Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[rinnie]

Okay but there is nothing that God is asking us to believe that isnt possible. If you find it impossible to believe you either dont understand it, or won’t understand it because you cant see it.

Not eveything that is true, and possible is always seen.

If I told you I loved someone how can you really know if I am telling you the truth or not. Even if my actions show I do, or show I dont, how do you really know if I am telling you the truth?

 

[Philthy]

ateista:

Almost correct. But “some good” is not enough. The good must compensate and superceed the suffering, and the suffering must be logically necessary to achieve that good. If the same good could be achieved with less suffering, then the good at the end cannot retroactively justify the suffering.

I agree with this, but then you followed with this…

In other words: “the end can never justify the means”.

And now Im confused. I thought that the end - a greater good - justified the means - a lesser evil, when that end could not be accomplished any other way. I dont think you fully understand “the end can never justify the means”, or perhaps you simply havent explained yourself very well. If Im not mistaken we agreed that if some good required a lesser evil in order to come about then that lesser evil was justified. Correct? That is saying that the means (lesser evil) is justified by the end (greater good), was that your point?

No, not this time. Please refer to the previous paragraph: “the end cannot justify the means”.

Again, I was confused by what you said - please revisit whether a greater good justifies a preceding, necessary, lesser evil.

Where you are correct is that we shall never have absolute, complete information. But that is not a fatal problem.

Really? In the pursuit of absolute truth? You’ll have to prove that…

When you think of the justice system

It’s a pathetically weak attempt at reaching justice, but its the best we have. This my point you were supposed to be refuting me.

we are aware that we can never get into the defendant’s mind, and can never assess what his intentions might have been. Still, we make judgment calls, because we must. The built-in self-correction for erroneous judgments is the appeal system. True, we shall never be able to bring the type-1 and type-2 errors to zero at the same time.

You are blabbering. Despite our best attempts we do know whether we arrive at the truth because we do not have all the information and even if we did we do not have perfect judgement. That was my point and you have just reaffirmed it under the guise of refuting it.

con’d…

 

[Philthy]

Now who is to make the judgment if a suffering was “worth it” or not? The answer is simple: the sufferer himself. No one can speak for him.

False! The sufferer may also lack all of the information and may also use his judgement imperfectly. The sufferers opinion may be the best we have, but it aint perfect until all the information is gathered all at once (eternity).

I would bet all my earthly possessions against one rotten peanut that not all sufferers would agree that the “reward” was worth the suffering.

I am glad that you recogize that you are left merely gambling for the truth. You continue to argue my position very well. I disagree, with your wager, BTW.

I accept that many would. But the point is, if there is only one sufferer who would say that his suffering was not worth it, then that is it. It does not matter if we had omniscience or not.

Refuted above - the sufferer’s opinion is imperfect. You are still in gambling mode, and all you have accomplished is that it is possible for all suffering to ultimately be worth it, but in order for God to accomplish this He must be perfect. We posit that God is perfect, so your argument collapses.

Now, to posit that the reward will come in the afterlife, there is no way to ask the sufferer. So that is stalemate.

No, its not stalemate. Your reasoning fails to logically conclude that God cannot be “omnimax”. You lose!

You can never assert that without that particular piece of suffering the person would not have ended in heaven.

Absolutely - we take it on faith that God does what is right. But you are, again, simply pointing to the limitations of human knowledge and in that sense you continue to make my point.

Excellent example!

Thanks - I knew you’d like it!

Now would all the sufferers agree that their suffering was worth just to have one unknown atheist to change his mind and thus get to heaven? I seriously doubt it!

The point is that the sufferers are clueless as to what the ultimate good might be.

Nope. Only the sufferers themselves. And I think that will be major stumbling block in our conversation. I hope I am mistaken. FPRIVATE “TYPE=PICT;ALT=”

Just for the record, you have not even remotely proven that the standard you have created is an absolute standard for determining the truth. Your standard - what the sufferers think - has been demonstrated to absolutely be subject to error just like anyone else. The ONLY advantage that the sufferer has is in understanding the personal PAIN side of the equation - they lack all the sufficient information in assessing the GAIN side of the equation.
Not only do they not see the good that results for themselves in eternity, but they fail to see much of the good that occurs to OTHERS both in time and in eternity. The fact remains that the sufferer cannot adequately assess whether the good has outweighed the bad. This conclusion is easily reached within the paradigm of reality that you constructed. This should not be a stumbling block.

 

[ateista]

And now Im confused. I thought that the end - a greater good - justified the means - a lesser evil, when that end could not be accomplished any other way. I dont think you fully understand “the end can never justify the means”, or perhaps you simply havent explained yourself very well. If Im not mistaken we agreed that if some good required a lesser evil in order to come about then that lesser evil was justified. Correct? That is saying that the means (lesser evil) is justified by the end (greater good), was that your point?

