Question about prayer during/after a tragedy

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@gigi

Tsunamis have no morality to them. They aren’t bad as in evil.

The question is why does God allow them to happen. The Plantinga Free Will defense to the POE argues that God allows humans to do evil (“moral evil”) so as to avoid interfering with free will. The free will defense has problems as I’ve already indicated (even leaving aside the fact that free will is an incoherent concept from the outset), but his explanation for “natural evil” (i.e. natural disasters, disease, etc.) is outright comical. He claims that natural evil was caused by Adam and Eve eating the apple. He therefore tries to pin childhood leukemia on an imagined “moral evil” committed by two people who never existed (and who were incapable of moral evil even within the context of the story).

Others try to explain natural evil by claiming that it somehow builds character or brings people closer to God or “tests faith” (why it needs to be tested, I have no idea).

I’ve never seen a theodicy that I find even close to convincing. I think the POE is insoluble and is one of the major reasons I can’t believe in God.

[hotflungwok]

@gigi

Tsunamis have no morality to them. They aren’t bad as in evil.

So what? They’re still bad as in drowning 1000’s of people. If god is all powerful, then he could stop the tsunami but doesn’t, so he wants them to happen. If god is omniscient, then he knows what they will do, and still doesn’t stop them, so he wants the effects to happen. Why pray for something when if god wanted to stop it, he could, with or without your prayer?

[gigi]

@Wee Bairn

Sorry, I meant, when a killer goes nuts, God did not directly do that- he made the crazy person, but the persons actions were of his own free will. But God does cause natural disasters, or not?

Nope. God allows the natural world to act according to the laws of physics. Natural disaster and sickness are part of a mortal world. It’s not the same thing as Him deciding to send a tsunami or cancer to kill people.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@gigi

Nope. God allows the natural world to act according to the laws of physics. Natural disaster and sickness are part of a mortal world. It’s not the same thing as Him deciding to send a tsunami or cancer to kill people.

Who fixed those physical laws?

Why can’t God intervene or suspend those laws?

Hasn’t God in fact intervened and suspended physical laws any number of times already according to all three Abrahamic religions?

[Wee_Bairn]

And for those who feel that misery is a test of faith, whose faith is tested when a two year old gets beaten to death by her mom and mom’s boyfriend, assuming there are no other adults who know the child? The two year olds?

And to add to what Dio said, God caused the 40 day flood- why did he intervene in the laws of physics or nature that time?

Again, not trying to knock Christianity on the sly, I would perhaps give it shot if I could make sense of it.

[Sapo]

@Wee Bairn

And for those who feel that misery is a test of faith, whose faith is tested when a two year old gets beaten to death by her mom and mom’s boyfriend, assuming there are no other adults who know the child? The two year olds?

That is a valid question in the assumption that humans do not trascend their mortal lives. If, at some point. we are conscious of what happens outside our mortal perceptions, then everybody’s faith is tested. And that is also assuming that God is into “testing” us, which I do not believe. We find things testing for we do not understand the fullness of their implications.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sapo

That is a valid question in the assumption that humans do not trascend their mortal lives. If, at some point. we are conscious of what happens outside our mortal perceptions, then everybody’s faith is tested. And that is also assuming that God is into “testing” us, which I do not believe. We find things testing for we do not understand the fullness of their implications.

“Fullness of their implications?” What the hell does that mean? Is that some kind of “mysterious ways” defense? That’s no defense at all.

[gigi]

Do you think humans are capable of understanding anything fully?

[vivalostwages]

@Wee Bairn

Not trying to rile any Christians, I genuinely want to understand this. I think my logic is pretty solid here, so if not, someone please point out where I am not understanding Chrisitianity.

