theodicy

Right, Bob. It’s all about me. I’m being lazy.

Look, with any luck you will be able to take your own comforting spiritual consolations with you to the grave.

I wish I were able to myself.

But, if not, given the amount of time over the years I have devoted to exploring questions such as this, it won’t be because I’m lazy. It’s because for the life of me I can no longer come up with a way to reconcile the world as I know it to be with a God, the God other than one who is nothing less than a sadist monster.

Although, sure, admittedly, He may well have “mysterious ways” that I am not privy to. I might die and, because He recognized the sincerity embedded in my struggle to understand all this with the free will He provided, He might grant me access to Heaven and once there I finally will be privy to why the world as I know it is what it is.

Maybe you and I and Ierrellus will get together from time to time up there and think back bemused at all this squabbling we had.

All’s well that ends well, right Bob?

Your problem is holding on to the concepts of God that you can’t reconcile. My suggestion to read Kastrup was an attempt to get you away from those ideas and look at a different take on reality. If you keep staring at an imagined monster, it won’t go away. What if reality is far different from the assumed materialistic vision that not only science, but very many Christians adhere to, is wrong? After all, our brains interpret what our senses give it, and when that process is slowed or impaired, it reveals a different reality, so what if our interpretation is wrong?

What if the myths of the Bible are just a “finger pointing to the moon”, and that the cultural symbols it uses are dated, and restricted to the time it was written, but still useful as an indicator of transcendence? There is so much we don’t know, so many other possibilities, and you are sat staring at a nightmare, refusing to get up and leave it behind you.

No, my problem remains this:

…for the life of me I can no longer come up with a way to reconcile the world as I know it to be with a God, the God other than one who is nothing less than a sadist monster.

And I will read Kastrup when you can note specific examples from his books that address the points I raise on this thread. Examples able to convince me that he is worth pursuing further. Otherwise you are just another Ierrellus or Felix insisting that I should read the authors that they believe will change my mind about how a God, the God that creates natural disasters and ghastly medical afflictions and virulent viruses and does nothing to end the staggering pain and suffering that has ever inundated the human species — especially among the truly innocent children – is not a sadistic monster.

Or look at the brutal savagery that encompasses all the other creatures in nature. What on earth was God thinking?!

After all, there’s nothing at all imaginary about the gruesome pain and suffering.

Note to others:

How on Earth is this relevant to the points I make regarding theodicy? How does this make any God, given human history and planet Earth to date, any less a very unloving unmerciful and unjust sadistic monster?

Pick one:

1] God’s mysterious ways
2] Harold Kushner’s God

Or, sure, your own explanation.

I know it sounds simplistic, but just don’t. What is causing you to bring the hypothesis God into the discussion at all? Is it that you want to protest at people who don’t have the problems with God that you have? Are you angry that people can have some faith in a transcendent power, and you can’t?

The problem is that you are not going to be helped unless you come away from the poison that ails you. It is a never-ending circle in which you move. If you can only ask one question, and not change to move out of the recurring frustrations, you will remain in your vortex, swirling about yourself in angry vigour, unable to look outside.

God was thinking? Like you or I?

Savagery means “an uncivilized or barbaric state or condition; barbarity.” The creatures in nature are uncivilised, nature is like that. But it was on Christian ethics, regardless of what some people made out of them, that western civilisation was built. Some prophet sat down and said, this world is as it is, but we have the inspiration to change it, at least where we are. What has arisen since then, isn’t perfect, but it is a whole lot better than it was. There is a lot to do.

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

On the other hand, with me, if you are ever intent on pinning this down please move on to others. I’m willing to accept that you have thought through your own definition of theodicy and are prepared to explore it given the way we both connect the dots between our understanding of God and the human condition.

Here though it would seem a distinction must be made between a theological assessment of theodicy and a philosophical assessment. After all, given the role that faith plays in most religious denominations, how far can logic go in broaching, assessing, evaluating and then judging God given the world as it is with all of the things that might be described as evil. Once one points in the general direction of God’s mysterious ways, what then of logic?

Though of course that won’t stop some from going there:

Though of course all of this starts with the mere assumption that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist. Think about it. You are asked to defend this God against the charge of being unloving, unmerciful and unjust – for some in being a sadistic monster – given all the terrible pain and suffering inflicted on humankind that is completely beyond their control. Meanwhile you are not even able to provide solid evidence that He exists in the first place.

Like many of us, I follow the news. And in those headlines are any number of ghastly reminders of all the terrible pain and suffering that is afflicted on men, women and children. Sometimes as a result of the choices we make.

Note to God:

Though not by the innocent children, right?

Sometimes as a result of one or another earthquake, flood, tsunami, volcanic eruption, tornado, etc.

Here, you can read all about them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disaster

Now, did or did not God create a universe that resulted in planet Earth being able to pummel us with these things over and over and over and over and over again. Including from time to time actual “extinction events” in which most of life – virtually all life – around the globe is wiped out.

