Religion IV: Deus vult!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Edward,

because its wrong to deny christians

Can you please elaborate? Your one line declarative statements are singularly unhelpful in this discussion.

[bryden blackfish tully]

I think he's being sarcastic

[Chiki]

I can see how the problem of evil may be solved by admitting that God doesn't have powers over the laws of logic. You can just say that good can't exist without evil and leave it at that. (But then you can just ask why there's so much evil. There only needs to be a tiny amount of evil for good to exist. Then the theist can reply saying that there's perhaps a law of logic that says you need the perfect proportion of good and evil.)

But I've always wondered why God would allow natural disasters which kill people completely unnecessarily. People have no control over that.

Why do you guys think God allows natural disasters to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people?

[Gears of the Beast]

I can see how the problem of evil may be solved by admitting that God doesn't have powers over the laws of logic. You can just say that good can't exist without evil and leave it at that. (But then you can just ask why there's so much evil. There only needs to be a tiny amount of evil for good to exist. Then the theist can reply saying that there's perhaps a law of logic that says you need the perfect proportion of good and evil.)

But I've always wondered why God would allow natural disasters which kill people completely unnecessarily. People have no control over that.

Why do you guys think God allows natural disasters to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people?

Aren't natural disasters and stuff separate from the problem of evil? They're not really evil, they're just events that happen to have an undesirable effect. Which is why the typical Christian response to the problem of evil is free will. A typical Muslim would argue that a person brings any evil onto themself which is as disturbing as the notion of karma when you look at the implications. But the natural disaster thing is still an interesting question but I don't see it getting a very satisfying question from a theist, something like "it's all part of god's plan" or "we can't understand the mind of god" or "suffering gets us closer to god" etc etc.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB, Chiki,

I don't think God is truely "Omnipotent" as the term can be understood. I think that God is capable of seting the universe in motion but is not capable of any possible action within that Universe without the potential to affect any other aspect of that Universe.

In other words, God can affect things within the Universe but I believe there are consequences to such interactions that we may not be able to see or understand, as such, "bad" things may happen like natural disasters that God does not interfear with or directly create.

This is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.

[Gears of the Beast]

I don't think God is truely "Omnipotent" as the term can be understood. I think that God is capable of seting the universe in motion but is not capable of any possible action within that Universe without the potential to affect any other aspect of that Universe.

In other words, God can affect things within the Universe but I believe there are consequences to such interactions that we may not be able to see or understand, as such, "bad" things may happen like natural disasters that God does not interfear with or directly create.

This is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.

As an omniscient being when he/she created the universe they knew exactly how everything was gonna pan out, which means god must want everything that happens otherwise he/she wouldn't have set it in motion in the first place. Right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

Unless God's Omniscence is also only in relative terms. God knows so much God might as well be considered omniscient when compaired to us but it is not true "omniscence". Or, perhaps, God understands the borad outlines of how things will run but not all the specific details of how those ends are achieved .

[Chiki]

Aren't natural disasters and stuff separate from the problem of evil? They're not really evil, they're just events that happen to have an undesirable effect. Which is why the typical Christian response to the problem of evil is free will. A typical Muslim would argue that a person brings any evil onto themself which is as disturbing as the notion of karma when you look at the implications. But the natural disaster thing is still an interesting question but I don't see it getting a very satisfying question from a theist, something like "it's all part of god's plan" or "we can't understand the mind of god" or "suffering gets us closer to god" etc etc.

Yeah, that's why natural disasters are so troubling, because they're separate from the problem of evil. The problem of evil solutions won't work, which is why I brought it up.

GotB, Chiki,

I don't think God is truely "Omnipotent" as the term can be understood. I think that God is capable of seting the universe in motion but is not capable of any possible action within that Universe without the potential to affect any other aspect of that Universe.

In other words, God can affect things within the Universe but I believe there are consequences to such interactions that we may not be able to see or understand, as such, "bad" things may happen like natural disasters that God does not interfear with or directly create.

This is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.

So does this mean that you think God can't change the laws of logic? For example, God can't create a stone which he can't lift?

[Gears of the Beast]

Unless God's Omniscence is also only in relative terms. God knows so much God might as well be considered omniscient when compaired to us but it is not true "omniscence". Or, perhaps, God understands the borad outlines of how things will run but not all the specific details of how those ends are achieved

I think you then have to concede he isn't omniscient, he either knows everything or he doesn't. There's a difference between knowing a lot of stuff and knowing everything

So does this mean that you think God can't change the laws of logic? For example, God can't create a stone which he can't lift?

I can answer this for Scot, yes, most theists believe the laws of logic must apply to god. He cannot create a square circle.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Chiki,

Correct, I don't think God could do that without unmaking the Universe and creating aomething else in its place.

[Chiki]

Chiki,

Correct, I don't think God could do that without unmaking the Universe and creating aomething else in its place.

You mean that God just created the universe and doesn't care about anything else?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

GotB, Chiki,

I don't think God is truely "Omnipotent" as the term can be understood. I think that God is capable of seting the universe in motion but is not capable of any possible action within that Universe without the potential to affect any other aspect of that Universe.