OK, the current tragedy, I hear some people say they are praying for the injured to get well, or for the relatives of the dead, etc. I don’t get this- sort of like Rod or Todd saying “God, thank you for sending Lisa to save us from the bug you sent after us”, but not quite. I don’t exactly know how to phrase it, but if you believe in God, you believe that anything that happens on Earth is his doing, and thus any tragedy is his making. God doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore, to pray for him to end or ease the suffering that he has casued to me seems kind of strange. Am I missing something? How do Christians explain this apparent contradiction? In the midst of a tragedy, you would be in effect asking God to stop doing something, which seems out of order for a mere human. Praying in the aftermath seems equally odd.

I posted in an earlier thread about prayer that it can provide some measure of comfort–not necessarily (or not at all) to those being prayed for, but to the person doing the praying.

[raindog]

@Diogenes the Cynic

But God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, so it is logically impossible for anything to occur which is not hs will.

True. Because it is his will, however, doesn’t mean that he is influencing behavior, or the outcome. I may leave the cookie jar on the counter while I run errands (with the rule it remain unmolested) and yet be aware that it may be invaded by my kids.

Their transgression is only “my will” to the extent that I knew they may break the rules, and I took no action to prevent it. Surely I could have taken steps to restrict their choices. Nonethless, the fact they broke the rules doesn’t mean I wanted it to happen. I allow them the freedom to choose for themselves, and to experience the consequences of those choices.

The free will defense doesn’t work for why God allows humans to do bad things because God created them with full knowledge of how they would exercise that so-called “free will” and could have just as easily chosen not to create them.

That just doesn’t make sense to me, no matter what side of the argument I take. In this post, and others of yours, you seem unwilling to accept that God (should he exist) could create beings that would defy him.

IOW, sure God could have created beings that couldn’t, or wouldn’t, defy him. But it appears that there was no life before him, and that he desires to populate the heavens and earth with beings free to choose their course. Along the way, he lays out the benefits of following his direction, and the consequences of non-compliance; fully aware that some will choose life, and others will choose a course that will ultimately end in death.

You seem to be unable to grasp that some would actually choose [as a practical matter] death, and/or that God would endeavor to start a process in spite of the fact he [would] already know the outcomes.

But [should he exist] God’s fore-knowledge of your choices and life course are not mutually exclusive simply because you (‘you’ being any of us) don’t understand them, or believe them to be silly.

God could easily choose not to create people he knows will become psycho killers and unnecessarily creates them anyway. Choosing not to create them would not violate anyone’s free will, since people who never existed can’t be deprived of anything.

True. However, God’s foremost quality is love, so it would seem contrary to his qualities to ‘create’ psycho killers. But surely he could if he wanted to.

Nonetheless, it seems he didn’t. Rather, it seems that he made both spirit creatures and humans perfect, free from sin and with the inclination towards perfection. This perfection didn’t come with the loss of freedom or free will however, and any of them could choose imperfection and the death that would ultimately follow. No one who chooses death is deprived of anything either.

It seems to me, that it seems to you, that creating beings that God already knows will fail is a pointless excercise. It appears you feel that way. But it may also be that God wishes to have a universe populated with beings that have chosen to worship him,and follow his dorection and counsel.

Should he cut to the chase immediately because he already knows the result? You seem either unable, or unwilling, to understand that the outcomes are highly dependent on the process, on the choices, that people make freely. That God knows the outcomes doesn’t make those choices any less free, nor does it make them pointless. (or pre-determined)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@gigi

Do you think humans are capable of understanding anything fully?

Sure.

[Apos]

@Sapo

That is a valid question in the assumption that humans do not trascend their mortal lives.

This appears to be the “nothing is real” theodicy defense I referred to before, where somehow building a volcano so it topples over on someone’s baby is not bad because reality is an illusion, but killing that baby is bad because… what? I dunno, it’s like aesthetically displeasing or something to want to do things like that, even though none of the results or suffering mean anything.

[Apos]

@Shodan

If I am helping my child learn to ride a bike, is it my will that he fall off? Falling off is part of the process of learning, and it is my will that he learn to ride a bike. So on some level, it is in accordance with my will that he fall off, but that doesn’t mean I pushed him. And it might even be the case that I would do it if my son asks me, “Daddy, I think I got it, but would you run alongside me for a while longer just in case?” And of course I would comfort him if he fell.