What I said is this: The end - in an by itself - cannot justify the means. The end and the means together - may or may not be justifiable.

The difference is enormous. If the end - by itself - would justify the means, then any and all - no matter how horrendous - “means” could be “justified” just because the “end” is desirable.

It’s a pathetically weak attempt at reaching justice, but its the best we have. This my point you were supposed to be refuting me.

That is the way how justice is attempted under our imperfect circumstances.

The actual concept of justice is quite simple: “If someone does a misdeed, then the punishment should be commensurate to the deed. If someone does something beyond the ‘line of duty’, then the reward should be commensurate to the value of the deed.”

It is a mathematical balance. That is what justice is.

 

[ateista]

False! The sufferer may also lack all of the information and may also use his judgement imperfectly. The sufferers opinion may be the best we have, but it aint perfect until all the information is gathered all at once (eternity).

Perfect or not, it is his “skin” which is the game. If his knowledge is deficient, then it is God’s absolute duty to inform him about the end result, so he (the sufferer) could make an informed decision.

If God negelects his duty, then the sufferer is entitled to draw the verdict based upon the available information - and his decision is final.

To allow someone else (presumably God) to declare if the suffering was worth it or not - is a joke - in very bad taste!

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same, this should be obvious. He suffers, and gets some benefit. It is his decision if he considers the price paid worthy of the reward.

If the sufferer and the beneficiary are not the same, then it is even more poignant. To make someone suffer so that someone else might benefit from it (without the explicit consent of the sufferer) - is already atrocious - but to assert that the sufferer, who did not gain reward is even deprived of protesting - that goes beyond anything I ever heard!

Better think over your position, my friend.

 

[ateista]

Absolutely - we take it on faith that God does what is right.

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.

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!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, you’d prefer to accept untruth as truth instead of take a proper authority’s expert word for it?

No, I would not.

Apparently, you do, as you prefer to not do what you could do to have truth proved to you as being true because your improper conditions as to who the proper authority is are in the way.

However the “proper” authority is the one that can argue and prove his assertions, not the one who just tries to shout you down. This letter variety is a bogus “authority”.

I absolutely agree!

God does not try to shout you down. He’s waiting, quite patiently, for you to do your part so that you can get what you say you want.

I also am not trying to shout you down. That is what atheists do, with foundationless so-called arguments, when what they should be doing is stating the consequences of their basic beliefs (their “axioms”).

My job is not to argue or prove anything at all to you. My job is to present truths to you, so that YOU can inquire into them and their consequences.

Well, my job is also to point out your (rather copious) errors as regards faith and morals, and their foundation (God), but that’s just me being annoyingly charitable, which tends to make atheists rather peevish.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Your active rejection of available evidence, through sloth (you won’t do the work to get what you SAY you want), makes you culpable of rejecting that which you would not reject otherwise (God).

Nonsense. The evidence is always deficient - and according to the believers it is intentionally deficient.

Religious truth is gotten by religious methods. Why is that so hard to understand?

“Ignorance of the law” does not keep an adult out of jail.

You COULD have the evidence you say you want. You refuse to do your job in getting it. You are therefore culpable for not being able to do what you should do were you to have it.

And justice (real justice) accepts that if one can reasonably deny the available evidence then it would be unjust to demand full responsibility.

You have no “reasonable deniability” because you actively refuse to do what you need to do to show that you COULDN’T have gotten the evidence you say you want (of God’s existence).

You’re not “reasonably ignorant”. Your unreasonably lazy.

(Probably your “objection” will redefine “justice” and declare that “justice” is whatever God declares “justice”. And to that I will say: “Bah, humbug…”)

Have I redefined “justice”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
(( In other words, stay on this track and you’re toast. ))

And you obviously rejoice at that prospect.

Why would I rejoice in anyone choosing hell? There’s nothing but loss to me, and the rest of humanity, in your not choosing purgatory/heaven.

Do you think people LIKE to see you suffer? Is that part of the larger issue between “you and God” that’s going on here?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
Why would you have to discard rationality for blind faith?

Because the claims of Catholics go against the known laws of nature - and go against logic.

What!? Show me where?

Suppose you told me that you won 10 dollars on a lottery. I would have no other evidence than your word, but I would accept your claim. Reason being, it is quite probable that you could have won 10 bucks. This is reasonable faith.

Suppose you told me that you won 70 million dollars on Powerball. Again, all I would have your word as evidence. In this case I would doubt it, since there are only a few people who won the jackpot and the chances that one of them would be you is very small. To accept it would be unreasonable faith, but not “blind faith” - since it is possible that you actually won that kind of money.

