Another of God's great works! [Haiti earthquake]

[begbert2]

@xtisme

Last try here…seems futile, but I’ll give it a spin.

No…we can only observe the universe from our own perspective. We see a snapshot in time, which includes neither the means, ends nor anything else. So…we see an earthquake in Haiti and think ‘How horrible!’, but, if we assume it was caused by an omnipotent God, we can’t possibly know WHY it was caused. We can assume (if we are so disposed) that it’s part of SOME plan, but we don’t have even an inkling about what that plan might be.

BOOM! Failure. Listen very closely here - omnipotent gods don’t do things to achieve other things. They do not break eggs to achieve the goal of making omelets. If an omnipotent god wants an omelet, he just makes an omelet - no eggs are involved, no chickens, no bits of meat or cows or anything like that. All that stuff? Unnecessary. Unless separately from having the omelete, the God also wants to break the eggs - but in that case he’s not breaking the eggs to make the omelet - he’s breaking the eggs because he likes to break eggs. You know this is true becuse if he didn’t want to break the eggs, he would have created the omelet ex-nihilo, or at least ex-no-eggo.

Take a moment and try to comprehend this simple and inevitably true fact. It will be difficult to accept, because it destroys the argument you are making, but please try anyway.

Okay. So, we know that for an omnipotent God, the ends don’t justify the means - which means that everything that he does, or that he allows to happen, is done or allowed for its own sake, and for no other reason. To reiterate, we know this is true because god doesn’t need to do thing to allow other things to happen - so nothing can be done for the sole reason of being pursuant to some separate goal.

So, every action that is done or allowed stands alone - and thus each action and event that happens is separately an end goal of “god’s plan”. That’s in scare quotes because it’s not really like an ordinary plan, with steps that lead towards an ultimate end - because for an omnipotent god no steps are necessary. Everything that happens is actually it’s own separate plan, consisting in its entirety “Plan: I want this to happen. Step 1: it happens.”

From this it naturally follows that, when dealing with an omnipotent god, everything that we see is an exact roadmap of what God wants.

Now, it’s true that we don’t know what he thinks or wants regarding the things we can’t see - except that we know that they have nothing to do with anything that happens to us, because the things that happen to us can’t be pursuant to some other unseen goal, since God doens’t need to jump through hoops like that. And given that, what we don’t know about god’s unseen goals is irrelevent to this discussion, because this discussion is specifically about people using the “god works in mysterious ways” excuse to justify heinous events that we see happening on earth. And the “mysterious ways” argument doesn’t work for events on earth, for the reasons describe above - there’s nothing mysterious on earth, because everything we see is the end goal, to an omnipotent god. Everything we see is an end goal of his. What you see is what he likes, and that’s that. He may like other things we don’t know about on the far side of the milky way or in his underwear drawer or something, but that’s irrelevent to the fact that everything we do see is exactly the way he likes things to be - nothing could be better for him (because if it could, it already would be).

Period.

@xtisme

Here’s the thing…you DON’T actually know squat about God, because no one really does. There is, simply, zero data.

Right - if we know nothing about a god, then we don’t know anything about it.

But that’s not the kind of god we’re talking about, now are we? We’re talking about omnipotent entities. Once we define that fact, once we limit the discussion to that class of entities, we do know something about it. And from what we know, we can deduce other things. Like, if something is completely red, we know it’s not completely blue. And if something is omnipotent, it’s not unknowable.

@xtisme

If you would like to make your bald faced assertion stick, perhaps you could go into a bit more detail about this logical contradiction. Or, just keep asserting that if it works better for you that way.

I can keep repeating the argument all day, but if you don’t read it and comprehend it, it ain’t gonna help much.

And I’m not going to respond to any more crap that I’m arguing by assertion. We both know better.

@xtisme

No. Again, just the opposite. I’d say ‘go back and re-read what I actually wrote’, but I’m not sure there is a point. One last time, I’m saying that you can’t project human emotions or expressions (like impatience) on such a being, since almost by definition such a being wouldn’t react the same way as a human would to any given situation.

BOOM! Failure. If this entity is unknowable, how do you know it doesn’t have humanlike emotions and expressions? The answer? Because it’s inconvenient to you that I can speculate about the unknowable. So you claim special knowledge about the unknowable thing in order to claim I’m wrong, while simultaneously claiming that it’s still completely unknowable.

This is horseshit argument. If this diety was unknowable, then it’s unknowable. If it’s not, it’s not. It’s not one way for you and one way for me.