In other words, God can affect things within the Universe but I believe there are consequences to such interactions that we may not be able to see or understand, as such, "bad" things may happen like natural disasters that God does not interfear with or directly create.

This is pure speculation and conjecture on my part.

In that case there really isn't any point in praying to God, since he wouldn't be able to interfere even if he wanted to. Not to mention that creating a universe that he doesn't have any power over would be a self caused limitation on his part, meaning that was fine with creating a universe that had the potential for tonnes of suffering against his will. Which sounds weird.

I think the most reasonable explanation is just that God isn't really "good", or at least not in the way we commonly think of the term. Leaving aside the natural disasters, why would the stereotypical kind and all loving God even create a world where all life (aside from plants) depends on killing and eating other living things to survive? It's not like violence and suffering is only a human problem. Nature itself is cruel.

[MerenthaClone]

In that case there really isn't any point in praying to God, since he wouldn't be able to interfere even if he wanted to.

I'm not a theist, but people do pray for purposes beyond "I really want my local sports team to win this game", you know. Not necessarily for divine intercession but for divine...emotional support? Lets go with that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MC,

Indeed. :)

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I'm not a theist, but people do pray for purposes beyond "I really want my local sports team to win this game", you know. Not necessarily for divine intercession but for divine...emotional support? Lets go with that.

If God interferes with your emotions then he is changing the universe. Then he might as well warn you about the impending natural disaster or similar as well.

[Chiki]

We don't really need something like God or religion if you want to defend this view.

All we need is some sort of necessary being (something that causes itself and exists forever) which isn't even sentient. Maybe it's just a bunch of blob for all we know, that causes the Big Bang over and over again.

[Galactus]

Yeah, that's why natural disasters are so troubling, because they're separate from the problem of evil. The problem of evil solutions won't work, which is why I brought it up.

Actually, that's what the devil is for :p You simply posit an (inferior) supernatural being with free will (IE: The Devil) anything that goes for human evil also goes for the Devil, and the Devil can also cause natural evil. Presto!

This is of course an entire level of circuitious reasoning, but it's the one the medieval theologians came up with.

[Chiki]

That reminds me of something that happened in Turkey not very long ago.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/islamic-pundits-remarks-anger-turkish-atheists.aspx?pageID=238&nID=70375&NewsCatID=341

“Every atheist seeks refuge in God in need. I do not believe that any atheist is negating denying God. Those who say so are lying. Because all of them say ‘Allah’ when they are in trouble. When they are helpless, they say ‘my God, my Lord’ as they seek God,” Hatipoğlu said during a Ramadan program in Istanbul’s historical Sultanahmet neighborhood.

“Even the devil does not negate deny God. ‘God created me from fire,’ it says. ‘You created me,’ it says, so it is aware. The devil is the biggest father of the atheists,” he said.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The natural disasters front can be countered in a number of possible ways:

1. God exists, can control natural disasters, and in doing so is actively malevolent.

2. God exists, but cannot or will not intervene in natural disasters:

2a. Because God merely set up the universe, and plays no part in its operations (the Divine Clockmaker).

2b. Because God delegates such malevolence to an independent being (the Devil), with a view to testing his creations.

2c. Because natural disasters are fundamentally amoral events, they don't interest Him.

2d. Because God is not truly omnipotent. He wants to help, but can't, for fear of something worse happening.

3. God exists, can control natural disasters, and is using it to punish wrongdoing.

4. God exists, can control natural disasters, and is doing it to test faith (basically 2b, except that God is doing it directly, rather than outsourcing it to the Devil)

5. God exists, may or may not have anything to do with natural disasters, but He is so far above our comprehension that for all we know, natural disasters are a good thing long term.

6. A combination of 2b and 2d: God exists, but he has a genuine Manichean opponent (not an underling like the Devil).

7. A combination of 2c and 5: God is a Cthulhu type figure: not so much malevolent, as no more interested in the doings of humans than we are by flies.

8. God has ceased to exist for whatever reason, so by definition, cannot intervene.

[Wise Fool]

I tend to view natural disasters as fundamentally amoral. Evil and good are judgments of behaviors, typically human behaviors (though other sentient species would qualify too) in the ethical spectrum.

Though people sometimes view them as punishments (or rewards?) and thus as God's will, I think that's a rather primitive and egocentric paradigm. Anything disastrous that happens to me feels like some sort of punishment, but what about things like storms or fires that don't effect me, or don't effect anyone? They would have to be punishments without victims, or maybe punishments that misfired? Too weird to contemplate.

God's omniscience, if taken to mean that He knew the way everything would turn out, and therefore planned it (if He set it all in motion), negates the concept of free will. Which I believe is important... even though I tend to think it doesn't really exist because, God or not, all things are caused by other things, and this would go for our own thoughts and behaviors as well. But then again, quantum randomness - so the "free will of the gaps," as it were, some semblance of choice because there is true randomness on a quantum level of physics. (Yay?) In any case, theologically, I believe God could be all-knowing and yet choose not to know in certain areas, specifically to allow for the concept of choice (and for the concept of randomness, I suppose).