Finally, suppose you told me that you can levitate in the air at will - without any material support. I would flatly refuse to believe your claim. To accept it I would need “blind faith”. Now, if you could provide proper evidence - to my satisfaction - that you can do this, then of course I would have accept it. Faith in that case would be overridden by knowledge.

Why do you think you are so “important” that YOUR belief in the “unbelievable” claims of various phenomena by the Church are of any value to anyone?

We don’t care if you believe Christ rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God.

Your “St. Thomas the Doubter” complex is your excuse to be “important”. You can say to yourself, “If this God-stuff were REALLY important God would prove it to me AS I WANT PROOF of it!”

It’s sad that you “torture” those here to help you understand a thing that is important to them by willfully not being understanding of their charitable offer, and derive self-claimed “importance” to yourself by their denigration in your eyes.

We aren’t tortured by you. We don’t think your importance is in any way enhanced by your “posturing”. You present youself very well indeed as a sad, hurt, frustrated person railing at God for your “wasted suffering”.

You can’t accept help from us, just as you can’t accept help from God, because you can’t believe you’re not “special” as Thomas was special. But you are special, as those who learned from Thomas being special are special, if you would only learn.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
It’s a pathetically weak attempt at reaching justice, but its the best we have. This my point you were supposed to be refuting me.

That is the way how justice is attempted under our imperfect circumstances.

The actual concept of justice is quite simple: “If someone does a misdeed, then the punishment should be commensurate to the deed. If someone does something beyond the ‘line of duty’, then the reward should be commensurate to the value of the deed.”

It is a mathematical balance. That is what justice is.

Justice is giving a person what is best for him according to his past actions.

God has only two things to give us ultimately. Life with Him, and life without Him. All other gifts are trivial.

• If we choose Him, by our actions (our will), then we will be given Him (heaven, life with Him).
• If we choose other than Him, by our actions (our will), then we will be given not-Him (hell, life without Him).

Why is it best for a person to get hell? Because by being persons we have another “non-reward” gift from God, our free will, which He will never use violence (a taking away) to violate. To remove our free will is to “de-person” us, and that would be an “un-creation”, which God can not do.

Believe it or not, it is more merciful to allow us to exist in hell for eternity than to cease to exist. God will not allow despair to be rewarded. Why? To reward despair means “to uncreate creation” which would result in utter void, taking even God with it into oblivion.

Oblivion is the (impossible) goal of evil, which wants release from it’s existence. “Oblivion” is the sign of evil, and anyone who promotes oblivion in any way is promoting evil.

What is the “end of life” to the atheist? Oblivion.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
False! The sufferer may also lack all of the information and may also use his judgement imperfectly. The sufferers opinion may be the best we have, but it aint perfect until all the information is gathered all at once (eternity).

Perfect or not, it is his “skin” which is the game. If his knowledge is deficient, then it is God’s absolute duty to inform him about the end result, so he (the sufferer) could make an informed decision.

There does come a point where we have enough information to make this decision.

Those who truly don’t have enough time to get enough information are very rare, because the sufficient information is very minimal.

After we have enough information we are culpable for our choices.

It is a lovely ploy to want to “never grow up”, but it is neither wise nor done to allow such infantile behavior.

 

[ateista]

Thanks - I knew you’d like it!

I have been thinking about your example, and I have a question about it. You forgot to bring up arguments about the “amount” of suffering. We agreed about the “greater good” - but it was also stipulated that the suffering should not be excessive.

Taking your example, you said that the atheist might be convinced and converted and that is due to the fact of having the conversation about the evil and suffering. If there would be no evil, no suffering, the conversion would not take place.

What is missing from your argument is to show that every bit of those evil acts, every bit of suffering is necessary. If only one less rape or murder would have happened, the atheist would not have been convinced. And that cannot be substantiated.

We are back to faith, which the atheists do not have. Unless you can refine your argument and fill out the cracks, it is you who “loses” . Of course this is not a competition, where we aim to “win”. At least not on my part.

The point is that the sufferers are clueless as to what the ultimate good might be.

That is another big problem. Why are the sufferers left “clueless” of the necessity of their suffering?

Wouldn’t it just be “decent” to notify them - in advance - that “this is the suffering will be inflicted upon you, and this is the reward you will receive as the result”. Especially if the sufferer and the beneficiary are not the same! Not to give them the option to decline the offer shows God’s utter disdain for them. God does not consider us “worthy” to be notified and allow us to use our free will to accept or decline the offer - with our eyes open and the options explained. Why is that?

Now, having said all that, I am going to ask my question from you, too. The scenario is this: “Someone is being crushed to death in a landslide. Being in the state of mortal sin, there is no reward in heaven. No one ever learns about this event.” Where is the “greater good” here? If the person would have died quickly and painlessly, he would be just as dead. Why was the “method” of dying necessary?

