Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[ateista]

This absolutely false.

I disagree, and I will explain my reasons for the disagreement.

The only consideration as YOU have clearly articulate is that the absolute good outweighs the necessary evil. Period.

No “period”. The way you stipulated it - is deficient, and too vague. It is also self-evident that the amount of evil should be the very minimum necessary to achieve the said “greater good”.

Otherwise, you would support any and all “evils” just because some “good” would come out at the end. And that is a very dangerous concept.

Also one must examine two different scenarios:

1. When the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same.
2. When the sufferer and the beneficiary are different.

These two scenarios are vastly different - and must be examined separately.

There is no “adding” to that equation such stipulations as “the sufferer” has a right to be the final arbiter since he is suffering. You are making that up.

Making it up - in the name of reason and justice. That is why I knew this will be an irreconcilable difference.

Your “glossing over” of this point condones torture, if the expectation of the torture is to gain information to thwart some possible terrorist attack. It condones the forceful “appropriation” of the money from the rich to support the poor - exactly as the communists did.

And that is the reason that I disagree with your suggested “simplified” principle: namely that “greater good” justifies any necessary evil. It does not.

The sufferer will NEVER know all the good that results in this life. You know that for a fact.

No, I don’t. It is quite possible that both the suffering and the result both manifest themselves in this life. To assert that the “knowledge” only comes in the afterlife actually removes this whole conversation from the realm of rational discourse, and pushes it into the realm of faith.

And if you stipulate that, then you have to admit that there is no rational reason why God should not eliminate evil. Period. (And that is a “period”, all right!)

My example of the atheists conversion purposely included a good that the sufferer (African child) is complete ignorant of (in this life). You remain in denial about the limits of human knowledge and how such limits render our ability to ultimately decide whether evil is justified by a good. You need to reassess your position in light of this. It is pointless continuing to pursue the concept of “justice” in the absolute sense without you acknowledging this.

Yes, it is pointless - as long as we wish to remain on rational level and you refuse to see the difference between the two scenarios I delineated above.

I’ll try to respond more later, time permitting. Have a good Labor day…

You, too!

 

[ateista]

But see you are talking about two different things, One type of suffering that has meaning and other type of suffering that has violence.

I am talking about all the sufferings - which include the violence, too.

But either way suffering is suffering, again it all goes back to free will,

No, it does not go there. Free will only explains the possibility of suffering, not the actuality of it.

The sick person who tortures an individual is yes evil and comes from the devil. But the evil person had the free will to do the evil acts. Why did the person do it, because they are sick and evil.

And if you see someone who is about to perform such an evil act, and if you are in the position to prevent it from happening, then you will override the intent and the free will of the evil person, at least I hope you would. I certainly would. Why allow the free will of the evil person to prevail over the free will of the victim? Is the victim’s free will not important?

Its like you are now going to blame God for what evil people choose to do.

Of course I blame God for not stepping in and allowing the evil person’s free will to dominate and override the victim’s free will. Why is God on the side of the evil person, and not on the side of the victim?

Its like you want it both ways, you want God to protect us, yet you want to let evil people keep thier free will.

No, I don’t! I don’t give a rat’s posterior to the free will of the evil ones.

How can that be possible.

It could be possible by not creating the evil-to-be persons in the first place.

Yes there are times God steps in, you will never know when or where.

And you don’t know either. But if he does, he does it very infrequently.

But on the other hand if you do have faith in God you know that no matter what in this world God is there to pick up the pieces and will never leave you.

I don’t have faith, and even if I did, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

As long as the devil is in this world there is going to be evil. Its like you dont see that for some reason. And as long as he is in this world there is going to be murder, hate abuse, unjustice. You just dont understand this is not GODS world it is the devils.

Well… that defense is worse than my accusation. If this world is the devil’s then God seriously neglected exercising his duty and power.

God said if this was my world and these were my people they would not have killed me. But what you dont seem to understand that the next world is GODS world.

So what? A father who abuses his child and later gives him a candy bar to “compensate” for the abuse, is still guilty of abuse. (The candy bar is not to be taken literally.)

