Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s nothing to do with humanism specifically, and in any case if not for “nurture and knowledge” what else would you blame for poor behaviour?

Our own egos

Not really. The ”blame” lies with environment and culture and all sort of complex social phenomena. 
 
Your “inevitably therefore” is a non sequitur. We’re “looking for” no such thing.

You aren’t adding anything to what I said except your conclusion is unjustified turdpolishing of you being merely contradictory.

Have you ever thought of doing something more useful like putting little ships into bottles

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices.

No, they’re just pointing out the implications for those who assert a god of the "omnis".

God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself?

An omniscient god would have known that his creations would lead to diseases. That makes him a monster. 

No, what about the potential for good things.

What about them?

Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No

If a god wasn’t indifferent to the suffering he caused why would create so much of it to begin with, and then choose to intervene to prevent it "miraculously" only occasionally?

Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.

Gibberish.

[jeremyp]

Eh?

If tapeworms were beneficial before the Fall and became parasitic after it, something must have enacted the change, either that or created the mechanism that ensured the change would happen.

The only candidate we have for either of these is God.

[Spud]

So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...

The problem seems to be Satan who leads us astray. Jesus dealt with him though and he will be destroyed at the end of this world. Then God will make a new heaven and earth where there will be no Satan, so no sin death or disease.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, they’re just pointing out the implications for those who assert a god of the "omnis".

And what of those who propose a God which doesn’t conform to your proposal of “God” or your definition of “Omni”?

An omniscient god would have known that his creations would lead to diseases. That makes him a monster.

I disagree. He would have been a monster if he hadn’t created life from which disease arises.

If a god wasn’t indifferent to the suffering he caused why would create so much of it to begin with, and then choose to intervene to prevent it "miraculously" only occasionally?

Suffering or pain is an alarm that warns that something is going or has gone wrong in a system.
As I mentioned before if you have an omniscient god He knows likely outcomes of human actions. Like the code breakers of Bletchley Park who held back on intervention in world war 2 for the greater good so it is with God. God is not going to intervene where the coherence of the universe is at stake. In other words If any  of us had the power to intervene with divine power sooner or later we would end up asking the universe to do absurd things. Even though this forum is replete with people who think they would have done a better job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If tapeworms were beneficial before the Fall and became parasitic after it, something must have enacted the change, either that or created the mechanism that ensured the change would happen.

The only candidate we have for either of these is God.

Or the loss of unbroken communion with God changed the relationship with man who no longer had protection previously afforded to him.

Or Man’s perception changed.

[jeremyp]

Or the loss of unbroken communion with God changed the relationship with man who no longer had protection previously afforded to him.

Or Man’s perception changed.

No. We are talking about what happened to tapeworms after the Fall. Apparently, tape worms were benign fun loving creatures before the Fall and then something happened to make them parasites. Tapeworms must have physically changed. How did that happen, if it wasn't God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. We are talking about what happened to tapeworms after the Fall. Apparently, tape worms were benign fun loving creatures before the Fall and then something happened to make them parasites. Tapeworms must have physically changed. How did that happen, if it wasn't God?

Since no one has provided a timeframe for this such a post fall transformation could I suppose occur by the process of mutation. Weren't tapeworms once used in dieting?
I don't recall anyone describing tapeworm as fum loving Jeremy.
I suppose you are going to tell us that prior to the fall athletes foot was a fun guy to be with.

[Enki]

I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No, what about the potential for good things.

1) No one, as far as I know, suggested that God creates disease as an end in itself.

2) Just because there are the potential for good things in this world is no excuse for creating diseases which lead to vast amounts of suffering.

3) Using emotive words like 'loaded',  'hysterical' and 'rhetorical' doesn't take away from the basic argument. Indeed, it seems to show your frustration at your inability in dealing with it.

Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.

You mean, by producing a few healing miracles from your holy book, you think that compares with, for instance, the estimated 300 million people who died from smallpox in the 20th century alone?('The eradication of smallpox – An overview of the past, present, and future' Donald Henderson). Really! And, your excuse? That your God ain't going to overturn the laws of nature which we assume He/She/It created in the first place. Strange indeed then that humans have done just that by eradicating the disease. Sounds to me as if you're describing a particularly cruel God who operates on the basis of whims  and fleeting impulses.

Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.

back to the idea of the fall, I see. It seems when all else fails, just suggest that humans are somehow responsible for all the ills that befall them. Doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Apart from the ludicrous idea of a 'fall', inherent in it is a total lack of the sort of  morality which I support.

[jeremyp]

Since no one has provided a timeframe for this such a post fall transformation could I suppose occur by the process of mutation.

Well, it's Spud's hypothesis. You should ask him what the time line is.

Weren't tapeworms once used in dieting?
I don't recall anyone describing tapeworm as fum loving Jeremy.
I suppose you are going to tell us that prior to the fall athletes foot was a fun guy to be with.

Well Spud is claiming:

There was no disease when God finished his creation

I don't know what form athletes foot is supposed to have taken before the Fall, or if it existed. But Spud says all the diseases and parasites became diseases and parasites because of the Fall  - the Fall being an event in human history and so shorter than the normal period of time required to evolve whole genera of new species. It seems to me that, for Spud to be correct, God must have been responsible.

[SteveH]

The problem seems to be Satan who leads us astray. Jesus dealt with him though and he will be destroyed at the end of this world. Then God will make a new heaven and earth where there will be no Satan, so no sin death or disease.

If you bring up Satan to explain sin and suffering, you create more logical problems than you solve - indeed, a whole chain of them: If the fallen angels were sinless and capable of remaining so, and enjoyed unmediated communion with God, how did they come to fall? Given that they did, why didn't God allow them to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than condemning them to an eternity of misery? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow them to tempt Adam and Eve? Given that God did allow Satan to do so, why didn't God allow Adam and Eve to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them and start again with another couple? Given that God didn't, why is their sin transmitted to all their descendants, whether they like it or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Our own egos

You aren’t adding anything to what I said except your conclusion is unjustified turdpolishing of you being merely contradictory.

Have you ever thought of doing something more useful like putting little ships into bottles

Try to remember to close the door behind you as you run away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad.

And what of those who propose a God which doesn’t conform to your proposal of “God” or your definition of “Omni”?

If you want to attempt definitions of “omnipotent”, “omniscient” etc other than the standard ones then you’ll need to tell us what they are – “omnipotent = all powerful, only not when that doesn’t suit me” or some such perhaps?

I disagree. He would have been a monster if he hadn’t created life from which disease arises.

When you posit a god who could have prevented disease but decided not to, that makes him a monster. 

Suffering or pain is an alarm that warns that something is going or has gone wrong in a system.

So why create systems that go wrong?

As I mentioned before if you have an omniscient god He knows likely outcomes of human actions.

No, he'd know the actual “outcomes of human action” – not just the likely ones. That’s what omniscience requires.

Like the code breakers of Bletchley Park who held back on intervention in world war 2 for the greater good so it is with God.

And the “greater good” supposedly enabled by a baby dying of brain cancer would be what would you say?

God is not going to intervene where the coherence of the universe is at stake.

Yet the god you assert into existence and justify with only shit arguments does exactly that – every time he performs “miracles” according to you. In what way would a miracle not invalidate the “coherence” of the universe?
 

In other words If any  of us had the power to intervene with divine power sooner or later we would end up asking the universe to do absurd things. Even though this forum is replete with people who think they would have done a better job.

And yet you assert there to be just such “absurd things” – ie, “miracles”.

You’ve tied yourself into another knot of contradiction here. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try to remember to close the door behind you as you run away.

Whatever we do Hillside there is no law saying that it has to be that way. We know this because alternatives are carried out. If you are suggesting our actions are determined then it is by the examples set by our predecessors since what else could be the cause? Eventually then we must get back to the first people.If you think our moral behaviours as humans are totally found in our evolutionary forebears then you need to make the case.

I shan't be holding my breath.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Whatever we do Hillside there is no law saying that it has to be that way.

