It is impossible to know how much pain any other creature but oneself experiences. We can only surmise. Animals must experience less pain than human beings because they have less hindsight, insight and foresight. Since the pain threshold varies even from one person to another it is a subjective phenomenon that does not provide objective evidence that pain is excessive.
.
If it is a perpetual miracle, i.e. a suspension of natural laws, it will be noticeable and require explanation. How will it be explained scientifically?
Your analogy does not seem to have any bearing on the subject.
I am not imposing anything. By setting up universal laws God imposed restrictions on the extent to which those laws can be suspended if they are to remain laws. Too many exceptions would disprove the rule!
God is not limited but neither is He capricious. It would be irrational to keep changing the laws of nature.
It is still necessary to explain in what respects your proposal is not so naïve.
It would be a bad thing to live in a benevolent world in which we are surrounded by coercive evidence of benevolence.
If God contained the water it would affect the distribution of its weight and cause other disasters. If it did not affect the distribution of its weight scientists would observe the fact, classify it as a new law totally unrelated to existing laws and impossible to explain scientifically. When taken in conjunction with the prevention of other natural disasters there would be a formidable array of benevolent laws…
Not only would there be coercive evidence of benevolence but also interference with human activity like building dams, creating lakes and extracting oil and gas from underground which often leads to natural disasters. There would be two sets of laws: benevolent and neutral. The laws themselves would be affected because they would be inconsistent with other laws as I have pointed out.
Of course it is about God! And the issue is irrelevant only to those who in prideful obstinance, refuse to recognize God. The Good News is that ignorance, stubbornness, denial; none of these change thee TRUTH. So it’s denial effects those most closely aligned with the untruth as a primary cause and effect.
***Speculation? NO! Word search the word “hope” in a bible search program, and you will find super abundant evidence of this position. * **
*** Well that is better than doing nothing, however one cannot through works alone buy ones way into heaven.***
Wow, we agree on something
My sister is a Mormon. I have had many opportunities to listen to the adventures of their returning missionaries, I am amazed at the stories they tell, the encounters they have had, and the maturity they have gained. Have they been spreading the Word of God? What do you think, PJM?
og? God as IS is not a matter of belief or of religion or of philosophy. God as God simply IS ALL, and we call it all knowing, All whatever. But that is for us. It touches not nor describes God, though for the sincere it may point that way.
. But it will be because they were Good, virtuous, and ardent, not because they were religious, however sincere.
Isn’t that where religions get divisive and meanness ensues?
Very limited in understanding of who and what God is and MUST BE. As I have shared; “God is everything and only all good PERFECTLY.” That means He must be just and fair.
maturity, sanity, critical thinking, and considering the significance of one’s experience and being. That ought, I think, be done in the widest, deepest ways possible, in order to invite Grace, or as I call it now, Realization. It is in this regard that I continue to offer sources and make connections so that all whom I contact might have what I can give them as an opportunity to reduce the limits habit and ignorance place on the experience of Soul. But I have no agenda as to what someone might discover as a result of their own inquiry. I am not asking anyone, either, to believe what I say or anything about it, or that thy ought use belief as a means.
**I agree completely. Which is one reason the problem of evil could never be an ironclad proof. It could be that I am the only person on earth who actually suffers, and all other suffering is merely an illusion. All we can do is look at how others behave. If they give all the signs of pain that we ourselves show, it’s reasonable to conclude that they do feel pain. Some animals, like dogs, respond to pain very much like we do. I just don’t think it’s plausible to say that animals feel no pain. To me, kicking a dog has a lot more significance than kicking a flower.
You’re right. I don’t see what this has to do with anything.
I already explained that God could create a natural law which would have the same effect as these perpetual miracles. However, it doesn’t matter either way since what we observe would be the same. It would be explained as the way things behave. Water is already pretty quirky. I gave the example of dark energy. There are a variety of such examples where when something doesn’t behave as our old theories would expect, we create a new theory to account for the difference.
We do not need to show something to be possible with our current physical laws in order to say that an omnipotent being that can perform magic, like God, can do something which would violate our normal laws.
Right, if God kept calming the seas, we would create a new law to describe the behavior of water.
I never said anything about keeping changing them. His eternal will would be that tsunamis and hurricanes would be prevented.