@xtisme

And of COURSE I get to do that…no need to be sorry. It’s fairly clear you aren’t getting my own arguments in this thread, so I’ll simply leave it at that. I could wish that you were grasping what I was saying better, as then we could talk about all the flaws in my own arguments I see, but I don’t think we’ll get past the hangups between what I’m writing and what you are reading, sadly. C’est la vie.

I understand your arguments just fine and am pointing out their flaws. In this case, the flaw is that you’re claiming special knowledge about a class of properties this unknowable god can’t have. Which is an obviously contradictory position. In the prior argument your flaw is ignoring the inevitable conclusion that can be drawn from the fact omnipotent beings don’t have to do or allow undesirable things to meet their goals, therefore anthing that happens must be consistent with their desires. You haven’t refuted this in any substantive manner; all you’ve done is ignore my argument supporting it and fell back on the fallacious standby of pretending I’m arguing by assertion, which is obviously not the case.

So. From this point, don’t bother with the bullshit evasions and distortions of my position. Either address the arguments I’ve actually made, and point out their flaws, or refrain from replying completely. Any other approach would be a waste of both our time - and more of yours than mine.

[Valteron]

@xtisme

You are assuming that you could understand the mind or motives of an omnipotent and immortal being who created the universe and who thinks in terms of billions or trillions of years and billions or trillions of humans (and perhaps other beings on other planets) throughout the course of the entire life cycle of said universe. See how silly your projections are?
-XT

Okay, so I cannot “understand the mind or motives of an omnipotent and immortal being who created the universe”. In that case, maybe God is really pissed at the Haitians because, say, he does not like countries whose names begin with “H” in the western hemisphere of third planets in solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy.

You see, anyone can play the “unknowable mind of God” game.

So maybe, God WANTS the Haitians to be suffering so badly. And that means he is getting pissed at ME and other atheists, as well as believers, who have generously contributed to alleviating their suffering. Every time you write a cheque, you are making him madder and madder at you!

If that makes God sound awfully cruel, consider this: His own revealed word (allegedly) the Bible, details how he drowned practically the whole human race (including little children) and millions of innocent animals (all those who did not get on Noah’s Ark).

He killed every first-born in Egypt, which obviously would include thousands of children who were in no way to blame for what Pharoah did.

Of course, being an atheist and a humanist, I do not believe any of this and so I have no problem giving to help my fellow humans. We must rely on one another bnecause there is no magic guy in the sky.

[Valteron]

@Marley23

I’ve merged Valteron’s thread into the older one. In the future, please just report duplicate threads instead of making snide comments.

I did not know about the other thread when I started mine. I am not omniscient. So thank you for merging them, Mr. Mod Man.

[Valteron]

@xtisme

I think it comes down to motives, which, assuming such a being exists, we’d be completely unable to understand or put in any kind of context we would comprehend. Our world view is completely different than that of even an immortal being…or goals, motives, time frame, perceptions, etc, are completely at odds with a being that doesn’t age, doesn’t die, etc.

-XT

Theists keep telling me over and over that we can’t know what God wants or thinks, or how he sees things. Fine. Let’s assume that. But we know that he DID allow horrible suffering to befall the Haitians. I can at the very least make an assumption that he wanted that to happen IF he does indeed control the whole universe.

So now I should pray to that same being so that he does what? Relieves their suffering? Since I cannot know his mind, how do I even know he wants to relieve their suffering?

[XT]

As I already said, I don’t believe that prayer would have any effect, if one makes the basic assumptions I have. You’d have to ask an actual theistic philosopher for a better answer, since I haven’t the foggiest.

-XT

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

Yup. God is an iron.

I think my brain is on slow mode tonight, but I don’t get your comment. Like Charlie Chan used to say “Please to explain”.

[monavis]

@Valteron

Theists keep telling me over and over that we can’t know what God wants or thinks, or how he sees things. Fine. Let’s assume that. But we know that he DID allow horrible suffering to befall the Haitians. I can at the very least make an assumption that he wanted that to happen IF he does indeed control the whole universe.

So now I should pray to that same being so that he does what? Relieves their suffering? Since I cannot know his mind, how do I even know he wants to relieve their suffering?

What I would ask is: why does this being who knows all things and keep them in existence, need a mere human to tell him what is going on? Didn’t this being know that an earthquake of 7.0 in the middle of a population of 3 million people who were already suffering from illinesses and poverty would suffer as they did. What did the dead learn from this?

