Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 390 (756510)
04-21-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Phat
04-20-2015 8:42 AM


Re: Lets Get Back To God...
Lets get back to the idea that God if God exists has a basic responsibility to do all He can for humanity.
Maybe your puppet God who does whatever you tell him. But I cannot imagine God owing anyone anything.
Humanity itself, it can be argued, is often biased, self serving, and shirking our responsibility to each other.
And so whose job is it to fight that tendency against helping one another? The ones who are failing in that 'responsibility to each other' or the God who has no dog in the fight?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Phat, posted 04-20-2015 8:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 377 of 390 (756547)
04-22-2015 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by ringo
04-21-2015 11:39 AM


Re: Basic Foundation
ringo writes:
So you agree that your system doesn't work in this scenario. How is that not a failure?
Why would you think that? I told you that there are more things to consider here:
quote:
How many other people are the gas company affecting with the same action?
Are all people saying that the gas company is being bad to them?
If you care to expand your example in light of these points, we can expand the explanation.
The gas company deals with many people.
Each of those people gets to decide whether or not the gas company is treating them well.
Are there contracts involved that both parties agree to? If so, then how they feel may no longer be an issue in regards to punishment.
If not, then if most of the people are upset... don't you think something should be done?
If most of the people are not upset... and it's just this one fellow... then likely nothing should be done. However, this doesn't mean this one fellow isn't being treated badly. It just means that we justify treating this one fellow badly in order to run the gas company as best we can.
People (society) can then judge for themselves if they are okay with the gas company being bad to this one fellow while being okay with everyone else.
The point is not to sweep this one person under the rug.
Society deciding it's okay while considering this one man being treated badly is one thing.
Society deciding it's okay while totally ignoring this one man and saying he doesn't count... is another.
Same practical outcome, different mindset.
The different mindset comes into affect when the situation changes:
Let's say 2 people are upset now.
Maybe this is still okay for society.
Then my way: we have 2 people being upset, but society keeps going anyway.
Not my way: The gas company keeps going, ignore the kooks.
As the number of upset people grow... my way shows a larger and larger problem that needs attention.
As the number of upset people grow... the gas company keeps going, ignore the kooks. If you keep ignoring individual cases... you'll never add them up into larger sets.
If you do keep track of the individual cases... then "not my way" actually is "my way" anyway... and your entire example, again, was simply describing the system I'm explaining in the first place.
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by ringo, posted 04-21-2015 11:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 04-23-2015 11:47 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 378 of 390 (756548)
04-22-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by ringo
04-21-2015 11:43 AM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
If other people can want to help people and not hurt them without using your system, what's the benefit of your system?
To attempt to do it in a better way, of course.
If the other people's system is better (better at prioritizing helping and not hurting others), then I would dump my system and take up that one. If mine's better, then I'd keep mine.
The point of this idea is to follow the moral priority: help others and don't hurt them as much as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 04-21-2015 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by ringo, posted 04-23-2015 11:52 AM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 379 of 390 (756596)
04-23-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Stile
04-22-2015 10:17 AM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
So you agree that your system doesn't work in this scenario. How is that not a failure?
Why would you think that?
Huh? It doesn't work and you ask why I call it a failure? If you had a car that only ran on Tuesdays, would you call that a success?
Stile writes:
How many other people are the gas company affecting with the same action?
Are all people saying that the gas company is being bad to them?
You can't call something a success by only looking at the successes. You're proposing a "better" method, so you'd have to show that your system has a better success-failure rate than the existing system.
Stile writes:
The point is not to sweep this one person under the rug.
Nobody is suggesting sweeping him under the rug but your system seems to suggest giving inordinate weight to his (in this case) ridiculous complaint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Stile, posted 04-22-2015 10:17 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 11:47 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 380 of 390 (756597)
04-23-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Stile
04-22-2015 10:20 AM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
If the other people's system is better (better at prioritizing helping and not hurting others), then I would dump my system and take up that one. If mine's better, then I'd keep mine.
It isn't all about you. It doesn't matter what you individually do.
Stile writes:
The point of this idea is to follow the moral priority: help others and don't hurt them as much as possible.
That's what society does. But they don't necessarily do it, as you suggest, by picking a side. They don't just decide that slaves don't like being slaves so slavery must be absolutely bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Stile, posted 04-22-2015 10:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 11:53 AM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 381 of 390 (756829)
04-28-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by ringo
04-23-2015 11:47 AM


