Except it isn't. It's based on the same reasoning a child makes when his parents deny him candy for dinner - "My parents either love me or they have the power to give me candy for dinner. It can't be both". A child makes the assumption that he knows as much as the parents. To the child, this reasoning seems solid. As adults we know it isn't. Your reasoning suffers from the same flaw - a false assumption that your perspective is sufficient to adequately judge.TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
If evolution truly created us, why
38,036 Views |
728 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by LIB,MR BEARS
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.TexasScientist said:His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
No. That is the narrative you want.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.TexasScientist said:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.TexasScientist said:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your reasoning:quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?
Using your brain.
On your part maybe.
When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.
Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.
How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.TexasScientist said:His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.
Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"We need not suppose that the necessity for something analogous to self-conquest will ever be ended, or that eternal life will not also be eternal dying. It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from them), there may be something not all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us soon to taste them)."TexasScientist said:I assume you believe in heaven. Is there pain and suffering in heaven?LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to %A0belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. %A0Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem Of Pain
If "no", then you have to explain how free will and choice exist in a naturalistic universe. You can't because it doesn't.TexasScientist said:No. That is the narrative you want.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.TexasScientist said:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.TexasScientist said:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your reasoning:quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?
Using your brain.
On your part maybe.
When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.
Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.
How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
Good argument for why heaven is unnecessary. We have plenty of pain and suffering right here that is presumably better than the pleasures of hell.Sam Lowry said:"We need not suppose that the necessity for something analogous to self-conquest will ever be ended, or that eternal life will not also be eternal dying. It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from them), there may be something not all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us soon to taste them)."TexasScientist said:I assume you believe in heaven. Is there pain and suffering in heaven?LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to %A0belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. %A0Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem Of Pain
You make choices from an array of perceived options within your learned frame of reference.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If "no", then you have to explain how free will and choice exist in a naturalistic universe. You can't because it doesn't.TexasScientist said:No. That is the narrative you want.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.TexasScientist said:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.TexasScientist said:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your reasoning:quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:On my part? If you can't recognize circular reasoning, then don't quit your day job.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Circular reasoning fail.quash said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Any influence on the matter around a person that is done consciously MUST originate from the brain, then on to physical action. Any brain or neural activity must originate from the movement of molecules and atoms in the brain and nerves. What initiates the movements of these atoms and molecules?
Using your brain.
On your part maybe.
When I stub my toe a signal is sent to my brain. The memory of the event probably shapes future choices to avoid stubbing my toe.
Tell me how stubbing your soul is deterministic?
Oh wait, didn't you say you're a lawyer? Well, maybe you should quit your day job, then.
How did you initiate movement of your foot to stub the toe in the first place? And after you stubbed your toe, are your "choices" to avoid it in the future really choices? If so, how did you initiate the movement of molecules and atoms in your brain one way for one "choice" as opposed to another way, for another "choice"?
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.TexasScientist said:His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
In a naturalistic universe, your "choice" is only going to be the result of what the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain have already determined them to be. There can only be one result. Therefore, it wasn't truly a "choice".TexasScientist said:You make choices from an array of perceived options within your learned frame of reference.Quote:If "no", then you have to explain how free will and choice exist in a naturalistic universe. You can't because it doesn't.Quote:No. That is the narrative you want.Quote:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.Quote:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.Quote:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.Quote:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.Quote:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?Quote:Quote:Your reasoning:Quote:Quote:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.Quote:
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
TS: "Is there pain and suffering in heaven?"
Let's make sure we are on the same page. What do you mean by 'Heaven', and what do you mean by 'suffering'?
I ask because Scripture is clear that those who do evil and will not repent will be shamed and 'the least in heaven', as Jesus warned the Pharisees.
Jesus also warned that it is better to tear out your own arm and enter Heaven maimed, than to let your arm lead you to sin and so miss Heaven. That suggests that Heaven is far more important than just a place.
I understand you do not believe Heaven or Hell exist, but for this conversation you must have some definition in mind. Please be clear about what it means to suffer, and what you mean by 'heaven' when you refer to it?
Thanks TS.
Let's make sure we are on the same page. What do you mean by 'Heaven', and what do you mean by 'suffering'?
I ask because Scripture is clear that those who do evil and will not repent will be shamed and 'the least in heaven', as Jesus warned the Pharisees.