What do you mean by naïve, and in what way do you think it is naïve?
What would be wrong with evidence of benevolence? And how would merely not knowing about hurricanes and tsunamis would make the world predictably benevolent?
Okay, name one disaster that God would be forced to cause if he contained the water. And as I have said repeatedly, science does not conclude that something is supernatural merely because it doesn’t accord with our current laws. We make new natural laws or theories which fit the data.
You haven’t given any justification for any of these claims. This would be like me saying that I don’t think God could exist because it would be like there being a square circle, and then not giving any reasons why and asking you to prove me wrong. You merely keep making assertions without supporting any of them.
How would that be different than the Christian concept of Heaven? Is the environment of Heaven not predictably pleasant/benevolent?
Heaven is predictably creative, inspiring, beautiful and joyful because it is inhabited by those who love their Father and His children whereas this world is inhabited by many who are concerned only about themselves and perhaps their next of kin…
Let us focus on such a law with reference to tsunamis. Please indicate which of the following statements you reject:
Well I wouldn’t say it nullifies the effect, just that the effect of earthquakes on the waves is much less.
I deny this. Water has plenty of unique behaviors, and I think they would just assume it’s something about water’s unique molecular structure and try to find a reason for it. Scientists have not been able to explain everything about nature, but they do not assume that everything that we have not yet explained must be supernatural.
I think this one is simply absurd. I don’t think that a lack of tsunamis would make people any more likely to travel by sea.
I think there are some people who have gotten angry at God and chosen to reject him. Some of these people may even manage to make themselves believe that God does not exist. Something like this wouldn’t make sense to me, but based on what I’ve read, there have also been some people who manage to force themselves to believe based on thinking that Pascal’s wager is a good argument.
I think that drowning at sea is one of the worst ways to die. I also think that protracted illnesses are better in that you get a chance to say goodbye to everyone you love.
Even if the protracted illnesses were worse, God could prevent those as well. We can’t predict perfectly who will get what protracted illness, so God could intervene and prevent as many of these as he wanted. But I really don’t think they’re worse (and if they were, God could eliminate the suffering with no negative consequences).
I don’t think we can be sure of what the perfect world would be like, and I think it would be infinitely more difficult for us fallible humans to design it in every detail. I was just trying to show that there is suffering in the world which God could prevent without interfering in free will. I’m not sure how this would lead to an irrational existence though. If God had created Adam and Eve and not created the tree of knowledge, would they have been incapable of a rational existence?! I get the argument that the presense of some suffering has some beneficial effect on our souls, but not the one you’re making.
I don’t believe it is impossible for God to create any set of natural laws in which water causes fewer disasters because it has a particular property but these laws have to be consistent with all the other natural laws. They cannot be just tacked on without explaining how they fit into the existing scheme, e.g. the mass and volume of a large expanse of water would not conform to the existing laws of motion but presumably small expanses would. How is that problem solved?
I agree:
The point is that they would never find an explanation if its molecular structure remains the same. It would be an anomaly. If its molecular structure changes permanently how could it not affect its other properties? If its molecular structure keeps changing it will be even more extraordinary and even more unique. At all events the discovery of a disaster-preventing, natural property would be most remarkable event in the history of science!
I agree but this particular property is unique in its disaster-preventing property.
Travelling by sea would be the first option when there are frequent disasters everywhere else. It would be a unique guarantee of safety and it would be cheaper. The insurance and travel companies would adjust their premiums and prices accordingly!
I agree but the vast majority can recognize a good thing when they see it. There is a lot of superstition in the world and people are quick to latch on to extraordinary events which are in their favour.
I nearly drowned once and it was not so bad as you think. Your mind seems to be detached from your body. It’s all over in a matter of minutes (not in my case of course
) whereas an uncle suffered for three years before death came as a merciful release. He and all his relatives and friends would have preferred him to die quickly…If we can’t be sure of what it would be like there is no guarantee it is feasible. Most philosophers agree that some natural evil is inevitable. Most atheists attempt to show that the amount of evil is excessive.
Many accidents, diseases and natural disasters are caused by human neglect, malice and interference with the environment.