Would you lay out a spike strip on either side of him so that IF he fell, he was horribly maimed and THEN help him learn to ride, resulting in him being horribly maimed?

Or how about the spike strip is there some days and not other days: would you take him out to learn to ride everyday anyway uninformed, regardless of your foreknowledge that he would definitely be maimed or killed that day?

Because that’s a heck of a lot more accurate analogy in many cases.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@the raindog

True. Because it is his will, however, doesn’t mean that he is influencing behavior, or the outcome. I may leave the cookie jar on the counter while I run errands (with the rule it remain unmolested) and yet be aware that it may be invaded by my kids.

Their transgression is only “my will” to the extent that I knew they may break the rules, and I took no action to prevent it. Surely I could have taken steps to restrict their choices. Nonethless, the fact they broke the rules doesn’t mean I wanted it to happen. I allow them the freedom to choose for themselves, and to experience the consequences of those choices.

Why not just referain from creating them?

That just doesn’t make sense to me, no matter what side of the argument I take. In this post, and others of yours, you seem unwilling to accept that God (should he exist) could create beings that would defy him.

What I’m unwilling to accept is that an omnimax, omnibenevolent God can logically coexist with evil.

IOW, sure God could have created beings that couldn’t, or wouldn’t, defy him. But it appears that there was no life before him, and that he desires to populate the heavens and earth with beings free to choose their course. Along the way, he lays out the benefits of following his direction, and the consequences of non-compliance; fully aware that some will choose life, and others will choose a course that will ultimately end in death.

You seem to be unable to grasp that some would actually choose [as a practical matter] death, and/or that God would endeavor to start a process in spite of the fact he [would] already know the outcomes.

What I’m unwilling to accept is that a God who is all-good would be logically capable of allowing evil to exist unnecessarily.

But [should he exist] God’s fore-knowledge of your choices and life course are not mutually exclusive simply because you (‘you’ being any of us) don’t understand them, or believe them to be silly.

I’m capable of understanding logical contradictions, and that’s all we’re talking about here.

True. However, God’s foremost quality is love, so it would seem contrary to his qualities to ‘create’ psycho killers. But surely he could if he wanted to.

If he wants to create them, he can’t be omnibenevolent.

Nonetheless, it seems he didn’t. Rather, it seems that he made both spirit creatures and humans perfect, free from sin and with the inclination towards perfection. This perfection didn’t come with the loss of freedom or free will however, and any of them could choose imperfection and the death that would ultimately follow. No one who chooses death is deprived of anything either.

It seems to me, that it seems to you, that creating beings that God already knows will fail is a pointless excercise. It appears you feel that way. But it may also be that God wishes to have a universe populated with beings that have chosen to worship him,and follow his dorection and counsel.

God could have a universe of people who choose to worship him simply by only creating people he knows will freely choose to worship him. Their free will would not be compromised by his fore-knowledge. Please understand, I am not talking about automatons or people who can’t choose evil. I’m talking about people who could choose evil, but won’t.

Should he cut to the chase immediately because he already knows the result?

In my opinion, yes.

You seem either unable, or unwilling, to understand that the outcomes are highly dependent on the process, on the choices, that people make freely. That God knows the outcomes doesn’t make those choices any less free, nor does it make them pointless. (or pre-determined)

But an omnimax God does not need a processs. If he needs a process, he’s not omnipotent. Unless somebone can show why it’s necessary for God to create people he knows wil choose evil, then the POE still stands.

[Sapo]

@Diogenes the Cynic

“Fullness of their implications?” What the hell does that mean? Is that some kind of “mysterious ways” defense? That’s no defense at all.

Choose your example, what we consider evil, harm, suffering or whathaveyou, is only so in the short term of our mortal perception, but the best possible thing once all things are considered.