Jesus also warned that it is better to tear out your own arm and enter Heaven maimed, than to let your arm lead you to sin and so miss Heaven. That suggests that Heaven is far more important than just a place.
I understand you do not believe Heaven or Hell exist, but for this conversation you must have some definition in mind. Please be clear about what it means to suffer, and what you mean by 'heaven' when you refer to it?
Thanks TS.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Another cool transitional species found.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, not sure why this keeps coming up.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Still no Waco47?
hey, look! We agree!quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, not sure why this keeps coming up.
I think that's a little too much interpretive weight for the quote to bear. I highly recommend the book.TexasScientist said:Good argument for why heaven is unnecessary. We have plenty of pain and suffering right here that is presumably better than the pleasures of hell.Sam Lowry said:"We need not suppose that the necessity for something analogous to self-conquest will ever be ended, or that eternal life will not also be eternal dying. It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from them), there may be something not all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us soon to taste them)."TexasScientist said:I assume you believe in heaven. Is there pain and suffering in heaven?LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to %A0belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? %A0No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." %A0- or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. %A0Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem Of Pain
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.TexasScientist said:His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.LIB,MR BEARS said:How is your "sound solid deductive reasoning" better than tarp dusters? Do your atoms move in a different manner than his?TexasScientist said:It's base upon sound solid deductive reasoning.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You failed to prove that no good reason can exist.TexasScientist said:If I place faith in any thing, it is based upon sound reasoning, and empirical testable evidence. Religion is related to belief in supernatural beings or power. I don't believe in the supernatural.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If my assertions go unproven, they remain a faith.TexasScientist said:Actually, the burden falls on you. You're the one who makes an extraordinary claim about an imaginary deity.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, I have an answer, but like I said it'll be pearls before swine. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.TexasScientist said:You can try to rationalize around the question, but you don't have an answer. I've given you an answer. There is no good reason, because an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god would not allow pain and suffering. To do otherwise would mean he is either not all loving, or not all powerful, or both. He would use his power to prevent it and make it unnecessary.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The burden isn't on me to define the "good reason". It's on you to show that it is impossible for there to be one. Your whole argument rests on that definitive claim.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.It's possible, but not logical. If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason. Why let people suffer? I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it. Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people. It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist.Quote:
Isn't possible, just maybe, that an all-knowing God knows something you, a person of limited perspective, don't? That this all-knowing God may have a good reason for allowing evil and suffering that you don't realize? No matter how many times you state, or restate, your objections, this is the inescapable flaw in your logic.They are if you are all powerful, all loving and all knowing. I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face.Quote:
As my analogy showed, being good and loving and allowing suffering are not mutually exclusive. And you have never proven otherwise.
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.You tell me under what circumstances allowing pain and suffering is good, when you have the power to end it, and its cause. Only a sadistic person or god would allow that. If you can't, then you aren't all powerful and creation is flawed.Quote:
"If there is a good reason, he could use his power to change the reason" - if it's good, why change it?
"I submit there is no good reason for pain and suffering, especially if you have the power to change it." - if, however, there DOES exist a good reason, then you are wrong. You are only reasserting your faulty premise which you haven't proved but only presume based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.Ok, give me a good reason. What is his good reason for allowing innocent children to suffer and die?Quote:
"Further, he could easily explain it in plain language for everyone, and he could reveal himself to everyone plainly, instead of playing games that clergy spends so much time trying to decipher. If he possesses those powers, it's even more likely that he would reveal himself and his intent plainly, as opposed to using secrecy and conflicting writings of ancient people" - Or, there is good reason why He does it this way, and you only presume you know what is better, based on your very limited viewpoint and knowledge compared to God's.
In the wake of my many arguments, so far I haven't heard any argument from you other than there must be an undefined "good reason." It seems to me you haven't got an argument.Quote:
"It's pretty good evidence in itself that he doesn't exist." - or, it's pretty good evidence of your ignorance.
"I don't have to prove it. It's obvious on its face." - an argument from someone who hasn't got one.
If it is, even only at a minimum, possible that there exists a good reason that we don't know, then your argument fails. Just as the children in the analogy had no idea what their parents' good reason was for making them eat vegetables instead of candy, but a good reason DID exist, then by extension, there could exist a good reason for suffering that we don't understand but a higher minded God does.