 

[ateista]

Truly, this is the strangest discussion I have ever seen. It is so bizarre to have the Catholics not “play” the devil’s advocate, but become the devil’s defending attorney!

 

[Philthy]

You do, but that is irrelevant. The simplified argument goes like this:

Theist’s hypothesis: God is omnibenevolent.
Atheist’s objection: we see something (actually millions and billions of these) that “seemingly” is at odds with the hypothesis.
Theist counter-argument: Since this contradicts the hypothesis, it must be false, it must be a measurement error.

No, actually what is happening is as follows.
Theist: I believe in a being who’s essence is existence itself. I call him God and He is perfectly good.
Atheist: God does not exist. If he existed and was omnibenevolent then why does he allow evil?
Theist: This is ultimately a mystery, but it must accomplish something good and be necessary.
Atheist: We see things that appear to contradict this.
Theist: Well, our access to information is limited so not only dont we have all the information, but our ability to process the information - even if we had all of it - is also limited. What you have, ultimately, is an opinion.
Atheist: That is not good enough for me! I deserve to know!

The logical problem is that you attempt to use the hypothesis also as an argument.

If you wish to argue that the atheist’s objection is in error, you cannot invoke the hypothesis. You must bring up actual arguments, why the atheist’s objection is incorrect - and those arguments cannot include - in any shape or form - God’s alleged omnibenevolence. To act otherwise is circular reasoning, which is a big no-no!

Actually the problem is that you are importing scientific criteria into a philosophic discussion. In addition, the observations that you import are incomplete. Lastly, your ability to analyze the observations with respect to the ultimate question of whether justifiably more good has been accomplished through an observed evil is grossly inadequate.
I have not argued that your objection is in error on the basis of invoking my hypothesis that God is omnibenevolent. I have argued that in applying your argument(measuring good vs evil) your assessment of the good which results relative to the evil caused - is incomplete and therefore inadequate to substantiate your position. I havent refuted your position, I have merely exposed that your position(God is not omnibenevolent because I have determined evil outweighs good) is not a conclusion of necessity. Big difference.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Your examples do not get to the heart of the matter. I don’t want to be too graphic, lest I would shock some people. But the evil and suffering I am speaking of is just a tad worse than a growling stomach. To be a victim of a gang-rape is on a different scale compared to a little hunger or thirst.

That kind of suffering does not “teach” the victim anything. It usually leaves life-long scars on her. So, I cannot accept your examples as typical or explanatory.

And, yes, even without suffering I can be alive. I would not be “more” alive if I would be “waterboarded” or would be exposed to electric shocks at my sensitive body parts.

So far I did not get any reasonable explanation to the problem I presented. I am curious if any will be presented.

St Thomas writes that God is happiness.

he also states that…

power is not happiness, but a means to happiness
wealth is not happiness, but a means to happiness
fame is not happiness, but a means to happiness
health is not happiness, but a means to happiness
etc…

therefore, power, wealth, fame, health are less than happiness itself, and therefore, each, regardless of their attraction, involve a degree of suffering.

Certainly, we can find people who have suffered at the hands of their own power, wealth, fame, beauty, etc… not the least to say various Hollywood stars.

Happiness, which is sometimes not happiness, is not happiness.

Psychotherapy is designed to allow the patient to suffer to become happier.
In other words, “No pain, no gain.”

For example, in psychotherapy, someone who has suffered the trauma of rape is asked to talk about it. A rape victim may not want to talk about it, because by talking about it she relives it.

Why would a psychotherapist want to have the patient relive such an abuse?

During the abuse, she experienced much anxiety, which disrupted her thinking, and she suffered alone.

But, psychotherapy allows the re-experience to be controlled,
less anxiety (she can stop whenever she needs),
if she is unable to stop, the therapist can help ground her
she does not need to face it feeling alone,
she has someone there to correct her if she blames herself,
etc…

A good psychotherapist suffers with her.
Trust me, this is not a pleasant experience,
even for the therapist.

By re-experiencing the abuse and psychotherapy, she can…
remember it with less anxiety,
have more control over the suffering,
not feel alone in her suffering,
can think more clearly about the event.
etc…

She becomes a “survivor” not a “victim.”
Someday she may even become a “conquerer” over the suffering.