And sometimes as a result all those terrible medical afflictions or microscopic bacteria and viruses that God created.

Now, two of the reasons some focus on God in regard to the pain and suffering we bring about by ourselves are that…

1] religious fanatics in and of themselves can cause this pain and suffering with regard to the “infidels”…either other religious denominations or those within their own flock who don’t behave exactly as they are told to. They can be dealt with from “shunning” all the way up to being beheaded.

2] to the extent that the millions around the globe flock to God for the answer, they are not out in the street protesting political policies sustained by governments that result in the pain and the suffering in the first place. Those, for example, that own and operate the very, very materialist/amoral “show me the money” global economy. Religion seen here from the “opiate of the masses” frame of mind.

Again, making me the problem. That way [as with Ierrellus] you can avoid altogether actually responding to the points I [and others] make about grappling to understand the world as it is and a God said by many to be loving, just and merciful.

How then are you and others not [eventually] back to this:

Are you kidding me? This general description intellectual/spiritual contraption is the example you give me of Kastrup confronting head on the points I make on this thread?!

Exercising what choice given what set of circumstances out in what particular world understood from what particular point of view in regard to God and theodicy?

Exactly my point! In nature, the main function of most new born life is to become the food for other creatures. All those cute little turtles scrambling for the sea and only about 1% of them will actually make it back to the island to lay their own eggs. Sometimes God deems it necessary for some creatures to consume their own babies. Or their own mates.

But: What can we possibly know of God’s will here? That or Kushner, right?

Though here is the explanation that you have come up with:

Unbelievable.

You know, from my point of view.

But you have managed to either think this up yourself or someone else planted it in your head as a child. And, again, it may comfort and console you all the way to the grave. And it puts all the terrible pain and suffering this Christian God has inflicted on humankind over the centuries in just the right perspective.

For you.

The part I root in dasein.

But that’s for another thread. This one: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529

Please feel free to join in.

Though, admittedly, part of my reaction here reflects my own inability to rethink myself into believing something just as comforting and consoling.

Bottom line: you come out as the “winner” here because you still can.

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

A lesser evil than raping or murdering an innocent child? Like raping or murdering two innocent children? A greater good that might be derived from it? Like the person who rapes or murders an innocent child, comes to see how terrible it is and then dedicates his or her life to doing only good deeds for innocent children?

Something like that?

Yes, if you can bring yourself to feel less outraged about the rape or murder of an innocent child by thinking like this then it worked for you. Whereas most are still more inclined to chalk it up to God’s mysterious ways.

All I think to say here is, “tell that to the innocent child who has been raped” or “tell that to the parents of the innocent child who has been murdered”. Though, again, admittedly, what would I tell them? That the rape or the murder is no less a component of an inherently meaningless and purposeless world? Or that in the absence of God even behaviors such as this can be rationalized by the sociopaths?

Of course even scholars derive their conclusions about things like this given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. It’s not like in being scholars this enables them to think out the problem of theodicy in the most rational manner. After all, where is the evidence and the logic that would allow them to accomplish this? Especially if they themselves have a child that has been raped or murdered. Or raped and murdered.

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

The God of Rabbi Kushner: npr.org/templates/story/sto … =124582959

This has always seemed to me to be the most reasonable [and reassuring] path to take. Here you can embrace a loving just and merciful God, and argue that for reasons well beyond the capacity of mere mortals to Grasp, He is not all-powerful. He set in motion a creation that somehow got beyond His control. And, thus, He is as distraught by the carnage brought on by Earth’s “natural disasters” – the latest in Haiti – as we are. I once even had a friend in the Unitarian Church who seriously believed that one day God would once again regain full control of things. Just not so far.

“In theory”, this can seem reasonable to some, but when you bring it down to Earth and note particular contexts in which this might play out, the waters inevitably get muddier.

Anyone here care to take a crack at it. “Goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent”?

Either in terms of the large events where there are conflicting assessments of good and evil…or smaller events that played out in your own day to day interactions with others in which convictions revolving around good and evil cropped up.

Again, forget all the other explanations. This is really the only one you need. There’s our “greater good” and God’s Greater Good. Simply have faith that however fucked your own life becomes [in Haiti and Afghanistan for example] as long as you worship and adore God and avoid committing too many sins you are all but guaranteed both immortality and salvation.

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Of course this immediately introduces the problem [for some] in trying to reconcile an omniscient God with free will. Whether in the direction of good or evil [whatever that means], if what you choose is already known in advance by this omnipresent, all-knowing God, how can it really be a free choice at all?

But let’s just assume that an omnipotent God manages to reconcile it as only He can.

Sure, when it comes to the terrible pain and suffering that men and women inflict on each other the free will argument is reasonable enough. God gives us the capacity to choose the good things or the bad things. So don’t blame Him if some of are selfish assholes concerned only with themselves.

