Created everyone in heaven is not a bad plan. It's just that God is beautiful and loves beauty, and is willing to sacrifice for us to achieve that beauty.

Honor and nobility of patience and fortitude. The beauty created in the soul for those who are patient and thankful is worth it. The power of resolve when you have to fight for it, is simply more beautiful, when you don't.

God's plan is simply more beautiful, though we must endure and strive.

Sacrifice? How is us suffering his sacrifice?

The existence of heaven knocks out all the feeble excuses about why this life is so ungodly.

(March 11, 2016 at 3:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: Sacrifice? How is us suffering his sacrifice?

From my belief, no one is grieved more (although it is without harm and pain) then God over lost souls. 

"O (extreme) grief over my servants, not a Messenger comes to them but that they mock him"

The other aspect is that we borrow existence from his existence. We belong to him more then we belong to our parents. He is closer to us then our blood veins, although, blood is important as well.

(March 11, 2016 at 1:12 pm)robvalue Wrote: God is supposed to be all powerful. That is absurd, but if I accept that, then no other analogy is fitting. He could easily make it so that sex is possible, but non consensual sex isn't.

If he can't do that, he's not anything like all powerful.

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of will / free will. The *only* difference between consensual sex and non-consensual sex is willingness. People having consensual sex (freely) chose to have it. One or more people having non-consensual sex did not freely choose to have it.

So yes, an all powerful God could have easily made it so that non-consensual sex wasn't possible...by negating free will. That is, by making it impossible for a human to even consider the choice "Should I have sex with this person who doesn't want me to?". That is literally the only way God could do that, other than swooping down every time someone was about to get raped, which as I pointed out, has it's own problems (if God prevents all evil, then humans have no knowledge of evil, therefore cannot redeem themselves).

You are also making the false assumption that an all powerful being *has* to do certain things a certain way. That isn't necessarily the case; presumably God also has free will, so he also has a choice in the things he does. Just because God could make a human being who never died for instance, doesn't mean he necessarily wants to do that.

I think what you are perhaps confusing is omnipotence and omnibenevolence, or at least a combination of the two. That is to say, if a God is all-good and all-powerful, he would logically stop all evil (because if he failed to stop all evil, either he is not all good, or is not all powerful). However, again we can argue free will; that God can be all-good and all-powerful, but holds human's free will as more important than getting directly involved.

To use an analogy of parenting. If a parent spots their child about to make a mistake, is it good parenting to stop them before the mistake is made (and therefore preventing them from being aware of the mistake itself) or is it better to let them make the mistake and learn from it themselves? I'd argue that both examples are good parenting, depending on how you look at them, but each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

(March 11, 2016 at 1:22 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Then maybe we wouldn't have arms and legs - some animals do survive without them.

Right, but we do. I fail to see what this "what if" has to do with anything.

Quote:We would theoretically conceptualize evil, but none of us would have the desire to do it. Why should we understand it any deeper when none of that is actually happening?

I don't think you can trivialize evil like that. Evil isn't some singular ability like flying; it's not really an ability at all. It's a way of using an ability. Sex with a willing partner is not evil; sex with an unwilling partner is, for example. Flying isn't evil, but flying into buildings is.

The problem with being able to conceptualize evil is that as soon as you can, you know how you could do evil things.

As for not having the desire to do it; again, that violates free will, which again brings me back to my original point.

(March 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Kiekeben Wrote: And why should anyone agree that that is a good plan? What would be wrong with God simply creating heaven? 

Speaking of which, is there free will in heaven? If there is, then there can be free will without the bad consequences (all you need is a place where there can be no physical or emotional harm, and there you go - assuming fw makes sense, individuals can still act freely, but no one gets hurt). And if there isn't fw in heaven, then why is fw important in the first place?

Lastly, even if there is fw (here on earth), I for one have no desire - and am sure I never will have the desire - to, say, kill an innocent person. Nevertheless, on your view, I still presumably have fw. So why couldn't God have created only humans who have no bad desires?

I'm not a theologian or even a believer, so I can't answer you. Whether or not it's a good plan is irrelevant to the point though; the Christian doctrine is that humans cannot understand God (the "mysterious ways" argument), so whether or not you personally think it's a good plan, if you are a Christian you have to take it on faith that it is.

(March 11, 2016 at 10:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so.  I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky.  I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency."  (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption?  In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?  

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

No worries. My skin isn't particularly thick, but it's almost impossible to annoy me while being polite and sincere.

The question is whether an exception for God is properly justified. In the case of arguments that posit God as a solution to infinite regression, the fallacy of special pleading is being committed. It is asserted that everything must have a cause, that this would mean an infinite regression of cause and effect, that an infinite regression is impossible so there must be a First Cause, and the First Cause is God. That an infinite regression is impossible is assumed, and God not needing a cause is asserted only to provide a solution to the assumption without establishing that even if a First Cause is necessary, that it must be a conscious being. Special pleading isn't the only flaw in the argument.