Having said that, I do have ideas what good reasons there might be as to why God allows evil and suffering. But at this point, I feel it may just be throwing pearls before swine, as the saying goes (not calling you a pig). So all I'm wanting to do here is point out the huge logical flaws in your and Waco47's arguments.
I can't help but pause at this moment to ponder how a naturalist atheist like yourself is even arguing concepts of "good " and "evil" in the first place. In a naturalist universe, these really don't exist except by creation inside the mind (hmm..does the mind actually "create" anything, if the motions of all the atoms and molecules in the brain has already been determined from the initial velocities and directions of all matter set off by the Big Bang? That's a topic for another day...) There is no such thing as an absolute standard of good in your universe, so how would you even recognize what "good" is if I told you? It might just be a pointless exercise.
Good and evil are primarily human constructs, and to a lesser degree constructs in other sentient beings as borne out in animal studies. Cultures communally decide what is good or evil. They make those determinations through consensus of standards. It doesn't exists in nature, other than in the minds of sentient beings. The universe has nothing to do with it, other than sentient beings are made up of elements formed out of the universe.
An all-powerful, all-loving God WOULD allow evil and suffering, IF there is a good reason. And since you haven't proven that a good reason doesn't exist, your argument has failed. Your "answer" is just restating your premise which you haven't proven.
And of course it has to do with the universe. In your naturalist universe, there is no free will, therefore there is no "decision" by people over what is good and evil. People can not "choose" to think or act anything other that what they were determined to think and act, since the atoms and molecules in their brains are subject to the physical laws of the universe and nothing else.
I don't have to prove it. It is illogical that an ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, KNOWING deity would allow pain in suffering. To do so would be internally inconsistent with their characterization as ALL LOVING, POWERFUL, and KNOWING. Such a deity cannot posses all three of those properties if they allow pain and suffering, or if they order pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is unnecessary with such a deity.
You have serious misconceptions about the universe and free will, and about what I believe. Your projections about a naturalist universe, whatever you believe that is, don't conform to what we know about psychology or physiology. What is your definition of free will?
If your assertions go unproven, and you continue in those beliefs, you do so in...yep, you guessed it - faith.
So what's the name of your religion?
Therefore, your continued belief in this is not based on empirical, testable evidence or sound reasoning.
You simply have chosen to believe it.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason.
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl.
You're not considering that the analytical capabilities of the brain are the result of natural physical processes.. You're trying to force a square peg in the round hole to get the result you want. It doesn't fit.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In a naturalistic universe, your "choice" is only going to be the result of what the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain have already determined them to be. There can only be one result. Therefore, it wasn't truly a "choice".TexasScientist said:You make choices from an array of perceived options within your learned frame of reference.Quote:If "no", then you have to explain how free will and choice exist in a naturalistic universe. You can't because it doesn't.Quote:No. That is the narrative you want.Quote:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.Quote:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.Quote:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.Quote:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.Quote:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?Quote:Quote:Your reasoning:Quote:Quote:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.Quote:
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
I mean the pain and suffering of the child who is dying slowly from wounds delivered by a religious fanatic. I mean the pain and suffering of a child who is dying from cancer. I mean any manner of suffering people experience. My definition of heaven is what is described in the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious text.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Is there pain and suffering in heaven?"
Let's make sure we are on the same page. What do you mean by 'Heaven', and what do you mean by 'suffering'?
I ask because Scripture is clear that those who do evil and will not repent will be shamed and 'the least in heaven', as Jesus warned the Pharisees.
Jesus also warned that it is better to tear out your own arm and enter Heaven maimed, than to let your arm lead you to sin and so miss Heaven. That suggests that Heaven is far more important than just a place.
I understand you do not believe Heaven or Hell exist, but for this conversation you must have some definition in mind. Please be clear about what it means to suffer, and what you mean by 'heaven' when you refer to it?
Thanks TS.
It's interesting that you believe everyone goes to heaven. Doesn't that conflict with your one armed scenario to avoid Hell?
The most evolved form of the monkey's brain demonstrates monkeys have some analytical capabilities. If you are alluding to people, you should know that hominids did not evolve from monkeys.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Rev. 21:4 essentially says there will be no pain and suffering in heaven. If you believe in this sort of thing, clearly God has the ability to have placed people in heaven to begin with, without experiencing the suffering of this world, but instead chose to create a place for immense suffering now, and a place for eternal damnation. Say what you want, but such a god is not all loving.
