Who's left?

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't really understand the arguments that EA and Darth are making, but since I feel good about what they are saying they must be correct.


by the way, threads like these are why this board is worthwhile.

(Another emotional response I can't explain but know to be true.)

I'm just sitting down this evening trying to digest all this stuff. VERY interesting and thought provoking. Thanks to those that have take the time to respond thus far. I have a few things and/or questions to put out there, but I need to go back and reread and try and assimilate what's being said...

I have to agree Fence Sitter, it's threads like this one where there's some real thought and insight (almost too much for me... ) going into what's being said that makes this board worth hanging around at, now and then.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

OK, what I'm reading between the lines so far is that ultimately, if there is a creator/God who is responsible for us being here on earth, then that same God is also responsible for the evil in the world as he could have created the world where there wasn't the evil that exists as it does. And since according to logical inconsistencies the evil negates or discourages belief in a good God, we are left with a monster/cruel god or no god at all. I know there's more ins and outs to all of this as can be ascertained from your input so far, but for the sake of brevity let me ask the following question.

May we keep things as simple as we can for those of us, at least Fence Sitter and myself , who may not have extensive training in the logical method of analysis? Those of you in the law professions and the professional applied/theoretical sciences obviously have the advantage in using logical argument and in depth inquiry. There are a lot of folks, however, that would like something they can "take to the bank" and go along their way with some sound understanding that can help them/us as we try to get a handle on "truth".

First question (and I'll probably, if it's OK with Darth, Chap, and EAllusion, ask some other questions later, and one at a time, so they don't get all mish mashed together.

Preface- I know this sounds like a really simple and even lame question, but for starters I think it needs to be presented up front.

As you moved along your individual faith journeys and found yourself at a place where you no longer had a god belief, or at least a belief in the God of Mormonism, at what juncture did you ascertain that Jesus Christ was not "good enough" to make/cause all the evil in the world, of whatever stripe, to become negligible in its long range effect/ramifications through the cosmic event/process that we refer to as The Atonement of Jesus Christ? In other words's, why did you finally decide that the atonement of Jesus Christ wasn't going to "cut it" in explaining the evil/opposition/sin that is in the world (and alleviating the problem/conundrum of a good God allowing evil), and that as Joseph Smith was purportedly told by the Lord, "thine afflictions (and everyone else that has ever lived) shall be but a small moment"? For now, please leave anything having to do with a mythical/historical Jesus, THE MAN, out of the picture. Answer the question based on the hypothetical that if there's a good God and there is evil in the world, what cosmic event/reality would be necessary to "make it all right"?

Regards,
MG

[_EAllusion]

Answer the question based on the hypothetical that if there's a good God and there is evil in the world, what cosmic event/reality would be necessary to "make it all right"?

I've always been a non-theist, so that part of the hypotehtical is out the window. As far as the question, "What can Jesus do to make it all better?" that misunderstands the nature of the problem.

The problem is that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God does not let gratuitous suffering occur.* That is evil, so a good being who had the knowledge and power to prevent it does not do that. It never, ever happens, otherwise the being in question is at least partially malevolent. So nothing can be done to make it all right in that sense. The suffering we see can't be gratuitous. There must be a reason that it is necessary for a greater good. There is a theodicy that argues that an eternity of blissful afterlife offsets a finite lifespan of suffering, but that is incorrect unless it justifies it in some way.

So, you may be asking, what can be done in the future what would justify all the inscrutable suffering we see? To that, the answer is I have no idea. That's why it's a problem.

*The God of the LDS faith may not be all-knowing or all-powerful as classical theism asserts, but insofar as God is powerful and knowledgeable enough to prevent gratuitous suffering, the same argument applies.

[_Darth J]

Answer the question based on the hypothetical that if there's a good God and there is evil in the world, what cosmic event/reality would be necessary to "make it all right"?