Actually there may well be, at least if you consider determinism to be a “law”

We know this because alternatives are carried out.

Another non sequitur. You have no idea whether an “alternative” is an alternative that that which must have been.

If you are suggesting our actions are determined then it is by the examples set by our predecessors since what else could be the cause?

Lots of things. Cultures emerge from collective experience – they don’t just slavishly copy and repeat the behaviour of one specific ancestor or another.

Eventually then we must get back to the first people.

Why?

If you think our moral behaviours as humans are totally found in our evolutionary forebears then you need to make the case.

I don’t.

I shan't be holding my breath.

For a reply to your straw man? Probably sensible not to.

[Sebastian Toe]

. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No

That's a very bold statement!
You know as an absolute truth that is correct?
If so that would put you into the category of knowing, for certain, what God thinks and what actions he will or will not take.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a very bold statement!
You know as an absolute truth that is correct?
If so that would put you into the category of knowing, for certain, what God thinks and what actions he will or will not take.

I am speaking within the premise that those in the debate have bought into namely "If there was a God then" secondly I am speaking from the premise that the universe is on the whole reasonable and logical.
My claim within the main premise is that If there is a God he does nothing to disrupt universal reasonableness and logically. Simples.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



Why?

well you have me there since I cannot say that we can blame the first people for our moral conduct.
 However we cannot say that we don't blame previous generations for poor conduct.
If the first or whatever generations are blameless in terms of moral legacy. We still have a "Perpetrator zero.
It also means that people could lead perfectly blameless lives in other words sin isn't part of our design but is a moral choice.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am speaking within the premise that those in the debate have bought into namely "If there was a God then" secondly I am speaking from the premise that the universe is on the whole reasonable and logical.
My claim within the main premise is that If there is a God he does nothing to disrupt universal reasonableness and logically. Simples.

If you say so.

[Spud]

If you bring up Satan to explain sin and suffering, you create more logical problems than you solve - indeed, a whole chain of them: If the fallen angels were sinless and capable of remaining so, and enjoyed unmediated communion with God, how did they come to fall? Given that they did, why didn't God allow them to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than condemning them to an eternity of misery? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow them to tempt Adam and Eve? Given that God did allow Satan to do so, why didn't God allow Adam and Eve to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them and start again with another couple? Given that God didn't, why is their sin transmitted to all their descendants, whether they like it or not?

I wanted to say that even if Satan became evil having been created good, the creation described in genesis was still 'good'. But it looks like the serpent, which was also part of that creation, was not good, as he tempted A&E. But what if he became possessed by Satan?That this was the case is suggested by the fact that he was somehow able to talk. Perhaps a fair interpretation is that Satan used the serpent's craftiness to tempt A&E, and that the serpent would not have done so without being under Satan's influence?
In which case, we can still say that God's creation, as described, was not in any way evil. Your questions regarding Satan may be answered to an extent by the verse that says we wrestle against not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, etc?

[Stranger]

I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No...

Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.

...what about the potential for good things.

What about it?

Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles.

A few alleged and isolated 'healing miracles' hardly makes up for its initial cruelty in creating a universe that led to the suffering in the first place.

Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.

More cruelty, then.

Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics.

If this is all due to 'the fall', that adds vindictive collective punishment to your god's list of atrocities.

Are you worshipping some sort of supernatural version of Suella Braverman?

[Outrider]

I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.

Congratulations, you've started building next year's Guy well in advance - top straw-manning, there. You might, as an exercise in navel-gazing, imagine a Humanist version of the notion of original sin and/or the introduction of evil into paradise, but given that no humanists appear to be putting that notion forward, why bother?

You don't need a humanist explanation for something that you can't demonstrate happens, you need an explanation for the religious claim that it did...

O.

[Spud]

Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.

God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.

Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.

[Nearly Sane]

That's 'God' - creator of everything Same thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.

God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.

Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.

Hmmm...

[Stranger]

God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.

That doesn't address my point.

Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.

The whole idea of 'free will' with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, who would have effectively chosen all of our nature, nurture, and experiences by the way it decided to do its creation, is laughably absurd.