I brought that up because a lot of people, including many religious people, don't stop and think on what Jesus was saying. Jesus in some places warned of terrible punishments in hell for people who did evil, and in others warned essentially the same people that they would be the least in heaven or the last to enter. This is not a contradiction but an important detail.TexasScientist said:I mean the pain and suffering of the child who is dying slowly from wounds delivered by a religious fanatic. I mean the pain and suffering of a child who is dying from cancer. I mean any manner of suffering people experience. My definition of heaven is what is described in the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious text.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Is there pain and suffering in heaven?"
Let's make sure we are on the same page. What do you mean by 'Heaven', and what do you mean by 'suffering'?
I ask because Scripture is clear that those who do evil and will not repent will be shamed and 'the least in heaven', as Jesus warned the Pharisees.
Jesus also warned that it is better to tear out your own arm and enter Heaven maimed, than to let your arm lead you to sin and so miss Heaven. That suggests that Heaven is far more important than just a place.
I understand you do not believe Heaven or Hell exist, but for this conversation you must have some definition in mind. Please be clear about what it means to suffer, and what you mean by 'heaven' when you refer to it?
Thanks TS.
It's interesting that you believe everyone goes to heaven. Doesn't that conflict with your one armed scenario to avoid Hell?
We can discuss that later if you like, but for here let's talk about suffering. I find it significant that you focus on harm allegedly done by 'religious fanatics', and indeed there are those who abuse religion for their own purposes, but you seem determined to ignore the harm done by scientists, like the Tesla engineers who built cars which killed pedestrians or robots which killed human workers. You ignore cancers caused by chemicals created by scientists in labs, and you ignore malignant experiments done in the name of Science, like the Tuskegee sterilizations of black men.
I don't bring those up to attack Science, but to observe that harm is often caused unintentionally even by those who mean to reduce it, and that Science, like Religion, has people in it who abuse their power and pervert the purpose.
Now regarding your definition of heaven, you are still very vague, and also very wrong if you imagine every 'religious text' describes heaven the same way. The Quran, for example, describes heaven in very sensual terms, speaking of eating, sex, and other physical pleasures, and not really addressing philosophical concepts the way the Bible does. Other texts, like the Hindu Vedas, are far more esoteric and ascetic in character.
Pain and suffering, though, in the sense of wrongful agony, does not exist in heaven. We will, however, still be able to feel, and through feeling experience a number of stimuli. If you have ever been slightly achy in the legs after a long day of mountain climbing, for example, that is the kind of 'pain' we may still experience in heaven.
I hope that helps.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
LIB,MR BEARS said:hey, look! We agree!quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, not sure why this keeps coming up.
Do we? Monkeys and human evolved from a common ancestor.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
"Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason. "TexasScientist said:
His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.Quote:Quote:Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason.
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl.
Why would a loving God eliminate what is good?
"Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative. "
Suffering first, THEN relief from all suffering in heaven - perhaps that IS is the "better" alternative compared to never having suffering at all?
Another assumption from a limited perspective on your part.
"No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving."
Right, that's your argument.
It's the same argument a child makes when his parents don't give him candy for dinner. The child thinks he knows enough to judge, but he doesn't. Assumption from a limited perspective.
"Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl. "
You are the one demonstrating fishbowl thinking here, not the religious.
The fact that you can't think of a better analogy might be an indicator.
Analytical capabilities of the brain are determined by the movement of atoms and molecules in the brain, thus they are still going to be what the physical laws governing those atoms and molecules have already determined them to be.TexasScientist said:You're not considering that the analytical capabilities of the brain are the result of natural physical processes.. You're trying to force a square peg in the round hole to get the result you want. It doesn't fit.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:In a naturalistic universe, your "choice" is only going to be the result of what the physical laws governing the atoms and molecules in your brain have already determined them to be. There can only be one result. Therefore, it wasn't truly a "choice".TexasScientist said:You make choices from an array of perceived options within your learned frame of reference.Quote:If "no", then you have to explain how free will and choice exist in a naturalistic universe. You can't because it doesn't.Quote:No. That is the narrative you want.Quote:Free will is the ability to make true choices. Apparently, we are in agreement that in your naturalistic universe no free will or choice exists.Quote:Right, computers are programed. Your brain is the product of thousands of years of evolution. I asked earlier, I believe, what do you consider free will? Your brain has been programmed through learning, which is accomplished through your senses, and experiences in life. All of your decisions are made within the context of that framework.Quote:"Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed...." Sounds like an argument for intelligent design. You need a programmer.Quote:I've been quiet because I've been busy with work, and haven't checked in until now. I'm not retired.Quote:If all atoms and molecules are subject only to the physical laws of this universe, and nothing more, then where does your "free will" or "choice" come from, given that any brain activity involves the movement of these atoms and molecules, and thus subject only to those laws?Quote:Quote:Your reasoning:Quote:Quote:Circular reasoning fail. As I've said many times - you're just not good at this.Quote:
I use my brain to think about paths and then use my brain to choose a path and then use my brain to walk. By using my brain I activate muscles.