Please contemplate and enlighten me.

 

[rinnie]

If I could break in here on suffering, I would like to add some food for thought.

There was a Priest on ewtn who said his friend another Priest was dying from cancer. I believe it was bone cancer. Now anyone that has experienced it or have know anyone with it, its the worst. I was told someone touching you feels like they are burning you.

Anyway this Priest watched his fellow Priest suffer so harsh, and while never questioning God didnt have the answer for the suffering either.

When the Priest was at his worst pain he reached over at his friend and said this is the most wonderful thing i have ever experience in my life. To suffer with Christ is the most wonderful and best thing I have ever got to do in my Life. I thank God for this experience.

Wow, What does that say to you, I know what it says to me. That no matter what you suffer in your life, Who can you count on to be there right with you. The same person who was there with Jesus Christ. God Almighty himself, and you are not suffering alone he is there to take the worst of it for you.

God never promised us we would not suffer. Actually he promised us we would, But he also promised us he would never give us more than we could handle and he would carry us when we could go on no more. What did that Priest learn in that suffering, it had to be something wonderful. What is God teaching us in our suffering. Did you ever wonder that if we didnt suffer how could we know pain? How could we know compassion, how could we know Love!

To be able to say it is a JOY to suffer In Christ, or with Christ, Now thats pretty amazing!

 

[rinnie]

Here is what it says to me.

How can you appreciate being full without the pain of hunger?

How can you know Love without being hated?

How can you know being rich without being poor?

How can know darkness without seeing light?

How can we God make us account for our sins, if he doesnt show them to us, And how else our we going to learn what we do right if we dont know what wrong is. Because Suffering is Love, suffering is the only way we can learn to be grateful, without suffering you will not be alive.

 

[ateista]

When the Priest was at his worst pain he reached over at his friend and said this is the most wonderful thing i have ever experience in my life. To suffer with Christ is the most wonderful and best thing I have ever got to do in my Life. I thank God for this experience.

Wow, What does that say to you, I know what it says to me.

It is fine. If the sufferer accepts his suffering, that is his prerogative. No further justification is needed. As I said before, it is only the sufferer who has the right to assess if his suffering is OK, or not.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Because it is much more glorious for God to triumph as He will at the End of the World then by just doing what He can obviously do.

God likes to work through intermedietes. We should be the heel of Our Lady who will crush the Serpent.

 

[ateista]

Here is what it says to me.

How can you appreciate being full without the pain of hunger?

How can you know Love without being hated?

How can you know being rich without being poor?

How can know darkness without seeing light?

How can we God make us account for our sins, if he doesnt show them to us, And how else our we going to learn what we do right if we dont know what wrong is. Because Suffering is Love, suffering is the only way we can learn to be grateful, without suffering you will not be alive.

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.

 

[ateista]

Because it is much more glorious for God to triumph as He will at the End of the World then by just doing what He can obviously do.

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.

God likes to work through intermedietes.

I would call that laziness.

We should be the heel of Our Lady who will crush the Serpent.

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”.

 

[Philthy]

Perfect or not, it is his “skin” which is the game. If his knowledge is deficient, then it is God’s absolute duty to inform him about the end result, so he (the sufferer) could make an informed decision.

This absolutely false. The only consideration as YOU have clearly articulate is that the absolute good outweighs the necessary evil. Period. 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. The sufferer will NEVER know all the good that results in this life. You know that for a fact. 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.
I’ll try to respond more later, time permitting. Have a good Labor day…

 

[rinnie]

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.

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

But either way suffering is suffering, again it all goes back to free will, 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. They picked the person they were going to hurt not God. Its like you are now going to blame God for what evil people choose to do. Its like you want it both ways, you want God to protect us, yet you want to let evil people keep thier free will. How can that be possible. Yes there are times God steps in, you will never know when or where. 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. 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. 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. then the good people the people who choose not to murder rape, kill etc thats where they will be. That is where we want to be, and to get there we must obey God not the Devil. Thats the whole point. The whole point of this world WE HAVE OUR OWN DESTINY IN OUR HANDS, WE CHOOSE GOD OR THE DEVIL. HE PROMISED I WILL BE BACK FOR YOU, IF YOU ARE ONE OF MINE I WILL RAISE YOU UP. IF YOU ARENT YOU STAY WITH THE DEVIL. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR LIFE IN THIS WORLD. HE LEFT US A BOOK, HE LEFT US A POPE, AND HE LEFT US A CHURCH. AND HE LEFT HIMSELF IN THE EUCHARIST, WE CAN RECEIVE HIM DAILY, IF WE CHOOSE. ITS OUR CALL!