quote: But that is not what I'm asking, is it? I'm asking why did it have to hit me in the first place?! Why that part was necessary, not why the effect of that - me feeling pain - is necessary. I don't see any answer for that in your posts. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to make it clearer.
What is the alternative? If a rock hits you in the head, and you feel no pain, you may have fractured your skull and you wouldn't know it. If you don't take steps to staunch bleeding or otherwise care for injuries then you might die.
The only alternative I can imagine for the existence of pain is to have indestructible individuals. If your question is: "Why didn't God make us all indestructible?" I would say that you have to determine the purpose of life on earth.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I think that I may have excerpted the wrong bit of your post, which would definitely explain the confusion. What I took you to be saying was that if you were right, that would be great, and if you were wrong you'd have ceased to exist, and so would never know that you had been wrong. I can't actually find the post now in which I thought you were saying that (I can't believe how quickly this thread grows! Take a minute to do some work and a page and a half has flashed by).
Anyway, my response to that was that what you were saying (or what I thought you were saying) was only the case if it was a binary situation--if either you're right or the atheists are right.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
I have argued that such a live would have little meaning, and that true joy could not exist without having known sorrow. (This is a specific definition for "joy" since I cannot think of another word to fit the definition. It is different than "just pleasure" or "just bliss". It is "pleasure in context" or "pleasure with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge". When LDS use the word "joy", it has specifically this meaning. Feel free to come up with a better term for it. )
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, my response to that was that what you were saying (or what I thought you were saying) was only the case if it was a binary situation--if either you're right or the atheists are right.
Note I specifically talked about only one aspect of me being right: that there *is* an afterlife. On that, the situation is binary. I recognize there is plenty of wiggle-room on my other beliefs.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
I see that, but I think it is a very silly question. I have addressed this in Corwin's form, but another way of phrasing it is: "If God really exists, why didn't he make the universe just as I think it should be?"
The clear answer is: God made the universe the way it is because that is how he wanted it.
Whether such is whimsy or if there is a reason behind it (and what that reason might be) is the entire purpose of religion. But it is absurd to say "The universe could have been built differently, therefore God doesn't exist."
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
If the purpose that God has in mind for life is to progress and grow stronger and have joy, as Bev has pointed out, then preventing pain is incompatible with that purpose.
If God acted to prevent circumstances where we were prevented from having pain, that would entail a good deal of our free agency being taken away. We need to be free to make poor choices as well as good choices, and we need to be free to suffer the consequences of poor choices. We also need to be free to be in a position where we can get hurt.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I don't think omnipotent means that at all. We can argue what was meant by those who defined God as omnipotent, but a perfectly functional definition of omnipotent would be "capable of doing anything which is possible".
The real issue here is whether a God has no bounds whatsoever or whether there are limitations (eg he can only do what is logically possible).
However, I would like to point out that if one posits that God can absolutely do anything at all, with no limitations, then humankind is really just a silly little game. If he could have immediately made us in any possible form with all possible knowledge then there is no reason at all why humans are one way and not another. It is completely arbitrary. That seems to be the position that Corwin is arguing from, but I see no reason to accept the underlying assumption.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
According to LDS teaching, even God has to follow logic. Even if it is logic that we cannot grasp or do not have the full information to see clearly.
I figure being omnipotent means that you have all power within the realm of natural laws. Not even God is above the laws of the universe. He may be above the laws He gives to man without being above the laws of the universe. "Thou shalt not kill" and any of the other commandments are not laws of the universe. Gravity is. (At least, inasmuch as we actually understand it--which is "not much".)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The clear answer is: God made the universe the way it is because that is how he wanted it.
And the conclusion that many atheists draw is: if that is how God wanted it, and it was *His* whim, then God is not good nor benevolent. In fact, He may be evil (which is all hypothetical assuming He exists, says the atheist.) ^_^
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why? If god is omnipotent, he can prevent that pain, too.
But what if he isn't omnipotent in the classical sense?
Personally, I find it much more construction to ask, "Why are things the way they are?" instead of "Why aren't things this other way?" If there is a God, then there's a reason for his making the universe (and all of us) the way that he did. And I don't think we're really in a position to second-guess someone capable of making all that.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
Something like that, but not really. Perhaps more like: getting what you deserve for your actions, but in a way that would make you understand that that is why it happened. In other words, why isn't this world more meaningful if it is the creation of a greater being? The answer "maybe it is, but we don't see that meaning" doesn't help.
In my vision of a Universe created by a god, at the end of everything there would be happiness for everyone, because everyone would understand why certain "wrongs" happened, etc. And, also very important, this life would not seem such a series of random events with little relation to our actions. The purpose of life in that type of Universe would be to learn through your actions, but not through what I view as unnecessary pain.