I suspect God is like a psychotherapist.
He allows us to suffer so that we may become happier.
He also suffers with us.
Sometimes the suffering is great, like being raped.
Sometimes it is less detectable, like being attached to power, wealth, etc…

But in the end, God allows us to suffer so that suffering no longer has power over us. I think St. John of the Cross called this the process of “detachment.” This is the detachment from all things except happiness itself (i.e. God).

If you believe that the devil does exists,
with all his fantastic power to make us suffer,
Wouldn’t it make sense that God would use him
to make us happier through suffering?

This would demonstrate not only God’s power over the devil,
but also his great love for us.

We also expect that when God is done with the devil,
He will lock him up and throw away the key.
Why destroy him now?

If we live a life trying to avoid suffering,
suffering will continue to have power over us,
whether by rape, or by any particular means to happiness.

The suffering may even get much worse.
(e.g. a rape victim may become involved in drugs and alcohol to
escape the disturbing feelings of the rape. From the intoxication,
she could consequently make bad decisions causing further suffering.).

Even psychotherapy can be a means to happiness,
The therapist may become the patient’s happiness.
Not happiness itself.
I, for one, would certainly not want that responsibility.

When faced with suffering,
it is an opportunity to fight and conquer it,
or, surrender or run from it.

 

[Philthy]

I disagree… the amount of evil should be the very minimum necessary to achieve the said “greater good”.

We have already covered all this and agreed with all this before - you called my words “pure gold” -remember? The reason I revisited this issue is because you claimed that the “sufferers assessment of the evil and good” had become the ultimate criterion for determining whether the evil was justified. That remains absolutely false. You can argue all you wish, but the fact remains that the sufferer, by virtue of having suffered, has no additional information relative to the amount of good that was caused. That is simply a fact. That fact obviates your criterion that we use the sufferer as our ultimate judge. It may be the best that we have but it is not good enough to make you argument one of logical necessity.

Making it up - in the name of reason and justice. That is why I knew this will be an irreconcilable difference.

I dont care under what guise you have made it up - the end does not justify the means - remember?? :nope: The fact remains that you made it up. If you are of the mind that your unsubstantiated opinions must be accepted without critical analysis then you are correct we have reached an irreconcilable difference.

And that is the reason that I disagree with your suggested “simplified” principle: namely that “greater good” justifies any necessary evil. It does not.

OK - apparently we need to go backwards to go forwards. Do you not agree that if evil is allowed it must be necessary and it must accomplish a greater good? Y or N. So the two criteria are it must be both:
Necessary and proportionate; where necessary means that *all *of the evil involved is required, ie the minimum amount is allowed, and proportionate means that the amount of good exceeds the amount of evil. If there is anything else you believe should be in here now is the time to add it in. Please be careful to separate in your mind what the critieria should be from the question of whether we can observe those criteria or how we can.

It is quite possible that both the suffering and the result both manifest themselves in this life. To assert that the “knowledge” only comes in the afterlife actually removes this whole conversation from the realm of rational discourse, and pushes it into the realm of faith.

You didn’t read my statements very carefully. I never implied that the good couldnt manifest purely in this life.
What I do maintain is that our ability to judge them regardless of when they occur IS IMPERFECT. I do happen to believe that the possibility exists that some good will result in an afterlife, but that is not a necessary belief for my argument to remain valid. Your argument REQUIRES that we can accurately assess that more evil exists than good resulting from it. The problem is that you dont actually have the ability to judge the amount of good, the amount of evil and the necessity of that evil. You remain in denial over this very simple point.

Yes, it is pointless - as long as we wish to remain on rational level and you refuse to see the difference between the two scenarios I delineated above.

First revisit the criteria for justifying evil so that we can be in clear agreement and then we can address any scenarios you wish to delineate.