Re: Basic Foundation
ringo writes:
Huh? It doesn't work and you ask why I call it a failure? If you had a car that only ran on Tuesdays, would you call that a success?
What are you calling a "success" or a "failure"?
Are you saying that 1 person that is not happy is a "failure" when a gas company services 1000s of people?
Then... you're saying the current system is equally a failure? I don't understand your terminology.
You can't call something a success by only looking at the successes.
I'm calling it a success because it successfully identifies when someone is being hurt, and when someone is being helped.
If the gas company has a priority of making money, instead of helping people... then I don't see how that makes the indentification that 1 person is being hurt a "failure."
The identification is still a success.
The gas company (if it's priority is staying in business, or making money, or whatever) is also a success.
I don't understand your issue.
Nobody is suggesting sweeping him under the rug but your system seems to suggest giving inordinate weight to his (in this case) ridiculous complaint.
How so?
My system suggests to recognize that someone is hurt when they say that they are hurt.
How is that "inordinate weight"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 04-23-2015 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 12:44 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 382 of 390 (756830)
04-28-2015 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by ringo
04-23-2015 11:52 AM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
It isn't all about you. It doesn't matter what you individually do.
Of course not. That's exactly why my system is designed to let other people decide when they are hurt or helped.
On the other hand, if we want to talk about my priorities and why I hold them... then it is all about me, and should very well be.
You're confusing two different aspects to try and make a point that doesn't exist.
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
The point of this idea is to follow the moral priority: help others and don't hurt them as much as possible.
That's what society does.
Then what's your problem?
If society does exactly what I say they do... why do you have an issue with what I say?
But they don't necessarily do it, as you suggest, by picking a side. They don't just decide that slaves don't like being slaves so slavery must be absolutely bad.
This has nothing to do with anything I've ever described in this thread. In fact, I've told you many, many times now that this is inherently not what I mean and that you have something mistaken.
Would you like to continue on and try to uncover your mistake in good faith?
Or would you like to continue trolling and purposefully confusing separate aspects to make some point that makes you feel better but has nothing to do with what I'm actually talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by ringo, posted 04-23-2015 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 12:48 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 383 of 390 (756831)
04-28-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Stile
04-28-2015 11:47 AM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
Are you saying that 1 person that is not happy is a "failure" when a gas company services 1000s of people?
Under your system, that one person would be the determining factor in the gas company's policy; essentially, people would pay what they chose to pay. That's why your system fails in the real world.
Stile writes:
Then... you're saying the current system is equally a failure?
It doesn't matter if the current system is a failure or not. If you want to propose a "better" system, you have to demonstrate that your system would work better.
Stile writes:
I'm calling it a success because it successfully identifies when someone is being hurt, and when someone is being helped.
But being "helped" and being "hurt' are not absolutes. One man's help is another man's hurt - and you're proposing that we follow the whims of the people least likely to be objective about it.
Stile writes:
My system suggests to recognize that someone is hurt when they say that they are hurt.
How is that "inordinate weight"?
So when somebody complains that he's being victimized by the gas company or the Mafia, you don't plan to give any weight to his complaint at all? You can't resolve the issue without giving weight to the complaint but your system is based strictly on the complainant, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 11:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 1:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 384 of 390 (756832)
04-28-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Stile
04-28-2015 11:53 AM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
That's exactly why my system is designed to let other people decide when they are hurt or helped.
But you're letting the wrong people decide, the people with the vested interest. And you're ignoring the fact that most issues have two or more vested interests that are at odds with each other. You're arbitrarily picking a side.
Stile writes:
If society does exactly what I say they do... why do you have an issue with what I say?
You really have to make up your mind. Does society use your system or are you proposing a better system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 11:53 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 1:27 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 385 of 390 (756834)
04-28-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by ringo
04-28-2015 12:44 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
ringo writes:
So when somebody complains that he's being victimized by the gas company or the Mafia, you don't plan to give any weight to his complaint at all?
I think you have an issue with extremes.
First it's an inordinate amount of weight, next it's none at all...
Perhaps you should assume less and read more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 12:44 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 1:32 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 386 of 390 (756835)
04-28-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by ringo
04-28-2015 12:48 PM