Anyway, I don't really understand how a Universe like this would be...
quote:But it is absurd to say "The universe could have been built differently, therefore God doesn't exist."
But it's not absurd to say: "This Universe isn't built in accordance to what I view a Universe created by a superior being would look like, therefore I don't believe in such a superior being."
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a bit of expansion on my previous point:
The Logic Corwin and Twinky seem to be operating on goes like this:
God can do anything whatsoever that he conceives of.
If God wanted humans to be perfect he would have made us that way.
Since God did not make us perfect he is the reason for all pain and suffering.
Since God needlessly causes pain and suffering he is evil.
As can be seen, all of these conceptions about God, reasoning behind his motives etc. proceed from the assumption that God can do anything at all that he (or by extension, we) can conceive of. The real question then, is whether this characterization of God is correct.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
However, my understanding of LDS beliefs is that you differ significantly from other Christians on the question of the extent of god's power over and within the universe.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
He couldn't do that if he wanted us to be free agents for ourselves above all other things.
God is not God because he can do anything; he is God more because of what he will or won't do.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it's not absurd to say: "This Universe isn't built in accordance to what I view a Universe created by a superior being would look like, therefore I don't believe in such a superior being."
No, this is perfectly reasonable, though of course whether one believes in a superior being or not is irrelevant to the question of whether there is one.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, hold up there, Jacare. Not once in this thread have I stated my actual position beyond that I do not believe in god. I'm just trying to make sure that you and Corwin aren't talking past one another.
Edit: AFR, it seems to me that you're simply saying "god is not omnipotent." That's fine. If god is not omnipotent then the logic works.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin: It sounds like the Universe you would create as an omnipotent being would read like a novel or view like a movie.
Everything shown would be shown for a specific purpose. Nothing "just happens". It is all about the symmetry of the story arch rather than the free will of the individual characters. All the lose ends are tied up at the end, everyone gets what they deserve.
Now, if I reflect on the way I believe, I believe that a lot of this *may* be the case. But the problem is that death is not the end of the story.
In fact, an apostle in the LDS church once spoke on this, that life is a 3-act play, and we are stuck in the middle of the 2nd act with no memory of the first and no knowledge of the last. The idea here is that the story *only* makes sense if you can see all three acts. But that vision does not come until the end.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whoa, hold up there, Jacare. Not once in this thread have I stated my actual position beyond that I do not believe in god. I'm just trying to make sure that you and Corwin aren't talking past one another.
But you did state that if God was omnipotent he could make things in a different way. This leads me to believe that your line of reasoning is something like what I posted. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Jacare, I think we understand each other! I can't say that God exists or not, that much I acknowledged somewhere in this thread. I'm wondering how am I supposed to believe there is a God. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say "my line of reasoning," do you mean the line of reasoning that led me to become an atheist?
...because when it comes to the question of pain, I'm actually with Noemon -- I don't see Karl's opening example as evidence either for or against the existence of god(s).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Corwin: It sounds like the Universe you would create as an omnipotent being would read like a novel or view like a movie.
...
Now, if I reflect on the way I believe, I believe that a lot of this *may* be the case. But the problem is that death is not the end of the story.
In fact, an apostle in the LDS church once spoke on this, that life is a 3-act play, and we are stuck in the middle of the 2nd act with no memory of the first and no knowledge of the last. The idea here is that the story *only* makes sense if you can see all three acts. But that vision does not come until the end.
Well, ok, maybe not everything. I'm still fuzzy on this. But most/more of this world would have to make some sense. Some "moral" sense, or something like that. And I believe most of it does not make sense. Maybe it's only a small act in a larger play, but even so I find too little sense in this to make me believe there is a God.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I've never seen you explain what line of reasoning lead you to become an atheist. Is that something you'd be willing to talk about here? If it is private, I understand. Though, you are welcome to email me about it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I couldn't disagree with this more.
Being Omnipotent does not being able to make something both exist, and not exist, for example.
I think it does. If you believe otherwise, then in my view you believe that god is not omnipotent. That's perfectly fine! I don't see anything problematic about believing in a non-omnipotent god. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And the conclusion that many atheists draw is: if that is how God wanted it, and it was *His* whim, then God is not good nor benevolent. In fact, He may be evil (which is all hypothetical assuming He exists, says the atheist.) ^_^
Atheists would not draw this conclusion because they would think that God does not exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, MAY draw this conclusion but it has no bearing on the existence of God. For, if God is evil, he must exist.