To choose an utterly random and “shootdownable” example, maybe that tsunami averted an ever greater calamity, killed a Hitler in the making, spurred people otherwise apathetic into action, defused a killer ultramega earthquake that would opened the Earth like a coconut, who knows.

[Sapo]

@gigi

Do you think humans are capable of understanding anything fully?

in our mortal lives, not. At least not in any significant sense. Sure we can understand “simple” things like string theory, but not the trascendental matters of evil, freedom, god, etc.

I do believe that at some point, we will be able to share in the understanding of all those things, though.

[Sapo]

@Apos

This appears to be the “nothing is real” theodicy defense I referred to before, where somehow building a volcano so it topples over on someone’s baby is not bad because reality is an illusion, but killing that baby is bad because… what? I dunno, it’s like aesthetically displeasing or something to want to do things like that, even though none of the results or suffering mean anything.

oh, no. Life is very real indeed. It is just not the whole enchilada. There is more to human existence than our mortal life. No matter how dire our mortal life might be, there is still plenty of room for growth, love, rejection of God, etc.

(and my apologies for the triple post, it is just that my meatspace duties are preventing me from being here as much as I used to)

[Shodan]

@Apos

Would you lay out a spike strip on either side of him so that IF he fell, he was horribly maimed and THEN help him learn to ride, resulting in him being horribly maimed?

Or how about the spike strip is there some days and not other days: would you take him out to learn to ride everyday anyway uninformed, regardless of your foreknowledge that he would definitely be maimed or killed that day?

Because that’s a heck of a lot more accurate analogy in many cases.

Actually, in this case the accurate analogy would be whether or not to give him a bike in the first place, where bike = free will. Of course, a child is not an independent moral agent, so some of the argument based on consequence doesn’t apply either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Der_Trihs]

@Sapo

Choose your example, what we consider evil, harm, suffering or whathaveyou, is only so in the short term of our mortal perception, but the best possible thing once all things are considered.

A life filled with agonizing pain and despair is still a life filled with agonizing pain and despair, even assuming there is an afterlife. A belief for which there is neither evidence, nor even evidence that it’s even possible.

@Sapo

To choose an utterly random and “shootdownable” example, maybe that tsunami averted an ever greater calamity, killed a Hitler in the making, spurred people otherwise apathetic into action, defused a killer ultramega earthquake that would opened the Earth like a coconut, who knows.

And an omnipotent, or even moderately powerful god could prevent that greater disaster without the tsunami. And “spurred people otherwise apathetic into action” is not even close to a justification for mass death.

@Sapo

in our mortal lives, not. At least not in any significant sense. Sure we can understand “simple” things like string theory, but not the trascendental matters of evil, freedom, god, etc.

By what standard is freedom or evil “trascendental” ? And assuming that god is beyond our comprehension assumes that there is a god. There isn’t anything there to understand; just an exceptionally stupid and destructive form of self delusion.

[Sapo]

@Der Trihs

A life filled with agonizing pain and despair is still a life filled with agonizing pain and despair, even assuming there is an afterlife. A belief for which there is neither evidence, nor even evidence that it’s even possible.

If you believe in an afterlife, a life of agonizing pain and despair is more life a childhood of orthopedic boots, dental braces, broken arms and bleeding knees. Sure there are other kids who live without those, but nothing that will break you.

And an omnipotent, or even moderately powerful god could prevent that greater disaster without the tsunami. And “spurred people otherwise apathetic into action” is not even close to a justification for mass death.

Again, you are assuming a God with a gigantic remote control that changes everything on whim. The tsunami was preordained from the creation of the universe. Alas, people living there and their reactions to it were not.

By what standard is freedom or evil “trascendental” ? And assuming that god is beyond our comprehension assumes that there is a god. There isn’t anything there to understand; just an exceptionally stupid and destructive form of self delusion.

transcendental in that they have effects beyond our mortal life. And yes, I am assuming there is a God. To me, the opposite is just an exceptionally stupid and destructive form of self delusion. One that I can tolerate and accept without seeing the need to think less of those who hold it.