It would seem this being is not a very good father, why would a good father need some underling to tell him what to do, or just do something because he seemed to need a mere mortal to beg him. To me I would think a good father would not give a child anything that would harm them or hold anything back that was for their own good, surely this being would have to be better than some mortal he created.

If I had fore knowledge of what was good for my child or what would harm them I would give what I knew it needed or hold back anything that would harm them and surely this immortal being should be better than me! I would not be pleased if someone had to tell me to care for my children.

The city was built on a fault line and the possibility of an earthquake is something that just happened at the time that 3 million happened to live there. I doubt any supreme being allowed or caused it to happen, it is a human trait to look for a scape goat or a reason, when the reason is ‘just because’ it did. Pat Robertson doesn’t have the answer anymore than I do( or anyone else), but people do listen to him, and do not think of why a good father would not not prevent such a terrible tragedy for the innocent people who will suffer for a long ,long time. It doesn’t seem to make such a being worthy of worship,nor could this being love his children that he created with the flaws that they have!

[ManiacMan]

@The_Hamster_King

The able-bodied guy stands by and lets the toddler drown, but he does encourage the guy in the wheelchair to call 911 on his cell phone!

Perhaps the toddler was destined to be the worse serial killer…of all time.

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

@Der Trihs

Second, for an omnipotent being there are no necessary evils; it is logically impossible for short term evil to be necessary for a greater good. It doesn’t matter in the slightest how alien such a creature is we are talking capabilities and logic here.

Again, it’s a matter of perspective.

That’s simply not true. An omnipotent being doesn’t have any limits; an omnipotent doesn’t need to, by definition, inflict suffering for any “higher goal” or for any other reason than its own pleasure. Perspective is besides the point.

@xtisme

I’m not defending religion…simply pointing out how one could logically meet the conditions in the OP of worshiping a being that would cause something like the earth quake in Haiti.

Which is defending religion.

@xtisme

However, if one assumes there is one, then it’s fairly obvious that s/he/it IS unknowable, by and large, and DOES work in mysterious ways.

No; it’s obvious that if it exists, it is either indifferent or sadistic.

And in the real world, again, we are not talking about an unknowable god; that isn’t the god people worship. The “unknowable” claim is just an excuse trotted out to deflect criticism.

@Valteron

I think my brain is on slow mode tonight, but I don’t get your comment. Like Charlie Chan used to say “Please to explain”.

“If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron.” - Spider Robinson

[XT]

@Der Trihs

That’s simply not true. An omnipotent being doesn’t have any limits; an omnipotent doesn’t need to, by definition, inflict suffering for any “higher goal” or for any other reason than its own pleasure. Perspective is besides the point.

Sure it’s true. Certainly and omnipotent being has no limits, by definition…but if such a being had it’s own goals and desires any suffering inflicted could and probably would be incidental to those goals and desires. Perspective is entirely the point.

Let’s say, for instance, that you are a dinosaur. It would totally suck, for you, when the big one dropped out of the sky. To an omnipotent being, however, the goal could have been too bring about the rise of mammals, as part of some overall plan to eventually introduce sentient life to this world. Or, perhaps us mammals are only an intermediate stage in the master plan on the road to something else.

Perspective is everything…from a dinosaurs perspective the acts of this being may seem cruel…and, in fact, from those same dinosaurs perspective the acts WERE cruel. But on the cosmic scale it could have been a necessary step to get too somewhere else. To use a different example, when geneticists culture bacteria to study, a hell of a lot of bacteria are killed in the process. From their perspective, such as it is, this is seemingly cruel…but it’s part of a larger goal, one that is as incomprehensible to those bacteria as such a theoretical beings would be to us.

Which is defending religion.

YMMV. Personally, I see it as being the devils advocate, and arguing a point for my own amusement.

No; it’s obvious that if it exists, it is either indifferent or sadistic.

The sadistic part isn’t obvious to me. I agree with the indifference, though perhaps the indifference is toward individuals, and not toward species, or towards life in general, or sentient life, or…well, or whatever it is that would motivate such a being.

And in the real world, again, we are not talking about an unknowable god; that isn’t the god people worship. The “unknowable” claim is just an excuse trotted out to deflect criticism.

Throwing that ‘real world’ thingy back in my teeth, ehe? Perhaps you are right, though I feel that people who actually believe DO think that God has a plan, and if it seems cruel sometimes it’s simply because we don’t know what that plan is. Personally, I think that this has a large measure of projection and self delusion, but different strokes for different folks, and I can at least grasp that there is some internal logic behind such a belief, if one makes certain assumptions.