 

[ateista]

No, actually what is happening is as follows.
Theist: I believe in a being who’s essence is existence itself. I call him God and He is perfectly good.
Atheist: God does not exist. If he existed and was omnibenevolent then why does he allow evil?
Theist: This is ultimately a mystery, but it must accomplish something good and be necessary.
Atheist: We see things that appear to contradict this.
Theist: Well, our access to information is limited so not only dont we have all the information, but our ability to process the information - even if we had all of it - is also limited. What you have, ultimately, is an opinion.
Atheist: That is not good enough for me! I deserve to know!

Well… let’s create dialogs. I hope you don’t mind if I will replace the atheist’s answers with a bit more precise ones:

Theist: I believe in a being who’s essence is existence itself. I call him God and He is perfectly good.
Atheist: I don’t believe that God exists. If he existed and was omnibenevolent then why does he allow evil?
Theist: This is ultimately a mystery, but it must accomplish something good and be necessary.
Atheist: Yes, I understand that this is your hypothesis. I am willing to accept it as a hypothesis, but not as an axiom. We see things that appear to contradict this.
Theist: Well, our access to information is limited so not only dont we have all the information, but our ability to process the information - even if we had all of it - is also limited. What you have, ultimately, is an opinion.
Atheist: So two opinions collide. What can you bring up as evidence for your asserion? I bring up the evidence of seemingly senseless suffering. Can you bring up any arguments why that assessment is incorrect? Not just that we are deprived of the full information, and our possible lack of processing power. It is simply not true that because are not omniscient, therefore we may be incorrect in all our opinions. That simply does not follow.

I ask you to bring up arguments, explanations. Something that is rational and reasonable. Something that does not rely of faith, that I don’t have.

The problem is this: if the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same then it is the prerogative of the person to make an opinion. If the person in question says that the price paid was not worth the reward, then his decision is final. He may be in error - due to incomplete information, I accept that. But as long as his knowledge is left incomplete it is his decision to make. If God wanted to, he could give him the necessary information. If God does not do it, then he tacitly accepts the verdict.

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are different, then the sufferer is **used as a resource **to bring forth some greater good, and he pays the price for it. In my opinion the principle of using a human being as a resource is morally impermissible, no matter how the great the reward might be. You (as a believer) assert that humans have their dignity and it must be respected. To treat someone as a disposable resource is descipable to the extreme.

The truth is that my position is easier. All I have to do is bring up one example where someone suffers and his suffering is not rewarded either in this life or the next one. And I already did that.

I do not accept that his suffering may be used as a “means” to achieve any greater good that will benefit others, because I consider that principle unacceptable. Maybe you call it an opinion, and that is fine. But that assessment is not negotiable. Let me reiterate: “it is never permissible to use a human being as a resource, no matter what the justification might be.” And that is also a Catholic stance.

 

[ateista]

OK - apparently we need to go backwards to go forwards. Do you not agree that if evil is allowed it must be necessary and it must accomplish a greater good? Y or N. So the two criteria are it must be both:

Necessary and proportionate; where necessary means that *all *of the evil involved is required, ie the minimum amount is allowed, and proportionate means that the amount of good exceeds the amount of evil. If there is anything else you believe should be in here now is the time to add it in. Please be careful to separate in your mind what the critieria should be from the question of whether we can observe those criteria or how we can.

I am saying that it is the necessary but not sufficient criterion. (I am using math-talk here. ) Yes, it must be minimal and yes it must bring forth something that is impossible to achieve without it. That is the “necessary” part.

It is not sufficient however, because without further examination we run into the trouble of “using human beings as disposable resources”. Therefore the greater good cannot be something that impacts only others - and I don’t see how Catholic teachings can be reconciled with such a principle.

Your turn, my friend.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Well… let’s create dialogs. I hope you don’t mind if I will replace the atheist’s answers with a bit more precise ones:

Theist: I believe in a being who’s essence is existence itself. I call him God and He is perfectly good.
Atheist: I don’t believe that God exists. If he existed and was omnibenevolent then why does he allow evil?
Theist: This is ultimately a mystery, but it must accomplish something good and be necessary.
Atheist: Yes, I understand that this is your hypothesis. I am willing to accept it as a hypothesis, but not as an axiom. We see things that appear to contradict this.
Theist: Well, our access to information is limited so not only dont we have all the information, but our ability to process the information - even if we had all of it - is also limited. What you have, ultimately, is an opinion.
Atheist: So two opinions collide. What can you bring up as evidence for your asserion? I bring up the evidence of seemingly senseless suffering. Can you bring up any arguments why that assessment is incorrect? Not just that we are deprived of the full information, and our possible lack of processing power. It is simply not true that because are not omniscient, therefore we may be incorrect in all our opinions. That simply does not follow.