Let's say hypothetically that everyone who believes in geometry has defined a square as a shape that has four equal sides that are joined at right angles to each other. What cosmic event would be necessary to make a square have three sides but still fit this definition?

So, you may be asking, what can be done in the future what would justify all the inscrutable suffering we see? To that, the answer is I have no idea. That's why it's a problem.

How many presents would I have to get my kids for Christmas to morally justify beating them silly, starving them, and making them sleep outside during the rest of the year?

[_Gadianton]

Let's say hypothetically that everyone who believes in geometry has defined a square as a shape that has four equal sides that are joined at right angles to each other. What cosmic event would be necessary to make a square have three sides but still fit this definition?

Amen to that brother.

But when are you guys going to let MG in on the secret that your analysis only applies to God, not an evolved space alien carousing the galaxy, spreading his seed?

[_mentalgymnast]

Answer the question based on the hypothetical that if there's a good God and there is evil in the world, what cosmic event/reality would be necessary to "make it all right"?

Let's say hypothetically that everyone who believes in geometry has defined a square as a shape that has four equal sides that are joined at right angles to each other. What cosmic event would be necessary to make a square have three sides but still fit this definition?

So, you may be asking, what can be done in the future what would justify all the inscrutable suffering we see? To that, the answer is I have no idea. That's why it's a problem.

How many presents would I have to get my kids for Christmas to morally justify beating them silly, starving them, and making them sleep outside during the rest of the year?

You're twisting things around without actually answering my first question. Can you just stick to the question itself without going off somewhere else? Let's not get into squares and beat up kids.

It's all about Jesus and whether or not there was something "special" about this guy. So would you humor me, and go back and answer my first question without a runaround?

Thanks,
MG

[_Gadianton]

Hi MG,

Darth J's response to your question was brilliant.

if there's a good God and there is evil in the world, what cosmic event/reality would be necessary to "make it all right"?

I need you to consider something:

It's redundant to modify "God" with "good". Do you understand why?

If there is a good omnibenevolent entity...?

Since omnibenevolent means infinitely good, you ask professor J to, "Suppose there is a good, infinitely good entity?"

Does the bolded instance of the word "good" convey anything about God that wouldn't otherwise be understood had the word been left out?

It might seem that I'm being too picky over your expression but I'm not. What I want to show you is that the way you wrote your question demonstrates your tacit agreement with Professor J's ridicule.

No one would write, "Suppose there is a good God" or "Suppose there is a four-sided square" unless in his mind, the word "God" or "square" meant something that could be so modified to convey additional information about "God" or "square".

A geometrical ignoramus might state the latter sincerely. As a die-hard TBM, who envisions God as a robed, white male, sporting a thick white beard, it makes perfect sense for you to refer to this man as good. In your mind, you are saying this:

"If there is a good, robed, white male with a thick white beard, who has achieved immortality and who created the world and there is evil in the world, then what cosmic event can make this right?"

And this is perfectly acceptable speaking. There are no contradictions and no redundancies in speaking here. But what you must understand is that your conception of the word "God" is not acceptable. Once you come to understand that by definition, God is omnibenevolent, then what you're asking is:

"Suppose there is a good, infinitely good entity who is incapable, by definition, of being the cause of any and all evil, who created the world, and there is evil in the world he created, then what cosmic event can make this right?"

Now do you understand the professor's object lesson about squares and triangles?

What you first need to do is argue with the professor over the definition of God. You need to convince professor J that "God" is the title -- like "CEO" -- of the bearded white man who created the earth, and not an entity with "omnibenevolent" as a predicate. From there, you can entertain how much evil he's allowed to create and how could he fix it if he were so inclined.

Just a warning: there is more logical reasoning of the square and triangle kind that may make it difficult for you to lower the bar on the definition of "God".

[_Darth J]

You're twisting things around without actually answering my first question. Can you just stick to the question itself without going off somewhere else? Let's not get into squares and beat up kids.