I don’t believe that God’s actions or whatever being ‘unknowable’ is just an excuse, though I certainly can see (and agree) that it can be used to deflect criticism.

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

Sure it’s true. Certainly and omnipotent being has no limits, by definition…but if such a being had it’s own goals and desires any suffering inflicted could and probably would be incidental to those goals and desires. Perspective is entirely the point.

Let’s say, for instance, that you are a dinosaur. It would totally suck, for you, when the big one dropped out of the sky. To an omnipotent being, however, the goal could have been too bring about the rise of mammals, as part of some overall plan to eventually introduce sentient life to this world. Or, perhaps us mammals are only an intermediate stage in the master plan on the road to something else.

Perspective is everything…from a dinosaurs perspective the acts of this being may seem cruel…and, in fact, from those same dinosaurs perspective the acts WERE cruel. But on the cosmic scale it could have been a necessary step to get too somewhere else. To use a different example, when geneticists culture bacteria to study, a hell of a lot of bacteria are killed in the process. From their perspective, such as it is, this is seemingly cruel…but it’s part of a larger goal, one that is as incomprehensible to those bacteria as such a theoretical beings would be to us.

As has been repeatedly point out, that’s nonsense. An omnipotent being wouldn’t need to do any of that; if it wants humans, poof there are humans. There ARE no necessary intermediate steps and no necessary evils for an omnipotent.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@xtisme

Sure it’s true. Certainly and omnipotent being has no limits, by definition…but if such a being had it’s own goals and desires any suffering inflicted could and probably would be incidental to those goals and desires. Perspective is entirely the point.

Let’s say, for instance, that you are a dinosaur. It would totally suck, for you, when the big one dropped out of the sky. To an omnipotent being, however, the goal could have been too bring about the rise of mammals, as part of some overall plan to eventually introduce sentient life to this world. Or, perhaps us mammals are only an intermediate stage in the master plan on the road to something else.

Perspective is everything…from a dinosaurs perspective the acts of this being may seem cruel…and, in fact, from those same dinosaurs perspective the acts WERE cruel. But on the cosmic scale it could have been a necessary step to get too somewhere else. To use a different example, when geneticists culture bacteria to study, a hell of a lot of bacteria are killed in the process. From their perspective, such as it is, this is seemingly cruel…but it’s part of a larger goal, one that is as incomprehensible to those bacteria as such a theoretical beings would be to us.

YMMV. Personally, I see it as being the devils advocate, and arguing a point for my own amusement.

The sadistic part isn’t obvious to me. I agree with the indifference, though perhaps the indifference is toward individuals, and not toward species, or towards life in general, or sentient life, or…well, or whatever it is that would motivate such a being.

Throwing that ‘real world’ thingy back in my teeth, ehe? Perhaps you are right, though I feel that people who actually believe DO think that God has a plan, and if it seems cruel sometimes it’s simply because we don’t know what that plan is. Personally, I think that this has a large measure of projection and self delusion, but different strokes for different folks, and I can at least grasp that there is some internal logic behind such a belief, if one makes certain assumptions.

I don’t believe that God’s actions or whatever being ‘unknowable’ is just an excuse, though I certainly can see (and agree) that it can be used to deflect criticism.

-XT

There is no such thing as a “necessary step” for an omnipotent being. It is impossible for anything to be a necessary means to an end. An omnipotent being needs only to will the end. No “plan” is logically necessary, therefore no “incidental” suffering can be necessary. That’s why this “plan” angle fails. All plans are necessarily gratutious, therefore so is all suffering (as long as God is both omnipotent and omniscient).

Whether this intentionally inflicted suffering (and it’s impossible for it not to be intentional) is sadistic or merely indifferent, it cannot be reconciled with a God who is good.

[XT]

@Der Trihs

As has been repeatedly point out, that’s nonsense. An omnipotent being wouldn’t need to do any of that; if it wants humans, poof there are humans. There ARE no necessary intermediate steps and no necessary evils for an omnipotent.

And as I’ve tried to make clear, I don’t agree that it’s nonsense. An omnipotent being would have motives all it’s own…and the PROCESS might be part of the motive. Perhaps it’s goals aren’t simply to pull fish and humans out of it’s ass, whole and fully formed. Perhaps the universe is in the nature of an experiment.

The thing is, since a human being couldn’t even really understand the motives or actions of an immortal, we can’t know WHY such a being would do anything. Sure, it’s an excuse which basically means ‘I don’t really see any actions from this God, don’t really have any hard data, and so I’m just making all this up as I go along’, but…well, it wouldn’t be much of a debate if we all just sat around and said ‘well, there really isn’t a God, ehe?’. Right?

