS about an impending evil (terrorist) action, and he is able to prevent it, and stays inactive, then obviously that person is held responsible.
But this is very rare. If God existed, and he had a desk, on that desk there would be famous sign: “The buck stops HERE!”.
Read this and weep: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html A nice summary (in very ironic form) of the idiotic “defenses” presented by SOME people.
Would you prefer to be a mental slave?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Unless you can definitively prove that there could be no good reason for God creating the universe as is, and I don’t think such a thing can be shown, then the objection ultimately fails.
I also don’t find the police officer analogy convincing. Humans have duties and obligations that must be lived up to. Humans are limited beings. Humans are persons in the traditional sense. None of those describe God. He is not some spiritual super person, like Zeus or Thor, with powers far beyond human but ultimately still limited as a person. We abscribe human attributes to God because it’s what we know, it’s how we relate, and analogy can be useful. But it’s only analogy, and we risk falling into the trap of taking the next step and considering him in human terms.
This isn’t just and argument that God is so much smarter than us and his plans are beyond our comprehension. An incredibly smart person is still a person. It’s more basic than that. Given what he is, he doesn’t have the same moral responsibilities we have. From other arguments it still follows that he is goodness itself, and all evil is not the opposite of good but the deprivation of it made by the free choices of beings who are not pure act and are thus free to act that way. But to be a good human being means to do what is right to live up to what we’re naturally ordered towards. A triangle is a better triangle the more it manifests “triangleness,” or the essence of a triangle, which in Euclidean space means to have three straight sides and three angles that add up to a 180 degrees. Being a good human is similar, to look at what is essential to “humanness.” To be good is to fulfill our essence.
Well, God is not human. To be a good triangle is not the same as being a good dog which is not the same as being a good human which is not the same as being God, though the term “good” is analogous in all its applications above. Now, how is God’s goodness relevant to our own? He desires us to be good according to our nature. And we can’t stop at “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” etc… These are not good in and of themselves, they are good because they direct us towards conforming ourselves to what is essential to humans. There is a relationship between God and man, between his goodness and ours. But when we say God is good, we don’t simply mean that he conforms himself to the limited essence of being human.
I also don’t find the police officer analogy convincing. Humans have duties and obligations that must be lived up to. Humans are limited beings. Humans are persons in the traditional sense. None of those describe God. He is not some spiritual super person, like Zeus or Thor, with powers far beyond human but ultimately still limited as a person. We abscribe human attributes to God because it’s what we know, it’s how we relate, and analogy can be useful. But it’s only analogy, and we risk falling into the trap of taking the next step and considering him in human terms.
This isn’t just and argument that God is so much smarter than us and his plans are beyond our comprehension. An incredibly smart person is still a person. It’s more basic than that. Given what he is, he doesn’t have the same moral responsibilities we have. From other arguments it still follows that he is goodness itself, and all evil is not the opposite of good but the deprivation of it made by the free choices of beings who are not pure act and are thus free to act that way. But to be a good human being means to do what is right to live up to what we’re naturally ordered towards. A triangle is a better triangle the more it manifests “triangleness,” or the essence of a triangle, which in Euclidean space means to have three straight sides and three angles that add up to a 180 degrees. Being a good human is similar, to look at what is essential to “humanness.” To be good is to fulfill our essence.
Well, God is not human. To be a good triangle is not the same as being a good dog which is not the same as being a good human which is not the same as being God, though the term “good” is analogous in all its applications above. Now, how is God’s goodness relevant to our own? He desires us to be good according to our nature. And we can’t stop at “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” etc… These are not good in and of themselves, they are good because they direct us towards conforming ourselves to what is essential to humans. There is a relationship between God and man, between his goodness and ours. But when we say God is good, we don’t simply mean that he conforms himself to the limited essence of being human.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I wonder why do you think that the catechism has any explanatory value for non-catholics.
“Sin” is uniquely Christian concept. Inapplicable to others. Moreover, not even the Christians can agree just what is a “sinful” behavior. Not even all Catholics can do that. So there can be no “uniform” law scribbled unto the “soul” - whatever that might be.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I see no real difference between a rapist and policeman who simply stands by and allows it to happen. Both are evil.
Of course. That was the point of this whole thread. And before you start to object, realize that being a “robot” or a “mental slave” does not feel deficient, since they do not know anything else to compare to.
Besides, I heard believers to say that they prefer to be a “servant” or a “slave” for Jesus.
W
Wesrock
Guest
There are some laws which are self-evident and don’t require any divine revelation. Do not murder. Do not steal. Etc… These are essentially universal, upheld by all peoples, regardless of creed or lack of. Some reject it, it’s true. But I’d hardly say people just floundered about with no laws before God stepped in. Some things are clearly beneficial to humans, as individuals and as a society, and some things clearly aren’t. Welcome to the beginnings of natural law and the laws inscribed on men’s hearts. It takes only the least bit of reason to arrive at some of these.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Why so? It is the believers who assert that God is “good”, “benevolent” and “loving”. That is a positive claim, so they are under obligation to support it. It is the trick of Plantinga who said that unless one can show a logical contradiction between the “goodness” of God and the existence of evil, then it is POSSIBLE that there is good and valid reason for allowing evil and still retaining the label of “good”. That is pure hogwash. “Possible” does not count as an argument.
What you call “argument” here is just a baseless and empty assertion. Especially since “goodness” is undefined.