The world is already immensely complex. The introduction of many new laws to prevent every harmful contingency would make it unimaginable confusing. Cars would swerve at odd intervals to avoid crashing into people and objects, children would be invisibly restrained from dashing into the road, terrorists’ bombs would always fail to explode near people, radiation that causes cancer would cease to have any effect… Life would be dominated by constant exceptions to the basic natural laws and form a subset of benevolent laws. This sounds highly desirable but it would have the drawbacks I have already mentioned: coercive evidence of benevolence amid constant uncertainty about the exact course of future events. How can you plan ahead when you don’t know when these miraculous events are going to occur? We would know they are going to occur but we would not know why, when, where, how or who is going to be involved!
I don’t interpret the Old Testament literally. I believe the myth of Adam and Eve conveys the important truth that human beings have the power of reason and the ability to choose between good and evil.
That is the ultimate justification of suffering.
Right goal, but are you willing to “pay” the price of admission:shrug: It’s aquestion we all need to reflect on time to time.
=Detales;5387327]Right on, PJM!
A Moral question for you…
Exactly how I have felt about the Republican party for the past 8 years. I also have no confidence in the current administration or Congress either.
I disagree with some of the points you make. For example, I do not think scientists would see this as a disaster-preventing property if it applied to water in all circumstances. And I still think it’s absurd to say that sea travel would become far more common. People don’t travel by sea because it takes forever, not because it’s too dangerous. The premiums would be adjusted, but just slightly. There would still be other potential natural problems, in addition to pirate attacks. Also, with the protracted death issue, I actually think that makes a good case for keeping euthanasia legal. I agree with you that God preventing manmade evils would limit the scope of our actions, but I don’t think this is a bad thing. The scope of our free will is already limited, and I think that limiting it further to prevent acts that cause profound suffering would be a good thing (as long as suffering does not provide a greater good).I don’t believe it is impossible for God to create any set of natural laws in which water causes fewer disasters because it has a particular property but these laws have to be consistent with all the other natural laws. They cannot be just tacked on without explaining how they fit into the existing scheme, e.g. the mass and volume of a large expanse of water would not conform to the existing laws of motion but presumably small expanses would. How is that problem solved?
I agree:
2. Water has a property which diminishes the force of earthquakes and prevents large numbers of people being killed.
The point is that they would never find an explanation if its molecular structure remains the same. It would be an anomaly. If its molecular structure changes permanently how could it not affect its other properties? If its molecular structure keeps changing it will be even more extraordinary and even more unique. At all events the discovery of a disaster-preventing, natural property would be most remarkable event in the history of science!
I agree but this particular property is unique in its disaster-preventing property.
Travelling by sea would be the first option when there are frequent disasters everywhere else. It would be a unique guarantee of safety and it would be cheaper. The insurance and travel companies would adjust their premiums and prices accordingly!
I agree but the vast majority can recognize a good thing when they see it. There is a lot of superstition in the world and people are quick to latch on to extraordinary events which are in their favour.
I nearly drowned once and it was not so bad as you think. Your mind seems to be detached from your body. It’s all over in a matter of minutes (not in my case of course
If we can’t be sure of what it would be like there is no guarantee it is feasible. Most philosophers agree that some natural evil is inevitable. Most atheists attempt to show that the amount of evil is excessive.
Many accidents, diseases and natural disasters are caused by human neglect, malice and interference with the environment.
To prevent them would curtail our scope for action. The world is already immensely complex. The introduction of many new laws to prevent every harmful contingency would make it unimaginable confusing. Cars would swerve at odd intervals to avoid crashing into people and objects, children would be invisibly restrained from dashing into the road, terrorists’ bombs would always fail to explode near people, radiation that causes cancer would cease to have any effect… Life would be dominated by constant exceptions to the basic natural laws and form a subset of benevolent laws. This sounds highly desirable but it would have the drawbacks I have already mentioned: coercive evidence of benevolence amid constant uncertainty about the exact course of future events. How can you plan ahead when you don’t know when these miraculous events are going to occur? We would know they are going to occur but we would not know why, when, where, how or who is going to be involved!
And to cap it all, we cannot even be sure that such a world is feasible. In my view it is so improbable it is not worth considering.
I don’t interpret the Old Testament literally. I believe the myth of Adam and Eve conveys the important truth that human beings have the power of reason and the ability to choose between good and evil. That is the ultimate justification of suffering.
Actually I know the answer to the question, I was just concerned about your cat