I ask you to bring up arguments, explanations. Something that is rational and reasonable. Something that does not rely of faith, that I don’t have.

The problem is this: if the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same then it is the prerogative of the person to make an opinion. If the person in question says that the price paid was not worth the reward, then his decision is final. He may be in error - due to incomplete information, I accept that. But as long as his knowledge is left incomplete it is his decision to make. If God wanted to, he could give him the necessary information. If God does not do it, then he tacitly accepts the verdict.

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are different, then the sufferer is **used as a resource **to bring forth some greater good, and he pays the price for it. In my opinion the principle of using a human being as a resource is morally impermissible, no matter how the great the reward might be. You (as a believer) assert that humans have their dignity and it must be respected. To treat someone as a disposable resource is descipable to the extreme.

The truth is that my position is easier. All I have to do is bring up one example where someone suffers and his suffering is not rewarded either in this life or the next one. And I already did that.

I do not accept that his suffering may be used as a “means” to achieve any greater good that will benefit others, because I consider that principle unacceptable. Maybe you call it an opinion, and that is fine. But that assessment is not negotiable. Let me reiterate: “it is never permissible to use a human being as a resource, no matter what the justification might be.” And that is also a Catholic stance.

What is your justification for using bloggers as a resource on this Catholic Forum?

 

[rinnie]

Ateista, I am never saying you can always justify evil, thats unreal. I am saying that sometimes there are reasons that can help you to understand suffering.

There are times there are reasons for it. I just said if you have faith in God, and you believe in him, you know that there are things we will not understand unless he wants us to know.

I know you do not believe in God, I know you do not understand him. and I also know that until you do you could not begin to see things in his way. And I understand it makes you angry, and its the bad in people that you seem to blame him for.

But what you must understand is without suffering, or evil the world would not be the way it is today. And who brings suffering and evil the devil. It comes from him. He believes that if he can bring on suffering to people and evil in their lives he can turn them away from God. Thats the whole point.

God told him No, God said that my people will stay true to me, and Love and obey me no matter what. The devil said let me have a shot, i will turn them away from you. And he has, You are proof of that. You dont turn to God when disaster happens you turn away from God, you blame God. But your way of doing that is to deny him. Its the same thing, to deny God, is the same as saying you dont exist. And that is how the devil is hurting people, but keeping God out of their lives. That is his biggest way of keeping evil in this world. To convince People he does not exist. And to convince them God does not exist.

What I have tried to tell you all along what you call evil we call works of the devil. What you call good, right we call works of God.

You can see evil, and you can see good, but you can not see the devil at work. You can not see God at work. I just dont understand how you can miss it.

How can you tell me I am wrong? When i can show you the devil, he works thru people, and when they give into him, he makes them worse. he destroys them and their lives and everyones he touches.

And Gods people, they love, share, and keep trying to do what is right, and they get better. And try to make peoples lives better.

How can you miss this, this is the world this is everyday life.

 

[Philthy]

Well… let’s create dialogs. I hope you don’t mind if I will replace the atheist’s answers with a bit more precise ones:

Not at all…

Theist: I believe in a being who’s essence is existence itself. I call him God and He is perfectly good.
Atheist: I don’t believe that God exists. If he existed and was omnibenevolent then why does he allow evil?
Theist: This is ultimately a mystery, but it must accomplish something good and be necessary.

Atheist: Yes, I understand that this is your hypothesis. I am willing to accept it as a hypothesis, but not as an axiom.

We see things that appear to contradict this.
Theist: Well, appearances can be decieving: our access to information is limited so not only dont we have all the information, but our ability to process the information - even if we had all of it - is also limited. What you have, ultimately, is an opinion.