I have studied a theory by Peter Unger called Philosophical Relativity which basically states that your beliefs are based not upon objective facts, but upon other beliefs that you hold. These beliefs then play a role in how you weigh evidence. For instance, if you have a strong belief in God, then you weigh evidence against the problem of evil more heavily then say an atheist. I think that this explains many of the disagreements we see here in the thread. As I have read through the thread ive noticed that something like "well you believe one thing and I believe another" or "I come down on the other side even though i see your argument and vice-versa" is common. If there were an objective truth to the arguments we have presented (on both sides) shouldnt we all agree to the same conclusion? Its interesting to talk about religion this way when it seems like there has to be an objective truth to the existence God (he either does or does not exist). Yet, without a way to independently verify this claim (i.e God walks up to you and says hi) it certainly seems like we are going to rely on arguments and evidence, and by so doing we open ourselves up to the thought that our arguments cannot provide a solid basis for belief or disbelief in God. If this be the case, then you will simpy believe or disbelieve based what evidence you hold most dear. Of course, then your beliefs are relative to those factors you hold dear. LOL, sorry if I didnt present this argument correctly. What do you guys think?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you say "my line of reasoning," do you mean the line of reasoning that led me to become an atheist?
...because when it comes to the question of pain, I'm actually with Noemon -- I don't see Karl's opening example as evidence either for or against the existence of god(s).
Not at all- I mean your line of reasoning in suggesting that things could be otherwise than they currently are. The entire logical chain seems to rest on the assumption that by definition God can do whatever he conceives us (such as make everyone perfect in all ways). As you have agreed, if one does not begin with that assumption then the logic which leads to the conclusion of an evil or capricious god really doesn't apply.
quote: Well, Jacare, I think we understand each other! I can't say that God exists or not, that much I acknowledged somewhere in this thread. I'm wondering how am I supposed to believe there is a God. [Big Grin]
That is the million dollar question. Anyone you ask will give you a different answer ranging from "You can't logically believe in God" on one end to "Just believe in God" on the other with a whole lot in between.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it's only a small act in a larger play, but even so I find too little sense in this to make me believe there is a God.
That's fine. Belief is such a subjective thing. We are all doing our best to perceive what we believe is real. I am not one to point the finger at someone who would like to believe, but just can't.
Though along the lines of your analogy, I still think that even with a full understanding of things, some people would still choose do to evil. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I believe God keeps so much knowledge from us--to keep us from doing ourselves even more damage by "sinning against the greater knowledge". He instead teaches us slowly, as we are prepared to deal well with what we are given.
Basically, I believe that the more knowledge you have that the thing you are doing is wrong, the harder it is to redeem yourself from doing that wrong thing. This belief in some ways has absolutely *nothing* to do with religion or God.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just book-ending this thread, having read Karl's first post and a couple of others, so I hope this isn't a re-do.
My question is how could a naturalist photograph this event and not intervene? How could you watch it and go on with your life? I don't really know the answers to those questions either. And now I know about the horrors of weaver ants. What, in all seriousness, is my duty as a believer?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, the whole "God is omnipotent" is a fairly recent invention; God makes much more sense as a limited being.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well, I certainly don't think there's any way to prove or disprove the existence of god(s), barring incontrovertible evidence straight from said deity or deities.
It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheists would not draw this conclusion because they would think that God does not exist.
I'm sorry, this didn't even occur to me. You see, as a believer, it is not at all hard for me to postulate, "What if there is no God?" So I don't understand why an atheist couldn't do the same in the other direction. Hypothetical conversations happen all the time about things we don't believe are true. That's the whole point of hypothetical conversations.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there were an objective truth to the arguments we have presented (on both sides) shouldnt we all agree to the same conclusion?
Not at all. This would be the case only if there were an objective truth which is easily independently verifiable.
It is rather like witnesses in a trail. Each witness saw something different and explains what they saw in different terms, yet clearly there is something objective which occurred but which is simply not easy to verify.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe.
Twink: Is this in response to my question to you specifically, or something else? I think that there are people who want to believe but can't. They need far more evidence in order to believe something, anything.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious about how you would answer this question: How do you become omnipotent?
You don't. An omnipotent god would essentially be the universe, in my view.
quote:I mean your line of reasoning in suggesting that things could be otherwise than they currently are. The entire logical chain seems to rest on the assumption that by definition God can do whatever he conceives us (such as make everyone perfect in all ways). As you have agreed, if one does not begin with that assumption then the logic which leads to the conclusion of an evil or capricious god really doesn't apply.
See, I haven't said that god is evil or capricious, so I don't understand where you're getting that from. I don't care what this hypothetical god would be like since I don't believe any gods exist. The question I had was whether this god would be omnipotent, and that has been answered to my satisfaction.
beverly, if you want me to explain it, I can.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Neither does bev, apparently...
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What I took you to be saying was that if you were right, that would be great, and if you were wrong you'd have ceased to exist, and so would never know that you had been wrong. I can't actually find the post now in which I thought you were saying that (I can't believe how quickly this thread grows! Take a minute to do some work and a page and a half has flashed by).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