How do you activate your soul?
It's not circular: there is a difference between autonomic and voluntary. If you are too lazy or bored to address what I'm saying just say so.
-When you use your brain, atoms and molecules are set in motion.
-Q: What causes those atoms and molecules to being moving?
-A: You use your brain
Any questions?
If I was lazy or bored, I wouldn't be commenting so much about this. Rather, what is more likely is that you don't really understand the depth of the question I'm asking you.
First of all, atoms are always in motion. The difference between us is that you think having a materialistic worldview requires adhering to the deterministic side. I'm arguing that free will exists in a probalistic universe. Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will.
Your comments that "atoms are always in motion" and "just because everything is made of atoms doesn't preclude free will" are irrelevant. There were no assertions that atoms are not always in motion, or that being made of atoms precludes free will. Obviously, people believe that you can have free will in a universe of atoms. Their explanation essentially involves some kind of other dimension to reality, i.e. a "spirit" or "soul" that is tied to the physical universe and can interact with it. What is the explanation of free will and choice for someone who only believes in a naturalistic universe that is governed only by physical laws?
You have not explained HOW atoms and molecules move in regard to "choice". How did you move the atoms and molecules in your brain corresponding to one "choice", as opposed to moving them in a different manner corresponding to a different "choice"? What force initiated the movement? If you were freely able to make a different "choice" than you did, then that means you would have been able to move the atoms and molecules a different way than it did. What initiates the differentiation in their movement? How exactly did you alter the velocity, direction, and momentum of particles when you made your "choice"?
Your brain is like a computer operating on nerve impulses. A computer can be programmed to evaluate data and options and make optimal choices, and computers don't have a soul. Chimps, even dogs, have the ability as do other animals of higher order and brain power to make choices. Do they have souls? All of what you describe is a process of neural activity.
Computers don't make free will choices. They only do what they are programmed to do. That's just like saying the atoms and molecules in our brains only follow what the physical laws of the universe have determined them to follow (the predetermined "program") That's saying there is no free will or choice in a naturalistic universe. You're only making my point.
You still haven't shown there to be true "choice" in your naturalistic universe.
on the part that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we do.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:hey, look! We agree!quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, not sure why this keeps coming up.
Do we? Monkeys and human evolved from a common ancestor.
LIB,MR BEARS said:on the part that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we do.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:hey, look! We agree!quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Paragraph 1 is your opinion, so it came from a slightly more evolved monkey's brain.
Here is my answer to paragraph 2, sourced Rev 21:4
4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes.(A) There will be no more death'[a](B) or mourning or crying or pain,(C) for the old order of things has passed away."(D)
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, not sure why this keeps coming up.
Do we? Monkeys and human evolved from a common ancestor.
The part you mentioned, right. But humans and monkeys do share a common ancestor, not much in doubt there even before genome mapping made it a lock..
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83 said:I brought that up because a lot of people, including many religious people, don't stop and think on what Jesus was saying. Jesus in some places warned of terrible punishments in hell for people who did evil, and in others warned essentially the same people that they would be the least in heaven or the last to enter. This is not a contradiction but an important detail.TexasScientist said:I mean the pain and suffering of the child who is dying slowly from wounds delivered by a religious fanatic. I mean the pain and suffering of a child who is dying from cancer. I mean any manner of suffering people experience. My definition of heaven is what is described in the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious text.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Is there pain and suffering in heaven?"
Let's make sure we are on the same page. What do you mean by 'Heaven', and what do you mean by 'suffering'?
I ask because Scripture is clear that those who do evil and will not repent will be shamed and 'the least in heaven', as Jesus warned the Pharisees.