Still, as an omnipotent God, doesn’t He have the capacity Himself to prevent this terrible pain and suffering. Of course: Cue His mysterious ways.

And yet that is not where I focus the beam here myself. It’s theodicy and natural disasters – what lawyers literally call “acts of God” – that most perplexes me. For example, a 150 mph sustained winds category 4 hurricane is now bearing down on Louisiana. Any number of men, women and children will find their lives uprooted. Some will die truly ghastly deaths. So, no matter how far God’s mysterious ways are stretched to explain things like this, I am unable myself to accept them as other than proof that an existing God is either not omnipotent or He is a sadistic monster.

This part:

Further, if God does exist and allowed for free will on my part, how can He then insist that the thoughts I think now about the possibility of Him being a sadistic monster are grounds for eternal damnation? It’s not like I can just flick a switch in my head and – presto! – think righteous thoughts instead.

The argument to natural evils against the so-called omni-god — all knowing, all powerful, and all good — is pretty conclusive imo. Still the theodicy practitioner will move the goal posts, offer ad hoc rationalizations, and if necessary fall back on the “mysterious ways” copout.

I feel, though, that the common argument that God’s omniscience precludes human free will should be addressed as a matter of logic. The argument is not just poor, it is logically invalid and ought to be discarded.

It goes:

Today I had eggs for breakfast.

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before I was born — for all eternity, in fact — that I would have eggs for breakfast today.

If God knew even before I was born that I would have eggs for breakfast today, then I could not have had pancakes or anything else for breakfast today. My choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, I have no free will.

The argument commits the modal scope fallacy. The fallacy consists in confusing logical contingency with logical necessity.

The fallacious argument goes:

If God knows today that I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow, then I must (necessarily) have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.

The modal scope fallacy occurs when one applies the logical concept of necessity to the consequent of the antecedent alone, rather than to the conjoint relationship between antecedent and consequent.

The corrected argument is:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.)

The necessity lies only in the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and my free act.

To be sure, If God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, I WILL have eggs — but it does not logically follow that I MUST have eggs. All that logically follows from God’s omniscience is that what God foreknows, and what I freely do, must MATCH (as a matter of logical necessity).

If I freely choose today to have eggs for breakfast, it means I have provided the truth grounds for God’s foreknowledge of what I do. It does not mean that I could not have had pancakes. For if I had had pancakes, an omniscient agent would have known THAT fact instead — and we would get:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have pancakes for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have pancakes for breakfast tomorrow.)

I am free to have eggs or pancakes. If I have eggs, God will foreknow that I have eggs. If have pancakes, God will foreknow that I have pancakes. I can have eggs or pancakes, or anything else that I wish. I just can’t escape God’s infallible foreknowledge of what I freely do. To employ modal logic’s logically possible worlds heuristic:

There is a possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.
There is a possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.

Next up:

Today, Mary aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells, Jane

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before Mary was born — for all eternity, in fact — that she would abort Jane today.

If God knew even before Mary was born that she would abort Jane today, then she could not have not aborted Jane today. Her choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, Mary has no free will.

Now, here is the even trickier part for some. Substitute Nature for God above. Trickier because even though some determinists argue that Mary was never able to opt not to abort Jane, unlike God, there is seemingly no intent behind the laws of Nature. No teleology. Only whatever the ontology is here going back to a complete understanding of Existence itself.

Logic applicable here.

In other words, accepting that the only reason logic exists at all is because “somehow” the laws of lifeless matter managed to configure into living biological matter configuring into human brains. The profound mystery of that.

Did you even read what I wrote? Did you read BEYOND the part that you quoted?

I have just demonstrated to you, via elementary modal logic, that God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s choice does NOT preclude her from either aborting, or not aborting, Jane. I have just SHOWED it to you!

Why don’t you attend to what I wrote rather than filter everything through your preconceived ideas, which are almost always wrong?

It seems you somehow missed this part. Please read carefully and try to read for comprehension:

Click.

Yes, I read it. But all it demonstrates to me is that if I can ever come to agree with you about the definition and the meaning that you give to this “intellectual contraption” assessment below the actual existential context above, I’ll agree with you.

Note to others:

Give it your best shot…

In the manner in which you think you understand what this…

“I have just demonstrated to you, via elementary modal logic, that God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s choice does NOT preclude her from either aborting, or not aborting, Jane. I have just SHOWED it to you!”

…means, please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary given what you construe to be the actual “for all practical purposes” relationship between the laws of a seemingly mindless Nature [rather than the Commandments of an omniscient, mindful God], her brain and the fate of Jane.

Nature and theodicy?

By coincidence, the very thing I am attempting to explore with Maia here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197290

Assuming Mary has half a brain, she would understand easily. You are another matter.