Atheist: So two opinions collide. What can you bring up as evidence

for your asserion?
The same thing you can - an opinion.

I bring up the evidence of seemingly

senseless suffering. Can you bring up any arguments why that assessment is incorrect? That is not evidence. That is an opinion based upon criteria of your own making. I dont accept your opinion and therefore I reject your claim to evidence.

Not just that we are deprived of the full information, and our possible lack of processing power. It is simply not true

that because are not omniscient, therefore we may be incorrect in all our opinions. That simply does not follow.
Oh I agree. It does nothing for your position, however. The fact remains that even if we an opinion is correct we will not know it is. In short we will not be able to distinguish our correct opinions from our incorrect ones: that’s not particularly useful.

I ask you to bring up arguments, explanations. Something that is rational and reasonable. Something that does not rely of faith, that I don’t have.

Please remember that my position is that evil, ultimately, is a mystery. It is your position that the presence of evil disproves the existence of God. Keep that in mind.
I gave you an example of a good resulting from an evil, but perhaps I made the good an eternal one. Simply substitute that you were moved to make a charitable donation and that donation saved the life of a boy who later finds the cure for cancer or whatever…

The problem is this: if the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same then it is the prerogative of the person to make an opinion. If the person in question says that the price paid was not worth the reward, then his decision is final. He may be in error - due to incomplete information, I accept that. But as long as his knowledge is left incomplete it is his decision to make. If God wanted to, he could give him the necessary information. If God does not do it, then he tacitly accepts the verdict.

This is all opinion and speculation - there is not a single necessary truth contained here.

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are different, then the sufferer is **used as a resource **

to bring forth some greater good, and he pays the price for it. In my opinion the principle of using a human being as a resource is morally impermissible, no matter how the great the reward might be.
You are correct - this is your opinion. If I deny the validity of your concept of “morally permissible” it is now you who is asking me for faith. Remember - according to you I get to be the final judge of what is right and wrong as I perceive good and bad as it applies to me personally.

The truth is that my position is easier.

Yes, but its also an invalid construct of your own making.

I do not accept that his suffering may be used as a “means” to achieve any greater good that will benefit others, because I consider that principle unacceptable.

Why?

Maybe you call it an opinion, and that is fine.

Of course its an opinion… It may also be true, but we dont know that.

Let me reiterate: “it is never permissible to use a human being as a resource, no matter what the justification might be.” And that is also a Catholic stance.

I agree, and in this our opinions do not collide.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Truly, this is the strangest discussion I have ever seen. It is so bizarre to have the Catholics not “play” the devil’s advocate, but become the devil’s defending attorney!

But you call God “The Devil”…!!

We are trying to show you that God is not The Devil.

You see any “defense” of God as a defense of The Devil.

Once (if?) you get over your unfounded assumption (borne out of your hurt that God has not especially favored you as you’d like to be) that “the Catholic” God is either evil or nonexistent, where you choose “nonexistent” and we SEEM to choose “evil” because it is the “only other choice available”, you will be forever stuck in the infinite loop of your “interpretations” of us “strange Catholics”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…

Philthy, rinnie, Psychotheosophy,… why do you suppose that ateista will repsond to you, but won’t respond to me?

What is ateista’s “tactic” (or tactics) that runs you folks around in “converstaional circles”, allowing her/him to play the “greased pig”?

Is ateista not one of the most excellent examples of the ultimate consequences of the atheistic mindset?

 

[rinnie]

Philthy, rinnie, Psychotheosophy,… why do you suppose that ateista will repsond to you, but won’t respond to me?

What is ateista’s “tactic” (or tactics) that runs you folks around in “converstaional circles”, allowing her/him to play the “greased pig”?

Is ateista not one of the most excellent examples of the ultimate consequences of the atheistic mindset?

I dont know bud, i hope thats not what he is doing. I can only hope and pray that he really does want our help, but if thats what he is doing, I guess the laugh’s on us. I just hope that some how some way God can work through us to help him see what we see, is all. But i can only speak for myself and my heart is in the right place anyway and I know God knows that. SO i guess that will have to be enough for now. But i guess only he knows if he is making fools out of us. But its okay if he is, i forgive him.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I am sorry, but God’s glory comes with a heavy price, which we must pay, without being given the option to accept our role or not.

