Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig's Horrible Argument

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many people argue that even if God has reasons for causing the suffering he does, we should be the first to know, so the fact that we don't can still be used as evidence against a certain type of God, even if we grant that this God may have good reasons to allow the suffering. William Craig has an awful argument against this. He states that if God let us know all the reasons for why he did the things he did, then the universe would be like a haunted house. Every time someone stubs their toe for example, God would say "this is why I did this!". The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

For example, if I have a beef with Kyle, all a person needs to know is that I have beef with Kyle. If I punch Kyle, Kyle pokes a hole in my tires, or a have sex with a wife, nobody has to tell someone after each incident why it happened, because it all comes together once people know I have beef with Kyle.

Similarly, all God has to do is give us a general reason. He doesn't have to tell frank why he allowed his toe to be hurt at that moment, and every instant after that he will get hurt, as all he has to do is let us know why he allows that type of suffering in the first place.

Ergo, William Lane Craig's argument about why God wouldn't let us know why he allows suffering, based on how absurd it would be to live in a haunted house fails, because nobody is saying that we have to have a specific reason for each incident, just a general reason for all incidents.

I'm honestly shocked that William Lane Craig thought this was a valid response to the argument that we should be the first to know these morally sufficient reasons. A simply blanket reason would suffice, not a reason for every single thing that happens.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:36:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You mean people come up with all sorts of rationlizations to protect a prior belief ? I am shocked just shocked..........

I would say we are more concerned about the suffering of something things than other.

For example I think we would want a more detailed explanation as to why the all powerful all wise wizard of oz lets the child die in agony of leukemia and not a detailed explanation as to why God allowed a rock to fall on my toe.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:39:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:36:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You mean people come up with all sorts of rationlizations to protect a prior belief ? I am shocked just shocked..........

I would say we are more concerned about the suffering of something things than other.

For example I think we would want a more detailed explanation as to why the all powerful all wise wizard of oz lets the child die in agony of leukemia and not a detailed explanation as to why God allowed a rock to fall on my toe.

You don't know God's plan bro, just because you can't see a good reason doesn't mean there isn't one! Pfft *commits epistemic suicide*
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:47:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:39:35 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:36:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
You mean people come up with all sorts of rationlizations to protect a prior belief ? I am shocked just shocked..........

I would say we are more concerned about the suffering of something things than other.

For example I think we would want a more detailed explanation as to why the all powerful all wise wizard of oz lets the child die in agony of leukemia and not a detailed explanation as to why God allowed a rock to fall on my toe.

You don't know God's plan bro, just because you can't see a good reason doesn't mean there isn't one! Pfft *commits epistemic suicide*

Hey it's all part of the plan..........the divine plan don't ya know......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
General reason= sin. Sin is separation from God. God does not intervene because we were the ones to destroy our creation and create the rift between us and God. It's not God who severed Himself away from us, that's entirely our fault. Everything bad that happens follows the cascade which we started and are continuing (from the christian theological viewpoint) from the initial point of perfection. Commonly held in christian theism is that an intervening God (intervening meaning one who would renege our capacity for freedom of will) would contradict His own actions and nature, thus its up to us again if we want to allow God to fix things for us, so that our freedom is not compromised.

Anyways, that's my two cents on the topic of christian theology. I understand that its not entirely relevant, so here are my relevant thoughts:

The argument that God ought to provide us with reasons as to why He causes us suffering fails on three merits, the first being the assumption that God needs to provide us with reasons as to why He does what he does, the second being that he himself causes the suffering/is wrong in causing the suffering and that any standard of ought can be applied to the grand standard of ought.

The first criticism against the view that God needs to provide us with reasons for his actions can also be broken down into the arguments that we in actual fact do know the reasons, and that if we don't know the reasons, there is no reason why God has any obligation to tell us.

The second criticism on God as the actual cause of suffering being that suffering is not an objectively mutually exclusive concept from the idea of God, given that God will certainly cause suffering against the unjust as a form of punishment to be consistent with His nature. Thus God is obliged to cause suffering and pain of sorts. The second way this criticism attacks is that pain and suffering did not exist in the initial creation, it was introduced by sin, which was created by mankind. The third point is that pain and suffering are neither objective evils nor inconsistent with the nature of God, thus pain and suffering can exist in the world and it is not true that an omni-benevolent God would want to stop it.

