> I think (at the moment) that God created people with free will, and the ability to use it.
I agree with that. It’s a bit like a parent who doesn’t have absolute control over the kids.
If not for free will, we’d be a bunch of robots.
cmkeller
Thanks, Chaim.
You know what, you’ve just confirmed my extension of Pascal’s Wager :>
Pascal orginally only conceived of one god, the Christian one. A couple of the standard rebuttals have been the multiplicity of faiths in the world, and the potential for infinite unknown gods.
Let’s allow just for fun one Christian rebuttal that it wouldn’t be an unknown god, since the church’s size and success is directly attributable to supernatural intervention. Ah, but what church?
If we’re going to gamble, the choice is easy.
Pick the most evil god - it’s actually what’s worked in Christian conversions in the past. People sign up to avoid hell fire.
Muslims will eventually let you out of hell if you remember the magic words to repeat to Malik. “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” (it’s probably pretty easy to believe when you’re in hell)
Jews, while they don’t worry about it much, have a one year time limit on hellfire, and you have to be actually bad, not an unbeliever as far as I know.
Buddhists aren’t necessarily religious, but when they are, they seem to tend towards reincarnation. Ditto Hindus.
Most minor tribal religions seem to tend towards one afterlife for all, or reincarnation.
Only Christianity promises either obliteration (versions of Christianity trying to reinterpret NT in a “nice” fashion) or eternal agonizing hellfire.
One might further extrapolate a need to convert to the most conservative, radical branch of Christianity, since some of the fringe ones would probably let you off even if you were an infidel.
Are you saying that the traditional Christian interpretation of God’s commands to the Jews is that they were just given to them so they could see how impossible they were? “Here ya go, Jews–make a four-sided triangle. ::snicker:: [whispered aside] I’ll let them try for a couple thousand years, then reincarnate myself so’s I can tell them they don’t have to do the triangle thing.” I mean, some Christian beliefs seem rather odd to me, but this one is just nuts. Heck, non-Jews only had to do the Noachide laws, which I’d hardly rank as impossible.
You can’t choose to stand on top of the World Trade Center, leap off, and fly to New Jersey. Does that make you a robot?
Because the pallet of available options excludes one choice does not eliminate free will.
Kyberneticist
Actually, I’m not sure I could. (Personally, I subscribe to Libertarian’s idea that physical suffering is a neutral phenomenon.) I said that neither the dragon believer nor the non-believer knows why dragons don’t immediately consume damsels. I went on to give a plausible explanation to show that one may exist despite the ignorance of believer and non-believer on the subject of the dragon’s intentions. Mysterious Ways doesn’t give an explanation, it just allows that one may exist.
xenophon41
I believe that philosophers of religion always define “God” as a being with all the omni attributes. If one or more are missing, they use “god” (small “g”) or “supreme being.”
That’s a whole ‘nother argument. The philosophical definition of God includes all the omni traits, but does not indicate whether any specific religion’s deity meets all the qualifications. In my opinion, your description of “Dragon as Jehovah,” eliminates a fundamentalist-interpreted “god” from the list of potential “Gods”, but it doesn’t prove that a perfect God is logically impossible.
Ptahlis
The very limited assertion in your second sentence is all that Mysterious Ways can claim. If a believer uses MW as postive proof that God exists, or that xenophon’s Jehovah-Dragon-God can exist, then they are using the argument in the wrong way. Mysterious Ways can only claim that a perfect God is not logically precluded by the presence of evil in the world.
Yes.
That’s the whole problem. Mysterious Ways doesn’t explain ANYTHING. It simply says - “Well, the reason we have suffering in the world is it provides spiritual growth (kind of a reverse maslow’s hierarchy of needs. supposedly you advance spiritually best when deprived and in pain), and God can’t provide this growth any other way.” It offers NO explanation as to why God can’t provide this growth. Therefore, it is a non-explanation, just like the dragon that can’t show itself to nonbelievers. Granted, as you can tell, I think the psychology behind Mysterious Ways is repugnant, and I’m sure people working in disaster areas, famine zones, and emergency rooms would agree. “God sent that hurricane to teach a lesson”?
Dumb Ox, it’s really hard to argue with you when I agree completely with your last summary statement:
(as long as we accept that a God with the expectations of the Jehovah Dragon is not “perfect”.)
I suppose I’ll have to tackle the only thing you said in your last post that I truly disagree with:
Let’s take Lib’s idea of morality being based on the decisions of the heart at face value for the moment. I have to believe that because our spiritual growth is played out within the boundaries of our physical existence, physical suffering must play a role in providing choices for the heart to make, and therefore cannot be considered neutral.
(Any comments, Lib?)
In two words: Acayib Pinsky.
I realize that about 85% of those reading are going, “Huh?” while the other 15% (Spider Robinson readers, and therefore my beloved friends) are going “Oh, yeah!”
Acayib (ah-KAY-ib) is a fictional character who suffers from a (real) rare syndrome that apparently affects a small number of ethnic Jews (and apparently no one else) in which one cannot lacrimate, sweats profusely, has impaired balance, and, most importantly, does not feel pain. And, as Spider is quick and careful to show, this is not a bed of roses. To give one quick but telling example, Acayib had a physical in which his doctor found and removed a bullet from his back. He had absolutely no awareness of how it had come to be lodged there, though it’s a reasonable assumption he had been shot.
Pain exists to tell us that we are hurting. Say you stand up, trip over the dog, fall, and pull a muscle. For the next few days, you favor the part of your body with the pulled muscle, in order to prevent it from hurting – and to allow it to heal. That’s the purpose of pain.
Now, why does an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God allow suffering to happen to people? Can you draw the obvious parallel?
So suffering (pain) exists to tell us that we are injured so we will not aggravate the injury and can heal? What “injury” would a child have that would require him to be abused by his father so that this abuse will help him to “heal”? You may say the parallel is obvious, but I don’t follow you here.
If you are saying that suffering encourages spiritual grwoth, I’ll have to extend your metaphor a bit. There is also unnecessary pain; some people suffer from terrible, chronic, unending pain from “injuries” that are relatively minor and would not harm the body to be left unattended, and yet cannot be healed. The pain does not help them to heal in this instance. Pain can also prevent healing; severe pain raises the blood pressure and exhausts the body so it cannot heal itself–that’s one reason why it’s so important to control pain well in hospitals. Do you see the parallel here, too? Sometimes suffering does help people become better; sometimes it breaks them. I cannot fault a child who has been raped and abused all his life if he does not grow spiritually because of it, and I would say the child would have been much better off spiritually with a loving home. The suffering he went though does not heal him, it just hurts him. Minor pains and sufferings may have their uses, but it’s awful hard to justify some of the terrible tragedies that truly can break people. Was a brutal gang-rape necessary to allow a woman to grow spiritually? Shall we fault her if she can never overcome the trauma and have a healthy relationship again? What was the purpose of her pain?
The brain will find whatever it can to fulfill the decision of the Spirit. Think of it this way: the knife didn’t kill Nicole Simpson. OJ did.
Consciousness provides the metaphysical equivalent of a reference frame.