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

And as I’ve tried to make clear, I don’t agree that it’s nonsense. An omnipotent being would have motives all it’s own…and the PROCESS might be part of the motive. Perhaps it’s goals aren’t simply to pull fish and humans out of it’s ass, whole and fully formed. Perhaps the universe is in the nature of an experiment.

Omnscient beings don’t need experiments; they already know the results. And it can have no goals; if it wants something to be, it is.

@xtisme

The thing is, since a human being couldn’t even really understand the motives or actions of an immortal, we can’t know WHY such a being would do anything.

Yes we can; personal pleasure. Since nothing is necessary for such a being, that is the only possible motivation.

More to the point, why should we care? If it acts like it is malignant, it is rational to treat it as malignant.

[XT]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such thing as a “necessary step” for an omnipotent being. It is impossible for anything to be a necessary means to an end. An omnipotent being needs only to will the end. No “plan” is logically necessary, therefore no “incidental” suffering can be necessary. That’s why this “plan” angle fails. All plans are necessarily gratutious, therefore so is all suffering (as long as God is both omnipotent and omniscient).

Disagree. You are making the assumption that said omnipotent being would WANT to simply wave it’s magical wand and will the end results. As I said, the process could be the goal. The entire thing could be a vast experiment by the omnipotent being to see the various permutations. Sure, sure…it’s an omniscient being, so it KNOWS all the permutations, in theory…but, perhaps it would want to play them out anyway, for obscure reasons unknown to us. For all we know, this being basically set the entire universe in motion in such a way to achieve a final goal, then wandered off to spawn new universe in the quantum foam to try out a different build…

Whether this intentionally inflicted suffering (and it’s impossible for it not to be intentional) is sadistic or merely indifferent, it cannot be reconciled with a God who is good.

Just have to agree to disagree I suppose. I think it COULD be reconciled, depending on ones baseline assumptions.

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@Der_Trihs

Yes we can; personal pleasure. Since nothing is necessary for such a being, that is the only possible motivation.

To take it one step further: If an omnipotent being desires pleasure, why is it necessary to inflict pain on humans? Wouldn’t the will for pleasure simply make it so, without the interim step of torturing the innocent?

[XT]

Exactly. If one assumes that such a being exists, then the mere fact that the universe is unfolding, and not already at the perfect and complete stage (instantly, a la magic wand) is a pretty fair indication that such a being has some kind of plan, because obviously this being did NOT pull complete humans (and everything else) out of it’s ass, but instead chose an evolving universe.

If the pleasure of torturing humans was the actual goal, then I don’t see the logic of waiting billions of years for us to evolve to start fucking with us. Of course, to an immortal, a year or a billion might seem the same, but it seems unlikely that whacking Haiti just for the fun of it was part of the goal.

I’m unsure why any of this would make someone want to worship said immortal being, but then I again have to admit that I’m biased against that concept anyway. I can still see how one could look on such a God with reverence (I suppose), and with faith (gack) and the conviction that, while the eggs might not agree, you can’t make an omelet without cracking a few…
Ok, I can’t keep this up anymore. You guys are on your own. I’m all devils advocate-ed out…

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

Exactly. If one assumes that such a being exists, then the mere fact that the universe is unfolding, and not already at the perfect and complete stage (instantly, a la magic wand) is a pretty fair indication that such a being has some kind of plan, because obviously this being did NOT pull complete humans (and everything else) out of it’s ass, but instead chose an evolving universe.

That does not follow from my premise, which concludes that the existence of an omnipotent being is incompatible with any plan whatsoever. An omnipotent being has no use for an evolving universe.

[XT]

Agreed. Again, it’s all about one’s assumptions. My own take is exactly what your’s is Fear…but then my baseline assumptions and preconceptions are probably closer to your own than you might believe, especially on this subject.

That’s why I am bowing out of the debate. For one thing, it’s hard for me to keep posting this stuff with a straight face. For another, it’s basically an indefensible position, IMHO, and eventually even the internal logic starts to fail as the assumptions and special conditions mount.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@xtisme

And as I’ve tried to make clear, I don’t agree that it’s nonsense. An omnipotent being would have motives all it’s own…and the PROCESS might be part of the motive.

An omnimax being can’t logically require a “process.” This does not require god-like intelligence to understand, just a fundamental grasp of syllogistic logic.