Christianity

[henry quirk]

...without them, man is rendered into event.

Nice turn of phrase.

I have my moments.

[owl of Minerva]

By Age:

“Also, finding, or coming to, 'wisdom', and then just leaving there, behind, to some, is NOT REALLY the BEST thing to do AT ALL. But these ones do feel, and have, a sense of responsibility for ALL, and not just to their OWN 'self'. In other words, they are NOT as selfish and greedy.”

By owl of Minerva:

You have a point there. I am just pointing out what generally happens to wisdom. Not to mention to those who reveal it. In the Dark Ages it was a hazardous thing to do. Today it does not generally lead to personal harm. But once it is the the public domaine it can be turned into something quite other. But truth-sharers have to live with that and not take umbrage at distortion nor feel responsible for where, or what, their insights leads to. A few seeds may fall on fertile ground, making it worthwhile.

[Sculptor]

yep

You paid for it.
Are the AMericans that thought it was a good idea evil?

don't I know it!

those who naively thought it was a legit up-lift: no

those who knew it was just a profit-makin' venture: yes

So though you know your country did evil you did nothing to stop it?
Did you vote for Bush?
Do you pay your taxes?

[henry quirk]

You paid for it.
Are the AMericans that thought it was a good idea evil?

don't I know it!

those who naively thought it was a legit up-lift: no

those who knew it was just a profit-makin' venture: yes

So though you know your country did evil you did nothing to stop it?
Did you vote for Bush?
Do you pay your taxes?

other than speakin' against it (and withholdin' tribute): what could I have done?

nope

not income, no; can't do anything about sales (except go black and gray, which I do, when I can)

-----

So though you know your country did evil you did nothing to stop it?

for the record: The State and certain corps did wrong, not the country

there is America, and there's The United States...they're not synonymous

[Belinda]

No, you've got your terms mixed up, B.

I don't know which "man" you mean, or why he "chooses that others suffer." I have no idea what "love" would have to do with that, and nothing you suggest reflects anything I suggested. So I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where to start here.

However, I think you're still hanging onto some Fatalistic idea. Or call it Deterministic, if you like. It's essentially the same.

Determinists are people who believe in ontic order .

No, they're not merely that. They aren't just people who believe in, say, natural laws or scientific priniciples, or whatever you mean by "ontic order." They're people who believe that some force predetermines all choices, so that human "freedom" is merely an appearance, and human beings are not themselves active contributors to cause-effect relations.

It's an absolute position. Any "choice," any genuine "human freedom," by existing falsifies Determinism. There can be no such things in the universe, according to their theory.

But nobody is saying anything about prediction when they become a Determinist. Most Determinists say that the material-causal factors involved are simply too complex for calculation. But you're right that in principle, if the calculation could be done, they think prediction would then be possible. Material cause and effect, they think, would ultimately account for every movement in the universe.

Either God can't intervene in His Plan or he can intervene in His Plan.

He can, obviously.

If He can't intervene in His Plan and is merciful then He is not all-powerful and that is why there is suffering.

He is powerful enough to prevent it, if preventing it would not also prevent us from being free individuals...which it would. So it's not a question of "power" but rather of the coherence of the objection. One cannot have "predetermined free" individuals. There are no such entities, just as there are no square circles.

If He can intervene in His Plan and allows suffering then He is not merciful.

This also does not follow. All God has to do, in order to vindicate His dealings, is to have sufficient reason to allow some suffering in the world. If He has sufficient reason, then it's better for God to allow some suffering than for Him to prevent all of it.

Does God have such sufficient reason? Yes, I would say He does. The surpassing value of creating free individuals is plausibly worth the cost; that cost being that some of them will choose to do the wrong things, or to reject even God Himself, and will create suffering thereby. But since some do not do that, and instead establish an eternal, free, individually-chosen relationship with God, then that very plausibly could have surpassing value.

With regard to your last two paragraphs that are crucial to a discussion of the problem of evil, we poor creatures
1. do the suffering whereas God does not suffer at all . I concur with the doctrine of Incarnation which answers that objection, although it must be said not all theists are Christians.

2. we poor creatures do not have the absolute magnanimity that would allow us to give God a blank cheque for quantity and quality of suffering.