Jesus also warned that it is better to tear out your own arm and enter Heaven maimed, than to let your arm lead you to sin and so miss Heaven. That suggests that Heaven is far more important than just a place.
I understand you do not believe Heaven or Hell exist, but for this conversation you must have some definition in mind. Please be clear about what it means to suffer, and what you mean by 'heaven' when you refer to it?
Thanks TS.
It's interesting that you believe everyone goes to heaven. Doesn't that conflict with your one armed scenario to avoid Hell?
We can discuss that later if you like, but for here let's talk about suffering. I find it significant that you focus on harm allegedly done by 'religious fanatics', and indeed there are those who abuse religion for their own purposes, but you seem determined to ignore the harm done by scientists, like the Tesla engineers who built cars which killed pedestrians or robots which killed human workers. You ignore cancers caused by chemicals created by scientists in labs, and you ignore malignant experiments done in the name of Science, like the Tuskegee sterilizations of black men.
I don't bring those up to attack Science, but to observe that harm is often caused unintentionally even by those who mean to reduce it, and that Science, like Religion, has people in it who abuse their power and pervert the purpose.
Now regarding your definition of heaven, you are still very vague, and also very wrong if you imagine every 'religious text' describes heaven the same way. The Quran, for example, describes heaven in very sensual terms, speaking of eating, sex, and other physical pleasures, and not really addressing philosophical concepts the way the Bible does. Other texts, like the Hindu Vedas, are far more esoteric and ascetic in character.
Pain and suffering, though, in the sense of wrongful agony, does not exist in heaven. We will, however, still be able to feel, and through feeling experience a number of stimuli. If you have ever been slightly achy in the legs after a long day of mountain climbing, for example, that is the kind of 'pain' we may still experience in heaven.
I hope that helps.
So, you believe hell is a continuum with heaven? Everyone goes, just some have less pain and suffering?Quote:
I brought that up because a lot of people, including many religious people, don't stop and think on what Jesus was saying. Jesus in some places warned of terrible punishments in hell for people who did evil, and in others warned essentially the same people that they would be the least in heaven or the last to enter. This is not a contradiction but an important detail.
I use religious fanatics to point out that a lot of pain and suffering is caused by religious fanatics who believe God wants to impose pain and suffering, at the same time claiming He is all loving. I agree that religion and science can be abused. I've always said science can be used by people with bad motives, the same as religion, law, or any other profession or avocation. I haven't ignored them, I just didn't choose to try and make an all inclusive list. Science can be misused or it can be used for good. It's not the science, its who and how it is applied. Science isn't the problem for the Tuskegee blacks. The problem is the people who decided to conduct and carry out the experiments, some of whom were scientists, lay people, and religious. Now in the case of the Tuskegee travesty, those who conducted the experiments were indifferent to the well being of others, which says a lot about their character. The same can be said about the character of any God who is indifferent to others and allows, or even causes, evil to befall on the innocent and unsuspecting.Quote:
We can discuss that later if you like, but for here let's talk about suffering. I find it significant that you focus on harm allegedly done by 'religious fanatics', and indeed there are those who abuse religion for their own purposes, but you seem determined to ignore the harm done by scientists, like the Tesla engineers who built cars which killed pedestrians or robots which killed human workers. You ignore cancers caused by chemicals created by scientists in labs, and you ignore malignant experiments done in the name of Science, like the Tuskegee sterilizations of black men.
I don't bring those up to attack Science, but to observe that harm is often caused unintentionally even by those who mean to reduce it, and that Science, like Religion, has people in it who abuse their power and pervert the purpose.
I don't think we have a disagreement here.Quote:
I don't bring those up to attack Science, but to observe that harm is often caused unintentionally even by those who mean to reduce it, and that Science, like Religion, has people in it who abuse their power and pervert the purpose.
For my purposes, all of the various religions depiction of heaven is applicable. They all project heaven as desirable place or state of being.Quote:
Now regarding your definition of heaven, you are still very vague, and also very wrong if you imagine every 'religious text' describes heaven the same way. The Quran, for example, describes heaven in very sensual terms, speaking of eating, sex, and other physical pleasures, and not really addressing philosophical concepts the way the Bible does. Other texts, like the Hindu Vedas, are far more esoteric and ascetic in character.