If God knows in advance that Mary WILL DO a certain thing, it does not logically follow that she HAS TO (MUST) do that thing. If Mary does something else, then God will know that SOMETHING ELSE instead. How hard is this for you to comprehend?

Yes, God will always know in advance what Mary will do. But Mary is free to do as she wishes. It is just that what she does, and what God knows, must MATCH. I showed this to you with the possible worlds heuristic. Honestly, do you have anything at all intelligent to say on this board?

It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe.

Translation:

"Assuming Mary thinks about Nature, it’s laws and human pain and suffering in exactly the same manner as I do — theoretically for example – she necessarily understands me easily. "

Right, like you are completely adept at applying the logic of infinitesimally tiny specks of existence that are mere mortals here on planet Earth to an omniscient God that knows in advance everything that Mary will do; but that somehow “logically” Mary can still choose to do something other than what He already knows she will do. He’ll just know that instead.

And then because I refuse to accept his own “theoretical constructs” here [because, let’s face it, no actual God has been demonstrated to exist able to actually resolve it] this necessarily demonstrates instead that I have nothing intelligent to say here.

And, irony of ironies, all I’m really doing here is pointing out how this…

“It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe”

…is precisely how he goes about exchanging “serious philosophy” here.

No. Mary can understand what I am saying without agreeing with me. If she understands but disagrees, she can say, “I understand what you are arguing for, but I disagree for the following reasons: x,y,z …” See? That’s how philosophical conversations go. Why can’t you learn that?

That’s exactly right. It’s a simple modal logical demonstration.

You certainly haven’t demonstrated much knowledge here, but it does not follow that you necessarily have nothing intelligent to say. See: modal logic.

That’s wrong as a matter of fact. I have already stated that I could be wrong in some of my arguments, though the modal argument described above is a matter of logic. In any case, since I have stated, specifically in the determinism thread, that my take on regularity theory could be wrong, you either can’t read for comprehension, or you are lying.

Yes, as long as the discussion revolves around “simple modal logic”. The demonstration as well basically coming down to how you argue about the theoretical relationship between God and nature and abortion and human pain and suffering.

And how on Earth would you actually demonstrate that your God [the one in your head] can be omniscient and yet Mary can still choose not to do what He as an omniscient entity already knows what she will do from the cradle to the grave. How he knows instead this different thing that she chooses to do.

Really, what might this demonstration actually consist of? Could it perhaps be videotaped and put on YouTube?

You would never allow the fact that next to an omniscient God you are just an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence get in your way would you? After all, consider all the many, many others here over the years with their own grand TOE. They never let that stop them from insisting that, no, it’s how they view these “metaphysical” relationships that pins it down. I call this the James S. Saint Syndrome myself.

No wild ass guesses from them!

Modal logic, meet “the gap”. :laughing:

Okay, if you admit that you could be wrong about some of your arguments, pin that down to those parts you might be wrong about in a discussion with Mary if she behaves in a manner that causes pain and suffering to others…given that an omniscient God knew that she would cause this pain and suffering for others. How could she logically choose not to cause this pain and suffering instead.

NOTE: I don’t believe that any God, or omniscient, agent exists. This is an argument about logic that predates Christian theism. The argument is called the Problem of Future Contingents, also known as Logical Determinism. Bringing an imaginary God into the picture is just a subset of Logical Determinsim. It is called Epistemic Determinism.

I already have demonstrated it. Pity you can’t read for comprehension.

I will make it simpler.

Here is the fallacious argument that God knowing in advance what Mary will do, forces Mary to do that thing:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D

In the above argument, Premise 3 is false. It commits the modal scope fallacy.

The corrected argument goes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃D
————————
∴ D

The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. We see (from other threads) that Causal Determinism fails to impugn human free will. Now we see that Logical and Epistemic Determinism also fail to impugn human free will.

Hope that helps.

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Ah, third parties. The evils that mere mortals are responsible for because God gave them free will and they chose to use it to, among other things, rape and murder and commit themselves to genocide. Then the “logical possibility” that “non-God supernatural beings and fallen angels” are responsible for the natural disasters that are erroneously attributed to the loving, just and merciful God. And why does an omnipotent God not just flick His wrist and send them tumbling into oblivion? Of course: His mysterious ways.

Exactly.

God either is or is not omnipotent. Things like the Devil or supernatural beings are either no match for this omnipotent God or God has His mysterious reasons for allowing them to plague mere mortals with utterly endless calamities that have absolutely nothing to do with their own free will.

And, for all practical purposes, how exactly does the relationship between God and the Devil/supernatural beings work? Why this disaster here and not there? And why would God both allow for these terrible things and yet allow in turn for mere mortals to lessen the damage. Create the covid-19 virus but also allow medical science to create vaccines for it. Then the part where bad things here happen to good people. What on earth is He thinking?