I would call that laziness.

And most of us reject that role. The alleged “honoring” of our free will obviously does not extend to the point to give us the option to “bail” out. I would presume that most victims of rape, torture and murder feel a bit “iffy” about their share of this “glory”.

Laziness?
Imagine being eternally and perfectly happy. I mean you are hapinesss.

Now you create beings outside of yourself, knowing they will betray you.

Then you take up their own flesh and blood and their miseries and put a hold to that perfect hapiness so they can actually kill you, when you are immortal and a simple act of will could have forgiven their betrayal.

Now wouldn’t I be stupid if I called you lazy

Now God does not need glory from us because His intrinsic glory is infinite. An analogy of an ocean needing a molecule more of water is, well, infinitly short of the reality.

Now He creates creatures that will be happy by doing what everything should do, give Him extrinsic glory (which as said He has no need for). We give it to Him whether we like or not.

The Devil gives Him just as much glory as if he would have been faithful because while the latter situation would have been as God planned, the actual situation demonstrate the His Justice, which gives Him glory as well.

But the damned creature, is, well, damned.

That is why they say “Who understands sin?”.

If you are made to give Him glory and you will give it to Him either way, why not choose the way where you are happy with Him too.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

What is your justification for using bloggers as a resource on this Catholic Forum?

Ateista:

I think I better clarify myself. My arguments are Catholic. They are built on St. Thomas’ “Argument From History.” You know, the often forgotten last of the five arguments for the existence of God.

That said…

If you ever change your opinion, may I add this. I see you enjoy math, so do I. St. Pascal, (creator of Pascal’s Theorem and a great mathematician) who was once an athiest, wrote this on one of his meditations:

"I confess, I admit, but is there really no way of seeing what the cards are? - Yes. Scripture and the rest, etc. - Yes, but my hands are tied and my lips are sealed; I am being forced to wager and I am not free; I am being held fast and I am so made that I cannot believe. What do you want me to do then? - 'That is true, but at least get into your head that, if you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions, since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God’s existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. These are people who know the road you wish to follow, who have been cured of the affliction of which you wish to be cured: follow the way by which they began. They behaved just as if they did believe, taking holy water, having masses said, and so on. That will make you quite docile. - But that is what I am afraid of. - But why, What have you to lose? But to show you that this is the way, the fact is that this diminishes the passions which are your great obstacles…(Pascal’s Pensees)

I greatly appreciate your intellect.

Your friend,

Psycho

 

[Pro_Domina]

Ateista:

I think I better clarify myself. My arguments are Catholic. They are built on St. Thomas’ “Argument From History.” You know, the often forgotten last of the five arguments for the existence of God.

That said…

If you ever change your opinion, may I add this. I see you enjoy math, so do I. St. Pascal, (creator of Pascal’s Theorem and a great mathematician) who was once an athiest, wrote this on one of his meditations:

"I confess, I admit, but is there really no way of seeing what the cards are? - Yes. Scripture and the rest, etc. - Yes, but my hands are tied and my lips are sealed; I am being forced to wager and I am not free; I am being held fast and I am so made that I cannot believe. What do you want me to do then? - 'That is true, but at least get into your head that, if you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions, since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God’s existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. These are people who know the road you wish to follow, who have been cured of the affliction of which you wish to be cured: follow the way by which they began. They behaved just as if they did believe, taking holy water, having masses said, and so on. That will make you quite docile. - But that is what I am afraid of. - But why, What have you to lose? But to show you that this is the way, the fact is that this diminishes the passions which are your great obstacles…(Pascal’s Pensees)

I greatly appreciate your intellect.

Your friend,

Psycho

St. Pascal the mathmatician?!?!?!?!?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Wow. You are really confused. St. Pascal is not he smart guy you are thinking. Pascal did say that it is better to believe in God than to not because if doesn’t exist you lost nothing and if He does you did ok.

Though that is still wrong.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Math is an infidel science!!!