Squares and beating up kids is exactly the question. The question about the problem of evil is what the definition of the Abrahamic God is---omniscient, omnibenevolent, and and omnipotent---and what morality is.

Since you brought Jesus into this, and as I already mentioned upthread, Jesus told his followers in the Sermon on the Mount to think about the way they treat their children, and that by doing so we can imagine that our Heavenly Father is much more good (grammatically, that should be "better," but I am trying to stick with the word "good") than we are in how he treats his children.

If you don't like that standard of measuring morality, your argument is with Jesus of Nazareth, not me. But that is a fair way of assessing Elohim's alleged goodness. If it would be wrong for us to do it to our own children, why would it be right for Elohim to do it to his? You've already conceded the point that Elohim must have some sense of morality that is inscrutable to us, which means you are inadvertently conceding that you have no basis to assert that Elohim is good because you are incapable of understanding what his sense of morality is.

For all you know, Elohim is not deciding between your concept of good and evil, but between your concept of bacon and necktie, as in the blue and orange morality graph I posted.

It's all about Jesus and whether or not there was something "special" about this guy. So would you humor me, and go back and answer my first question without a runaround?

No, it isn't all about Jesus. Anyone has this problem if they profess belief in a deity that is said to be all powerful, all knowing, and all good. That's why a lot of Jews lost their faith when the Holocaust happened. How could the God of Abraham allow that to happen to his covenant people?

The problem of evil is also a problem for Islam, which says that Allah has these same attributes.

And the problem of evil is thought to have been first articulated by Epicurus, not particularly known for his devout Christianity.

It's not all about Jesus.

[_Chap]

I may not have phrased my argument with great care, but I certainly intended more than mere mockery of Plantinga. My intention was to point to the fact that the demons themselves matter too: if they suffer unwilled evil due to the way their demon-level of existence in the universe is constituted, then God is liable for that.

The only way out for God is for the demons' level of existence, like ours, to be subject in every respect to the willed actions of a higher level of demons, who are (by similar arguments) themselves subject to the willed actions of a level of demons higher still, who ...

and Plantinga seems to be forced into an infinite regress. Demonstrating such a regress is normally taken as a fairly serious attack on a position, is it not?

You're missing it. The argument is that the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God is logically incompatible with the existence of evils. Evils exist, therefore God does not. Plantinga attacks this argument by arguing that even an omnipotent God cannot create a world where beings have moral freedom and evils necessarily do not exist. So if moral freedom is more morally desirable than a world in which only moral good exists, which is logically possible, then the logical incompatibility argument falls. Your reply, the natural one, is to say that not all evils in our world are caused by the actions of agents. What about natural disasters? Plantinga responds, well it is logically possible spiritual agents, demons if you will, cause those. Everything bad not attributable to observable agents, in theory, could be caused by them. This doesn't have to be likely. It just has to be possible because it is aimed at the assertion that the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God is logically incompatible with the existence of evils.

Your retort shows that you are aren't quite getting it. You don't need an infinite regress of demons. Demons can cause each other's misfortune. What you need is a logically possible way to attribute all evils to moral freedom. The demon argument suffices for that. Is it implausible? And how, so it would suck as a reply to the probability based version of the argument.
...

I am not sure you have got my point. Look, let's dump the loaded word 'demons', with its associations of magic, evil and malevolence, and just say this:

A. It is an argument against the goodness of a creator deity to say that he created a world inhabited by a type of conscious person with free moral choice (PersonsX) to whom two types of bad things happen:

1. Things done to PersonsX because of the willed action of other PersonsX.
2. Things that happen to PersonsX because of the way the creator designed the world they inhabit. That kind of thing would appear to be the creator's responsibility.

Now

B. Plantinga attempts to avoid A2 by saying that the bad things that happen to PersonsX may not be the fault of the creator's world-design, but in fact occur through the agency of another group of conscious persons with free moral choice, PersonsY.