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Does the God of theodicy exist? No. It's a big awkward pile of Omni-attributes that are not only in contradiction to the observed world but to each other (particularly if you claim God has free will, which is a nearly universal claim among theists) that is clearly the end result of generations of a 'my God is better than your God' contest. But if it did exist, would everything it does be good and right by definition? Yes. Would any perceived injustice or malice on its part be due to our not having all the information that it has? Also yes.

Of course my certainty doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. It's just what I think.

Thank you for taking the time to explain! I think I understand the difference as you mean it - In the case of the problem of evil, God is more clearly defined (possessing those three magical "O's), and so if I am going to accept that particular definition of God as true for the sake of the argument, then it follows I MUST allow him any special exception he needs in order to stay consistent with that accepted definition, even without ever knowing what his "reasons" are. I.e. "God letting horrible things happen HAS to be good somehow because he is omnibenvolent by definition."

So, the real weaknesses are in the contradictions among his omni-attributes that Christians accept at face value despite the fact that it all falls apart when you think about it too hard!

Sorry, I'm usually about 10 steps behind most people here on the intellectual train, so it takes me a bit of time to catch up to discussions. I think you could have actually seen the smoke coming out of my ears for this one, lol.

I don't follow Tibs. You seem to be placing restrictions on God again.

Why can God only do it the ways you say?

He could make it so that sex happened in such a way that it could never be unpleasant, and any party could leave at any time no matter what. And that's just using my imagination. I'm sure omnipotent beings aren't restricted by either our logic or imaginations.

He could have just made everything totally different to how it is now, so everything is awesome, and we're always happy. Current restrictions need never apply.

But this is all ludicrous fantasy, anyway. And indeed, there's no reason to assume God is "good". I've never understood that obsession. Evidence does not in any way back it up. Usually, people claim he is, or else there would be no problem of evil.

(March 11, 2016 at 3:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't follow Tibs. You seem to be placing restrictions on God again.

Why can God only do it the ways you say?

I think free-will is a factor, but he could of manifested the truth more, and made it more obvious and easier to follow. I believe free-will is a factor, but it's really from the perspective of the unseen nature of how God rewards actions, and loves people with truth of his holy names and attributes, that has to be put in perspective.

Do you believe there is different type of inward beauty?  There is many "stages", but also, there is different hues of beauty. There is also a hue which unites all hues but that is only in the highest realms beyond the veils of light. In all realms connecting from lowest to the realms beyond that veils of light, where it's God residence, there is parable forms of us that reflect our actions.

We will be unveiled our true nature and our many states we been through, and the collective image of them.

It's the beauty and greatness bestowed through the trial that makes the trial worth it. Make the trial to hard is problematic. Making it too easy is problematic. But rather a path of ease which is just hard enough to reward that beauty that God loves to see, and excel in it, is the perfect favour.

Humans are created in the best nature because of our potential. The trial is not even hard enough to be called hard, but it's not too easy, balanced, but it is easy enough to be called easy.

(March 11, 2016 at 10:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so.  I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky.  I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency."  (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption?  In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?  

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

No worries. My skin isn't particularly thick, but it's almost impossible to annoy me while being polite and sincere.

The question is whether an exception for God is properly justified. In the case of arguments that posit God as a solution to infinite regression, the fallacy of special pleading is being committed. It is asserted that everything must have a cause, that this would mean an infinite regression of cause and effect, that an infinite regression is impossible so there must be a First Cause, and the First Cause is God. That an infinite regression is impossible is assumed, and God not needing a cause is asserted only to provide a solution to the assumption without establishing that even if a First Cause is necessary, that it must be a conscious being. Special pleading isn't the only flaw in the argument.

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Does the God of theodicy exist? No. It's a big awkward pile of Omni-attributes that are not only in contradiction to the observed world but to each other (particularly if you claim God has free will, which is a nearly universal claim among theists) that is clearly the end result of generations of a 'my God is better than your God' contest. But if it did exist, would everything it does be good and right by definition? Yes. Would any perceived injustice or malice on its part be due to our not having all the information that it has? Also yes.

Of course my certainty doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. It's just what I think.

But...isn't that saying, "it's not a logical fallacy because it's logical within the framework of the internally illogical definition of God that is being used"? Lol. [emoji13]. My head hurts...

(March 11, 2016 at 5:17 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: You and Nympho kudoed Whaterverist when he snapped at me. While I was being nothing other than respectful and reasonable!

But I don't mind the tittie show :-D

He's right, though. When your words have limned your personality, you have to live with the impressions you've made. I can get along with anyone, even you, but I won't forget for a moment that you took a thread and turned it into bashing my parenting -- to the point of calling me unfit and insinuating I was abusive and should have my son taken away -- because you misunderstood a point I was making.

Now, I'm not butthurt about that, walking around thinking "That Mr Hanky guy sure is a cunt" ... but whenever I see you treat someone else that way, I'm much more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt than I am inclined to give it to you, because of my previous interactions with you and your thoughtlessness.

For that reason, I definitely agree with what Whatevs wrote. Don't like it? Tough shit.

If calling me a cunt for agreeing with what is a pertinent point makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. I've been called worse by better people.

Sorry Mystic, I can't understand what you're saying. You're using lots of words which mean nothing to me.