Which makes the assertion meaningless. If that goodness allows rape, murder, genocide, then it is not “goodness”. You are between a rock and a hard place. If you wish to speak meaningfully, you cannot say that God is “good”, but that “good” cannot be compared (even analogically) to human goodness. In philosophy that is called the “fallacy of the stolen concept”, using a concept arbitrarily, outside its valid scope.
W
Wesrock
Guest
If I simply said that God was good on the basis of a text, you may have a point. That itself would be rather arbitrary. I don’t. It follows from rational arguments that neither assume God’s existence or his goodness, on the nature of being, on what it means to be good, etc… The definitions aren’t arbitrary, but logicaly constructed.
And if there are rational arguments for a God and his goodness from study of the world, and if it cannot be shown to conflict with evidence from the world, then why is the burden of proof on me to prove there is no contradiction? You’re the one who is alleging the positive argument that there is one.
Edward Feser and W. Norris Clarke have some interesting books on the subject which demonstrate the arguments from the start, Aquinas, Scholastic Metaphysics, The One and the Many. Have you read these?
And how would you define good and evil?
And if there are rational arguments for a God and his goodness from study of the world, and if it cannot be shown to conflict with evidence from the world, then why is the burden of proof on me to prove there is no contradiction? You’re the one who is alleging the positive argument that there is one.
Edward Feser and W. Norris Clarke have some interesting books on the subject which demonstrate the arguments from the start, Aquinas, Scholastic Metaphysics, The One and the Many. Have you read these?
And how would you define good and evil?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What is even more ironic is that your alter-ego Hee_Zen tried to peddle this same little “read it and weep” caricature about ten months ago, which puts us just a little closer to confirming the little deception – speaking of deceivers – that you are playing, given that Hee_Zen was banned from the forums a while ago.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12639524&highlight=twelve#post12639524
We have also been down this rabbit hole before. I am surprised you haven’t used the word “reciprocity” or the (inverted) golden rule to make your case,Morality is the sum of the written and unwritten rules that govern a socially acceptable behavior in a given society at a given time. (Some of it is codified into laws, other parts belong to decent behavior.) Yes, it is OBJECTIVE, because it is independent from the opinion of individuals, but it is NOT absolute, because it changes from time to time and from one society to another. Many people confuse “objective” with “absolute”, which is just another sign of lack of “common sense”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12586964&postcount=450
Now, at that time, Hee_Zen couldn’t answer one particular question, which ultimately led to his ignoring all of my posts.
I do expect a “common sense” answer to why you would subscribe to a moral system (relativism) that would find Nazi atrocities to be justified in principle because these would be “objectively justified” – and thus made “moral” – by the consensus of any society, including the most brutal of them.
We already have “talked about it somewhere else” and as I recall, -]you/-] Hee_Zen didn’t fare very well then, but it looks like you are still trying to peddle the same brands of snake-oil.
In particular…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12646464&postcount=48
and …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=935271&highlight=twelve&page=5
In the words of C.S. Lewis…
youtu.be/yaGwF7A79_w
Now, of course, I fully expect that you will ignore this post, since you knew to put me on “ignore” very quickly given the experience of Hee_Zen.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I also did define goodness, at a more basic concept than you have, Pallas Athene. It’s better conforming to our essence. For example, a triangle is defined as a three sided object with straight sides that join together at three angles which add up to 180 degrees. A triangle is more good the more closely it conforms to its essence. A triangle is bad the more it lacks conformity with triangularity. Humans are more complex, of course, but the idea of natural law and being a good human follow from the same conception of goodness as a being better conforming to its essence. The essence of a triangle and human differ, so to be a good triangle is different than being a good human, but the way we consider whether a triangle is good or if a human is good is similar, and we can distinguish conforming morally from just physical form.
It’s really a rather simple concept, though perhaps we need to back up and speak of being, and essence and existence.
You seemed to skip over most of my post to raise objections which were already addressed in my post.
It’s really a rather simple concept, though perhaps we need to back up and speak of being, and essence and existence.
You seemed to skip over most of my post to raise objections which were already addressed in my post.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
To argue there is no natural moral law is to argue there is no human nature.
Everything goes, … at least everything you can get away with.
How is that working for you?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The fallacy of the stolen concept is a fallacy because it presupposes the very concept it seeks to refute in order to refute that concept. Thus, it is self-refuting.
Ironically, that is exactly the state you have put yourself in.
Lewis argued that that is precisely what moral relativists and atheists, generally, do when they argue against absolute goodness (Goodness Itself) by invoking the existence of evil.
We wouldn’t and couldn’t know or be aware of evil in the first place unless we had a defined sense of goodness. The force of the argument from evil is only as strong as the presupposition of the existence of goodness that it rests upon.
Are you denying evil is evil? That would be the necessary implication of your insistence that Absolute Goodness cannot exist because evil does. Which takes us back to the question of Nazi atrocities – your (and Hee_Zen’s) position collapses to those atrocities being morally permissible if they were sanctioned by the society. On what basis do we judge the goodness of societies?
Where will you “steal” the concept of goodness from in order to deny that implication of your own moral relativism?
Speaking of “stolen concepts.” Either pay for it or we will call security! :tsktsk:
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is a typical atheist argument which has no logical merit since you cannot even begin to prove there is neither a god, nor a soul, nor a natural law.
Scientists constantly disagree about the laws of nature. It does not follow there are no objective natural laws in nature. The same is true for philosophy and theology. That there are different schools it does not follow there is no truth to be discovered that applies to all schools.
For example, we must believe in truth. This is a truism that applies to all schools of thought. If it did not, none of these schools of thought would bother to exist.
Even the rank relativist who argues that everything is relative has boxed himself in with a supposedly objective statement.
- Status