Similar to the Quran's description then? You can have some feel good, but tempered by a little pain and suffering, but not too much, just enough.Quote:
Pain and suffering, though, in the sense of wrongful agony, does not exist in heaven. We will, however, still be able to feel, and through feeling experience a number of stimuli. If you have ever been slightly achy in the legs after a long day of mountain climbing, for example, that is the kind of 'pain' we may still experience in heaven.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason. "TexasScientist said:
His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.Quote:Quote:Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason.
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl.
Why would a loving God eliminate what is good?
What you are calling good (pain and suffering0 is not longer good and becomes bad, if the justification, cause, or need for pain and suffering can be eliminated. An all loving god would not stand by when he has the power to change the dynamic. In fact, an all loving god would never have made such a creation in the first place.
"Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative. "
Suffering first, THEN relief from all suffering in heaven - perhaps that IS is the "better" alternative compared to never having suffering at all?
Why? How about skipping the pain and suffering by going straight to heaven?
Another assumption from a limited perspective on your part.
"No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving."
Right, that's your argument.
It's the same argument a child makes when his parents don't give him candy for dinner. The child thinks he knows enough to judge, but he doesn't. Assumption from a limited perspective.
A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same.
"Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl. "
You are the one demonstrating fishbowl thinking here, not the religious.
The fact that you can't think of a better analogy might be an indicator.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, your analogy relates directly to religious perspectives. The religious can't get out of the fishbowl, because they are unwilling to look beyond the confines of their beliefs, and are unwilling to question or examine their beliefs, because they think they already know or have the answers.
"What you are calling good (pain and suffering0 is not longer good and becomes bad, if the justification, cause, or need for pain and suffering can be eliminated. An all loving god would not stand by when he has the power to change the dynamic. In fact, an all loving god would never have made such a creation in the first place. "TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason. "TexasScientist said:
His brain is choosing religious rote over critical thinking. You tell me how an all loving god, who is all powerful, can be internally consistent, if they allow pain and suffering. By definition, if they are all loving, they would use their overarching power to eliminate any 'good' reason for suffering. To do otherwise would mean they are not all loving.Quote:Quote:Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering? If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering.Quote:
If the good reason is better for the person, then it would be more loving.Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering.Quote:
Critical thinking would be to consider the possibility that your perspective isn't the end all-be all, the possibility that your perspective may not allow you to see everything there is to consider, and therefore your judgement is limited. You lack this.Isn't that really the definition of religion?Quote:
Rote thinking is thinking in a fishbowl, stuck by the arrogance of your perspecitve.
"How can the 'good' reason for suffering be better for the person, if there is power to change the reason to no reason for suffering?"
If there exists a good reason that is better for the person, then changing or eliminating the reason would be less better for the person. Why would an all-loving God do that?
Why wouldn't He? If the good reason for allowing suffering can be eliminated, then there is no longer a good reason.
"If a god has the power to change a reason, then there is no such thing as a good reason for suffering."
How do you know that having no suffering is necessarily "better"? Assumption from a limited perspective.
Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative.
"Not really. My view allows for the possibility of there being a reason for pain and suffering, but it requires the admission that a god who allows it is either not all powerful, or is not all loving. In such a case the 'good' reason could be that the god receives pleasure from suffering."
Your view allows for the possibility of there being a reason, but not a good reason. Therefore you are still arguing in a fishbowl, stuck in the arrogance of your limited perspective.
No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving.
"Isn't that really the definition of religion?"
No, it's a description of "rote thinking". It can be exhibited anywhere, and not exclusive to anything. It's descriptive of your reasoning here. Are you religious?
Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl.
Why would a loving God eliminate what is good?
What you are calling good (pain and suffering0 is not longer good and becomes bad, if the justification, cause, or need for pain and suffering can be eliminated. An all loving god would not stand by when he has the power to change the dynamic. In fact, an all loving god would never have made such a creation in the first place.
"Will there be pain and suffering in heaven? Isn't heaven supposed to be a better place free from pain and suffering? If so, then it stands to reason no suffering is better, when there is a better alternative. "
Suffering first, THEN relief from all suffering in heaven - perhaps that IS is the "better" alternative compared to never having suffering at all?
Why? How about skipping the pain and suffering by going straight to heaven?
Another assumption from a limited perspective on your part.
"No, you're not reading what I said. There could be a good reason, but it requires a god who is either not all powerful, or all loving."