[henry quirk]

God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

[owl of Minerva]

By Dontaskme:

“owl of Minerva wrote:

You are missing the point. There are two ways of knowing:

Dontaskme:

You are missing the point.

There is only one way of knowing.

...You know you do not know. The ONLY knowing there is.


Keep it simple.
…………………………………………………………………….


owl of Minerva:

Whatever floats your boat. You do not believe there is insight, or analysis of what is in the public domaine; two kinds of knowing. So long as “you know you do not know” you are on solid ground. You are not assuming anything.

[Immanuel Can]

With regard to your last two paragraphs that are crucial to a discussion of the problem of evil, we poor creatures
1. do the suffering

Would you rather not have free will or your "self," your own identity, if you could avoid suffering altogether?

whereas God does not suffer at all .

The crucifixion definitively proves otherwise.

...to give God a blank cheque...

Heh.

Who made man "God's banker"? Who made man God's judge? And what does God "owe" us? What "higher court" will you appeal to, in order to "get" what you think you are "owed" from God?

Meanwhile, He's given us life, freedom, choice, identity, truth, love and the offer of His salvation, which He paid for personally, in Jesus Christ His Son. He never "owed" us any of that, but He gave it anyway.

On our side, we gave Him back rebellion, hatred, bitterness, anger, pride, cruelty, ignorance, insults and contempt.

So who "owes" Whom what?

And when the court finally sits, what will the judgment be?

[Belinda]

God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

I understand this perspective. I don't hold to it because it demotes God to the status of the most magnificent human being.

[henry quirk]

God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

I understand this perspective. I don't hold to it because it demotes God to the status of the most magnificent human being.

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

[Belinda]

With regard to your last two paragraphs that are crucial to a discussion of the problem of evil, we poor creatures
1. do the suffering

Would you rather not have free will or your "self," your own identity, if you could avoid suffering altogether?

whereas God does not suffer at all .

The crucifixion definitively proves otherwise.

...to give God a blank cheque...

Heh.

Who made man "God's banker"? Who made man God's judge? And what does God "owe" us? What "higher court" will you appeal to, in order to "get" what you think you are "owed" from God?

Meanwhile, He's given us life, freedom, choice, identity, truth, love and the offer of His salvation, which He paid for personally, in Jesus Christ His Son. He never "owed" us any of that, but He gave it anyway.

On our side, we gave Him back rebellion, hatred, bitterness, anger, pride, cruelty, ignorance, insults and contempt.

So who "owes" Whom what?

And when the court finally sits, what will the judgment be?

You yourself are weighing Him in the balance see your second and third paragraphs This is what men do and is a reasoning thing to do. Do you think God wants us to abandon reasoning?

Incarnated God is a flexible concept. The sacrifice of Christ is not a once and for all event but is instead an ongoing process requiring a lot of effort for our parts. It is us who rights the balance. The myth of Christ is a fine and good myth but you do it no favours by insisting the myth is history.

[Belinda]

God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

I understand this perspective. I don't hold to it because it demotes God to the status of the most magnificent human being.

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

Who told you to say that?

It is idolatry to claim we poor animals are like the Almighty. We aim to be like His incarnation or his prophets and that is the most we are capable of.

[henry quirk]

I understand this perspective. I don't hold to it because it demotes God to the status of the most magnificent human being.

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

Who told you to say that?

It is idolatry to claim we poor animals are like the Almighty. We aim to be like His incarnation or his prophets and that is the most we are capable of.

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

[Belinda]

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

Who told you to say that?

It is idolatry to claim we poor animals are like the Almighty. We aim to be like His incarnation or his prophets and that is the most we are capable of.

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

A deist recognises humans are animals and a deist does not recognise an ongoing supernatural Being. A deist claims God made all this and then left it all to its own devices.

[uwot]

The question is What lies outside of the capacity of science to measure?

And I think the answer is meaning.

Well Gus, that is why people distinguish between science and philosophy. It is broadly understood that science does the observation and measurement and that philosophy does the meaning. The thing is, while in theory we all have access to the same data, we will not all attach the same meaning to it, and everyone in either field knows it. Here's a snip from something I wrote for the magazine a couple of years ago:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.” https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

Yeah, you can't measure meaning.