At least Algebra!

I believe the calculator was the only machine that may have actually been an act of mercy from God!

 

[rinnie]

How could Gods Glory come with an heavy price we must pay without having an option to accept our role or not?

Where does God force us to do anything, If what you are saying is true then tell me what is your role? What role has God forced you to play. If God forced you to do anything (not that he couldn’t he just won’t) then why would he choose you to not believe in him then. Are you saying that the reason you don’t accept or believe in God is because he isn’t giving you that option?

In order to rejoice in God’s Glory is to turn away from sin, turn away from the works of the devil. I don’t see that so heavy a price. I admit its not easy, but he warned us it would not be.

He also told us all we had to do is trust in him. and believe and he would help us. All you must do is believe.

You cant blame God because in your own words he won’t do things on your terms. He is not and will not do that for anyone. He is going to be the one to give you what you need, he knows he created you, he wants you to be happy, its the devil who doesn’t want you to be happy, and be with God. Its the devil who loves to see you deny God. But its your own selfish pride that you won’t let go of. That is why you deny God. God knows more of what you need then you yourself do. Can you say that you are have found 100% happiness in this world. No you cant and its not because of what God has done, its because of what man has done. And God is not happy about it either. But that is why we strive day in and day out, to get to that place, and that is what true happiness is to see, and be with God.

 

[ateista]

The same thing you can - an opinion.

I think I can do better than that. But, we shall see.

That is not evidence. That is an opinion based upon criteria of your own making. I dont accept your opinion and therefore I reject your claim to evidence.

Uh-oh. It is evidence all right. You may reject it as inconclusive, or insuffucient. When Catholics are asked to present evidence for their beliefs they present the Bible, the Magistretium, the number of believers, etc… - among other things. I accept that this is evidence, but insufficient for atheists. The amount of “seemingly” unnecessary suffering is very strong evidence, which you reject because it seems to contradict your hypothesis. That is understandable, but you should not call it just an opinion. The suffering is there, you just don’t accept my explanation for it.

Oh I agree. It does nothing for your position, however. The fact remains that even if we an opinion is correct we will not know it is. In short we will not be able to distinguish our correct opinions from our incorrect ones: that’s not particularly useful.

Well, if we start from a mutually agreed upon starting point and we follow the laws of logic, then it will be more than just an unsupported opinion.

Please remember that my position is that evil, ultimately, is a mystery. It is your position that the presence of evil disproves the existence of God. Keep that in mind.

I will. But the existence of gratuitous evil does not necessarily disprove God’s existence. God still might exist, just could not be benevolent.

I gave you an example of a good resulting from an evil, but perhaps I made the good an eternal one. Simply substitute that you were moved to make a charitable donation and that donation saved the life of a boy who later finds the cure for cancer or whatever…

That is fine. My problem with your example was not that you posited the “goods” into the afterlife, rather that you failed to establish that all the suffering is necessary, and that there would be no other way to achieve the desired result.

As a matter of fact I am planning to open a new thread, which will deal only with this question. I hope you will come and visit it.

ateista:

Let me reiterate: “it is never permissible to use a human being as a resource, no matter what the justification might be.” And that is also a Catholic stance.

I agree, and in this our opinions do not collide.

Well, this is most promising and I consider it a major breakthrough.

So we can agree that humans cannot ever be “considered” a resource, and thus it is morally impermissible to “use” one as the target of some suffering, just so that others will gain some (maybe huge) benefit from it? Because that is what I meant.

If we can agree on this, then we must agree that the sufferer herself must gain some greater good either in this life or in the next one. If some other people will also gain benefit, that is great. It would be extra “icing” on the cake. But the sufferer herself must gain the benefit.

If you still agree (and I can’t see why you should not) then our problem is greatly simplified. We only have to concentrate on one person and the benefits she receives as a logical consequence of her suffering. I want to emphasise that the benefit could come in this life or in the next one. She does not even have to agree that the benefit was “worth” it. Only that there would be “some greater good” that is the logical corollary of her suffering (which cannot be less than it is).

Is this set of propositions acceptable to you? Please concentrate on all the premises I put down.