C. EAllusion attempts to defend this from an attack on the 'infinite regress' pattern by claiming that these PersonsY are so constituted that the only bad things that happen to them are because of the agency of other PersonsY.

D. So the creator is able to create conscious persons with free moral choice (PersonsY) who suffer no evil that is the consequence of how he created them, apart from evil that is the consequence of willed actions of others of their own kind.

It therefore appears to be a valid criticism of the creator's moral choices to say that since he was able to create PersonsY that way, he could have done the same for PersonsX, but chose not to do so.

[_mentalgymnast]

Squares and beating up kids is exactly the question. The question about the problem of evil is what the definition of the Abrahamic God is---omniscient, omnibenevolent, and and omnipotent---and what morality is.

And in addition to that is the LDS concept of God. The omni's become a bit less hard nosed within Mormon parlance. According to Mormon doctrine people have existed in some form, along with God, for a long time before this "mortal probation". He was greater than "them all". He provided a plan for us to become more like Him. He knew more than any of us. He had progressed much farther than any of us. He is "omni", to us. But to say that he has absolute power over all, is by all observations, impractical and unrealistic. When you continue to use "omni" as an absolute quality, it distorts the picture of the world as we see it, with independent beings acting according to their own will and at the same time impacting the will/agency of others. To try and wrap our minds around God's "morality" by comparing us (fallen, imperfect beings) to Him (a perfected Being), is doomed from the start. Yet this is what you're doing. Ascribing our morality which is based on wrong/right in a world where there is death/destruction/misery that often brings about physical torment/disease/death to His sense or morality, where he can see the end from the beginning and what transpires after death where there is no death/destruction/misery (in the sense that we experience it here on earth) is impossible, and yet you and others attempt to do it and place absolute value on your judgments as to what is then right and/or wrong for God to do with his own creations. In other words's, when you use examples of rapists, child beating, and other horrific examples of people doing bad things to people...I see no direct connection between this and God's morality. He isn't raping and causing mayhem. But yes, he allows it to happen within a world where absolute agency reigns supreme. And the world (tectonic plates-earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, weather patterns, and what have you) is what it is and people are in some cases severely impacted by the natural disasters that occur. To put that in God's lap is also unrealistic as the world would not "work" if the natural patterns of earth's re-creative actions, and maintenance functions were to be over ridden continually, miraculously, to protect every human life.

Putting "evil" in the lap of God and then using that "evil" to then push him under the rug and/or say that He doesn't exist is risky behavior as far as my eyes can see and my mind can judge. Much of the evil is human caused by independent beings doing their own thing. Does God want/wish them to do it? Of course not. He would rather that people love one another. This is reinforced continually in the teachings of the New Testament. Natural disasters and disease are going to happen in a world that works such as this one to recreate and maintain itself. To we put death and destruction in God's lap? I don't think so. It just happens.

Here's where, if there is a God, has created a fail safe mechanism. And that's where I maintain that Jesus is relevant. This event that we refer to as the atonement, if cosmic in significance, is the vehicle or catalyst for renewal and/or regeneration of a fallen world and its inhabitants. Without an effective atonement/mechanism for all the "crap" to be made right, then it is easy or even necessary to ascribe all the "crap" to God, because there's no way out of the "crap", and all of it would be unjust and unfair.

But Jesus is the answer, if you believe. God doesn't become something other than "good". He has our best interests in mind but cannot control factors beyond His control. I do not see any reason, in the world as I see it, to believe otherwise. You are dogmatically asserting your claims as a result of an interpretation that you are putting on scripture and/or you interpretation of the "omni's", even when those definitions have been promoted by some so called LDS theologians and/or spiritual file leaders.

It's not all about Jesus.

I think it is. But I'll have to admit, without Him you've got an AWFULLY good argument. It may well be that we will not be able to get beyond my first question. Everything else is stacked on top of it.

Regards,
MG