Re: Just a coffee
ringo writes:
You really have to make up your mind.
What you quoted wasn't about the state of my mind, it was about the state of yours...
I don't think I'm gaining anything from this conversation anymore. I think I'm done. Good luck to you, ringo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 12:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by ringo, posted 04-28-2015 1:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 387 of 390 (756836)
04-28-2015 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Stile
04-28-2015 1:27 PM


Re: Just a coffee
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
You really have to make up your mind.
What you quoted wasn't about the state of my mind, it was about the state of yours...
My mind is trying to make sense of what your mind is saying. Which is it? Are you describing the way society does it or are you proposing a better method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 1:27 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 388 of 390 (756838)
04-28-2015 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Stile
04-28-2015 1:26 PM


Re: Basic Foundation
Stile writes:
First it's an inordinate amount of weight, next it's none at all...
Perhaps you should assume less and read more.
Perhaps you should try to be clearer. Are you proposing that we should base our decisions on the complainant's complaint?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Stile, posted 04-28-2015 1:26 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 389 of 390 (756881)
04-29-2015 7:21 PM


God is evil IF.....
In my mind, you two (Stile & Ringo) simply like to try and frame an argument and let that framework be the "winner".
Not that I don't respect both of you....your only flaw is that you somehow can't understand nor experience God in any way shape or form. Critics would say that both of you assume there to be no God and that human wisdom is the ultimate authority. You just have issues as to which humans wisdom gets the final say.
Allow me to try and reframe this topic according to its initial premise.
1) God exists.
2) Human wisdom exists and is allowed to judge God.
3) Often, what ends up apparently happening is that human wisdom individually attempts to define and perfect its collective self. In my mind, this will never be resolved unless a consensus is reached.
I personally believe that human wisdom can never judge God, nor are we ever capable of doing so. Some arguments have been made that have humans judging the "god character" in the Bible...but such arguments never allow for the belief or idea that God is superior to man and never in need of correction...nor judgement. Thus, the only conceivable reason I could see for God allowing humans to judge Him would be for the benefit of humans...rather than the correction of God. (God sets Himself up as a hypothetical judge needing to be judged, in other words)
Jon writes:
I cannot imagine God owing anyone anything.
Can you imagine God communing(communicating) with humanity in any way shape or form? If so, what is Gods role in the communion? What is our role?
Stile writes:
The gas company deals with many people.
Each of those people gets to decide whether or not the gas company is treating them well.
Is the gas company analogous to God? Do people get to decide whether or not God is treating them well? In the basic analysis, are the people for or against God? Do they value each others wisdom more(higher) than Gods? Can they even conceive of what Gods wisdom is? Can anyone?(even speculatively)
Stile writes:
If the other people's system is better (better at prioritizing helping and not hurting others), then I would dump my system and take up that one. If mine's better, then I'd keep mine.
Is the judgement limited to the people themselves? Is our only choice voting either for our own system or that of other humans? Is God not in any way involved in the reasoning process?
Ringo writes:
It isn't all about you. It doesn't matter what you individually do.
In other words, no one man gets to decide everything, right? I suppose this would hypothetically include Jesus...or am I wrong?
Ringo writes:
That's what society does. But they don't necessarily do it, as you suggest, by picking a side. They don't just decide that slaves don't like being slaves so slavery must be absolutely bad.
In other words, the solution is rarely if ever absolute(or at least in your mind it shouldn't be.) If I recall correctly, you would even be willing to defend satan against God in court. I suppose that a jury trial would be the fairest. If so, would the opinion of a jury composed of a multitude of people carry more weight than the decisions of a Creator of all things seen and unseen?
Stile writes:
My system suggests to recognize that someone is hurt when they say that they are hurt.
Apparently Stile champions the rights of the individual. Thus if even one individual was hurt(according to their own feelings) they should be recognized as a victim.
Stile writes:
my system is designed to let other people decide when they are hurt or helped.
Are you saying that each individual carries equal weight in a judgement process against God?(hypothetically)

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Stile, posted 04-30-2015 10:13 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 390 of 390 (756920)
04-30-2015 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Phat
04-29-2015 7:21 PM