Right, that's your argument.
It's the same argument a child makes when his parents don't give him candy for dinner. The child thinks he knows enough to judge, but he doesn't. Assumption from a limited perspective.
A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same.
"Rote thinking is a characteristic of religion. I can't think of any better analogy for religion than your fishbowl. "
You are the one demonstrating fishbowl thinking here, not the religious.
The fact that you can't think of a better analogy might be an indicator.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, your analogy relates directly to religious perspectives. The religious can't get out of the fishbowl, because they are unwilling to look beyond the confines of their beliefs, and are unwilling to question or examine their beliefs, because they think they already know or have the answers.
I'm not calling pain and suffering good. I'm calling God's reason for allowing it good.
If that reason is eliminated, then He is eliminating what is good. Eliminating a good would be bad.
So again, why would a good God do that? Wouldn't you then accuse Him of not being good?
"Why? How about skipping the pain and suffering by going straight to heaven?"
If pain and suffering first before going to heaven is better, it would be more loving not to skip it.
"A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same. "
Just as children don't know as much as the parents, the parents don't know as much as God.
If the parents knew what God knew, that allowing temporary harm to befall their child will lead to something much greater for them for eternity, they would do what God would do, and allow the harm.
"The religious can't get out of the fishbowl, because they are unwilling to look beyond the confines of their beliefs, and are unwilling to question or examine their beliefs, because they think they already know or have the answers."
You are doing the same thing here, when you arrogantly assume you know as much as God, and can definitively state that God can't possibly have a good reason for allowing pain and suffering.
"A parent tries to protect a child by not allowing harm to befall them. In fact a loving parent will do everything in their power to prevent harm befalling their child. A loving god who has the power to change the world and create heaven would do the same. "
Just as children don't know as much as the parents, the parents don't know as much as God.
If the parents knew what God knew, that allowing temporary harm to befall their child will lead to something much greater for them for eternity, they would do what God would do, and allow the harm.
When I was 16 or 17, I was driving my car with an expired inspection sticker. My dad had just finished mowing the yard and was sitting on the front steps cooling off when I drove around the corner and into the drive with a cop right behind me, lights on.
The cop pointed out the expired sticker to me and asked if I knew it was expired. He then asked my dad the same thing. My dad responded by pointing back to me , letting the cop know he was to deal with me and not him.
He could have easily got up and talked to the cop and most likely assured him the car would be inspected. Rather than doing that, he let me endure the embarrassment of getting a ticket right in front of the house and of having to pay the fine - two painful things. I hadn't bothered to get it inspected when the upkeep on the car was my responsibility. He let my suffering be used as a lesson both for me and anyone of my friends that he shared the story with.
Pain can be used for good for both that person and other's.
In January of this year, I had knee replacement surgery. The recovery was sometimes difficult, and there was a bit of pain throughout my rehab. It was March before I was able to sleep through the night, and April before I was able to climb stairs comfortably.
But the pain after surgery was a different kind than what I knew before the surgery. Before the surgery, I suffered from bone-on-bone pain, and the occasional slip of my femur off my tibia. That is, the sick knowledge that my leg might collapse. After the surgery, I had to get used to how the new joint worked and there was pain from using muscles in new ways and teaching my leg to walk the right way, lift the right way, etc.
I spent many hours with an ice pack on my knee, yet I felt happy knowing that I was making progress and getting stronger. There are different kinds of pain and different reasons for it, which can make all the difference.
When you can see a reason and purpose for what you suffer, it still hurts but you are able to bear it and seek your better purpose.
I hope that helps.
But the pain after surgery was a different kind than what I knew before the surgery. Before the surgery, I suffered from bone-on-bone pain, and the occasional slip of my femur off my tibia. That is, the sick knowledge that my leg might collapse. After the surgery, I had to get used to how the new joint worked and there was pain from using muscles in new ways and teaching my leg to walk the right way, lift the right way, etc.
I spent many hours with an ice pack on my knee, yet I felt happy knowing that I was making progress and getting stronger. There are different kinds of pain and different reasons for it, which can make all the difference.
When you can see a reason and purpose for what you suffer, it still hurts but you are able to bear it and seek your better purpose.
I hope that helps.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Hmmquash said:
Rationalizing a spiritual benefit for suffering is a waste of time. Humanism gets you to the same place without threatening eternal suffering for failure to worship.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier