Your understanding is exactly correct, Bricker. I’m not interested in getting into a theist versus atheist argument either. I was asking people specifically for their understanding of their faith. I understand why you might decide to bow out, and I hope nothing I have written has contributed to that.
While I’m not interested in contributing to the spread of Christianity OR atheism – of anything but civil conversation, in fact --I put this thread in GD because the question I wished to have answered was effectively equivalent to asking people to witness about their faith.
Frankly I’m vexed that people insisted on bringing theodicy into it. It would be as if I had entered the ongoing thread about the tenth anniversary of the Lord of the Rings movies simply to say that I think they suck. Which is true, but I’ve said so 183,955 times on the boards, and doing so again is hardly conducive to a pleasant conversation about the movies, just as insisting on taking the thread in a direction explicitly ruled out by the OP is not conducive to civil discourse.
Take all discussions related to the existence of gods, godly evil, free will, and the biological basis of love to another thread immediately. They’re all hijacks here.
The air having been thus cleared, I’ll be happy to continue this discussion.
To return to my surgeon analogy, Skald, you suggested that you couldn’t stand by and watch your child suffer without intervening. But of course you could – you might even hold your child down as he struggled to avoid poison being pumped into his veins – if that poison was chemotherapy, making him feel sick but designed to kill the cancer faster than it killed him. You’d do this because you understand, as he does not, that the effect of not taking chemo may be feeling better in the short run but disastrous in the long run.
So, too, do I contend God acts – allowing short term bad to happen because it’s necessary for longer-term good.
What was necessary about letting a 9 year old girl be kidnapped, raped and buried alive. When they dug up her body, she was still hugging a stuffed animal. How could that possibly have been necessary, especially for an entity for whom necessity can’t possibly exist. It is logically impossible for suffering to be necessary, so that answer can’t ever work.
I didn’t say anything about the definition of love. I was talking about your argument about the biological basis of love. You’ve made your point and if you want to continue discussing it, you need to start a new thread.
I don’t understand this distinction. The definition IS biological. There is no OTHER definition. How can it be defined non-biologically? That’s a perfectly fair question and perfectly on topic. it’s not a hijack just because the Christians can’t answer it (or because it’s me asking it).
I’m just moderating this debate and I’m not going to get dragged into the argument. We know what your opinion is, and it’s just as obvious that other people have a different opinion. If you want to argue with them about whether or not love and cognitive functions can exist without brain chemicals, then you need to start a new thread. That also applies to the tangents about the existence of gods, evil, and free will. That means you shouldn’t post any more about them in this thread, and if anyone wants to respond to what you’ve posted, they should start a new thread and not answer here.
I’m not moderating your question about why a god would allow suffering (like what you asked in post 71) because that’s obviously relevant to the main topic. If you have other questions about what I’m telling you to do, you need to start a thread in ATMB or send me a private message rather than asking in this thread.
This reminds me of the problem of pointless suffering that Lowder brings up in a debate. One could say that some pain is useful in teaching us lessons. It’s hard to see why all pain/suffering is useful.
It seems to me that, to use Lowder’s example, the suffering a person dieing of ebola goes through is completely without justification. Why does the person have to spend the final days in agony? If there is a loving entity out there that cares about us, why hasn’t he built in a process that simply shuts off our pain receptors in such cases?
The suffering is not going to make the person better, they are dieing.
I think my response is related to the problem of pain - it’s teetering on the topic of love, I feel, but I’m not sure how the mods would feel, so I’ll leave it up. If it’s teetered too far, I won’t elaborate further.
What does a child understand about cancer, especially cancer that has yet to affect the child physically? The child might say, “How can it possibly be necessary to inject chemicals into my body that make me feel sick, and lose my hair, and vomit, when I feel perfectly fine without them?”
You, as the parent, understand things that the child cannot. You might explain to the child that there’s a bad thing inside their body… but the child doesn’t really understand or grasp this.
Now we turn to your demands – you demand to know the necessity of the terrible things that happened to a nine year old girl. But you wouldn’t – in fact, you cannot – understand or comprehend the answer. So you’re in the same position as the cancer-suffering child is: you demand answers that you cannot understand, but if you could understand them, you would know why such horrors are necessary.
That’s the model I am contending is proper to understand God’s love. Please note I’m not talking here about the accuracy or underlying truth of the model. I’m answering the OP’s question. I’m sure whether God really has a plan that surpasseth understanding will be a wonderful debate topic for another thread. Here, I’m providing that concept as the answer to the question about how God’s love should be perceived.
Genuinely trying to understand here, Bricker: do you propose this as a model of the love of an omnipotent being? If so, do you maybe conceive of omnipotence differently from how I do?
To extend your analogy, if I were omnipotent, my child wouldn’t get cancer in the first place. But if he did, I’d cure him instantly and painlessly.
Is this not the sort of omnipotence you believe God has?