Re: God is evil IF.....
Phat writes:
2) Human wisdom exists and is allowed to judge God.
...
I personally believe that human wisdom can never judge God, nor are we ever capable of doing so.
So we are not allowed to judge God?
Apart from that, though... I don't have a problem with the belief that God is superior and may know things that we don't.
I don't think this removes the need to question God, though.
I'm not accusing God of anything.
I'm simply asking God something.
"God, what is the reason you have for allowing evil to continue on earth?"
Perhaps God has a fantastic reason that I can understand and simply do not currently know.
Perhaps God has a fantastic reason that I cannot understand and therefore will never know.
Perhaps God is desperately trying to tell me such a reason right now, but for whatever other issue, He is unable to reach me.
Perhaps God does not have a good reason at all.
Perhaps God doesn't exist and the entire question is moot.
But my question remains... and will remain until I either hear from God Himself, or understand more about God's abilities.
I simply judge God on the current information I have available.
Right now... I have yet to hear from God.
Right now, I cannot conceive of a situation where allowing evil to continue while you have the ability to prevent it is "good."
Therefore, right now, I judge God as evil for (supposedly) allowing evil to continue.
...but such arguments never allow for the belief or idea that God is superior to man and never in need of correction...nor judgement.
I allow for this belief and idea. I just don't have any information to back it up to make it seem valid in any way.
If we someday uncover information that lends credence to this idea, I will update my judgment accordingly. But I certainly accept it as a possibility.
Is the gas company analogous to God? Do people get to decide whether or not God is treating them well?
I wasn't meant to be, I don't think. But yes, I suppose it could be, sure.
And yes, people absolutely get to decide whether or not God is treating them well. If someone else is deciding, what whould that look like?
Can you describe a specific situation where it would be "better" for someone else (including God) to choose whether or not God is treating other people well? Just saying "it's possible God would know better" is too vague for me to accept. Can you describe a specific situation where God could possibly "know better?" If God did "know better"... wouldn't the outcome be the people involved being happy? If God's worried about the people being happy... then isn't God Himself worried about "the individual" as well?
I hold personal freedom and expression as a fairly high priority. That is, I think any person has a right to live their life the way they would like... Which (when extended to everyone) obviously includes "as long as you don't infringe on someone else's same rights." I can understand that if you do not think personal freedom for all is important, or that something else is more-important... then you will probably not agree.
Other priorities could be:
-No conflicts at all (if everyone was robotic slaves, there would be no conflicts...)
-Personal safety and long life (we could remove everything that is dangerous... things would be boring, but safe...)
-Instead of personal rights for everyone, someone could prioritize personal rights for themselves or someone else or a specific group (or even God)
We all have to figure out what priorities are important to ourselves.
And, we all get to judge each other's priority list as one we find acceptable or not.
We also get to choose whether or not we care about other people's priorities.
In the basic analysis, are the people for or against God?
I don't know. I am not "the people" I am only me. You would have to ask "the people."
Do they value each others wisdom more(higher) than Gods?
I'm sure some do. Just as much as I'm sure some do not. People as a group are generally not very uniform about anything.
Can they even conceive of what Gods wisdom is? Can anyone?(even speculatively)
I don't know. What's God's wisdom?
Is our only choice voting either for our own system or that of other humans?
Not to me. I would accept anything that could be shown to be "better" (holding the stated priorities better) regardless of where it came from.
Is God not in any way involved in the reasoning process?
I would love for God to be involved. He has long been silent, though. Perhaps I do not know how to listen. Perhaps God isn't trying. Perhaps God doesn't exist in order to get involved. I don't know. But if it were possible, then yes, I'd very much be for getting the advice of God.
Thus if even one individual was hurt(according to their own feelings) they should be recognized as a victim.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Then further personal judgement comes in.
For some, 1 out of a million people being hurt is enough to stop whatever-that-system may be. For them, even 1 being hurt is unacceptable.
For others, 1 out of a million people being hurt is "an acceptable compromise" in order to run whatever-that-system-may-be for the other 999, 999 people.
However... figuring out "who is hurt or not" needs to be identified one way or another. Even if a compromised is reached, I think that compromise should be identified as what it is... a compromise... not "something good for everyone" when clearly it's not.
Are you saying that each individual carries equal weight in a judgement process against God?(hypothetically)
Yes.
I'm also saying that each individual (including God) gets to decide whether or not they care about anyone else's (or everyone else's) judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Phat, posted 04-29-2015 7:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024