The third criticism against this argument is that it assumes knowledge on what God ought to do without providing evidence as to why God has an ought to do it. Further criticism on this point can be made that it is logically impossible to speak of God as being morally obliged to do anything given that He himself is the standard of what is right and wrong. Thus whatever he is defines that which is morally right, in the absence of any other objective ethical system. Given this, it is only possible to argue that God acts in a way inconsistent with his nature, ie. an attribute contradiction.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:14:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:56:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
General reason= sin. Sin is separation from God. God does not intervene because we were the ones to destroy our creation and create the rift between us and God. It's not God who severed Himself away from us, that's entirely our fault.

Isiah 45:7 would disagree.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:34:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:56:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
General reason= sin. Sin is separation from God. God does not intervene because we were the ones to destroy our creation and create the rift between us and God. It's not God who severed Himself away from us, that's entirely our fault. Everything bad that happens follows the cascade which we started and are continuing (from the christian theological viewpoint) from the initial point of perfection.

If there was some evidence that mankind once existed "perfection" and there was no time before that it did not, and later on it changed to imperfect yeah that would be nice.

Till then you have claims which violate occams razor.

Commonly held in christian theism is that an intervening God (intervening meaning one who would renege our capacity for freedom of will) would contradict His own actions and nature, thus its up to us again if we want to allow God to fix things for us, so that our freedom is not compromised.

God stopping baby cancer isn't going to hurt my freedom or yours. I find this a cop out.


Anyways, that's my two cents on the topic of christian theology. I understand that its not entirely relevant, so here are my relevant thoughts:

The argument that God ought to provide us with reasons as to why He causes us suffering fails on three merits, the first being the assumption that God needs to provide us with reasons as to why He does what he does, the second being that he himself causes the suffering/is wrong in causing the suffering and that any standard of ought can be applied to the grand standard of ought.

I am not too sure that the argument is that God "ought" rather that God does not.


The first criticism against the view that God needs to provide us with reasons for his actions can also be broken down into the arguments that we in actual fact do know the reasons, and that if we don't know the reasons, there is no reason why God has any obligation to tell us.

I doubt the argument that God needs to do anything or has an obligation, just pointing out such a thing does not happen, what inferences are drawn from that well.........


The second criticism on God as the actual cause of suffering being that suffering is not an objectively mutually exclusive concept from the idea of God, given that God will certainly cause suffering against the unjust as a form of punishment to be consistent with His nature. Thus God is obliged to cause suffering and pain of sorts.

Says you.........

The second way this criticism attacks is that pain and suffering did not exist in the initial creation, it was introduced by sin, which was created by mankind.

Stories are a dime a dozen.........

The third point is that pain and suffering are neither objective evils nor inconsistent with the nature of God, thus pain and suffering can exist in the world and it is not true that an omni-benevolent God would want to stop it.

Depends on what you mean by omni benevolent, most people would see this as some sort of concern for creatures that suffer and thus do something about it.


The third criticism against this argument is that it assumes knowledge on what God ought to do without providing evidence as to why God has an ought to do it. Further criticism on this point can be made that it is logically impossible to speak of God as being morally obliged to do anything given that He himself is the standard of what is right and wrong. Thus whatever he is defines that which is morally right, in the absence of any other objective ethical system. Given this, it is only possible to argue that God acts in a way inconsistent with his nature, ie. an attribute contradiction.

It get's tiresome people claiming what God can and can't do.

Christians will claim at least in the past God has ordered one group of people to kill another group of people (cause you know it says so in the bible) but put forth the proposition that God could or order some one to rape a baby and what will they say ? No God could not do that.

Just made up on the go.......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

But I don't think many people would be satisfied with such a general answer. They want something more specific. Why did God allow this particular bad thing to happen. How does this particular bad thing result in God's glorification?

The whole argument from gratuitous evil presupposes that a general reason for evil isn't good enough since it implicitly acknowledges that some evils are justified while others are not.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"


But I don't think many people would be satisfied with such a general answer. They want something more specific. Why did God allow this particular bad thing to happen. How does this particular bad thing result in God's glorification?

Well that particular event would be explained by the general explanation. God allows suffering because X, stubbing your toes was suffering, so God allowed it because of X. I still see no reason why every incident would have to be explained, just because we want a reason from God as to why he allows suffering in general.


The whole argument from gratuitous evil presupposes that a general reason for evil isn't good enough since it implicitly acknowledges that some evils are justified while others are not.

But ALL "evils" have to be justified if an omnibenevolent God exists. So, a valid blanket explanation would suffice. However, God allowing suffering to glorify him makes him sound like a sick mental patient who needs help (blood, dead, glorification!), so that answer does more harm than good.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with Rational Thinker here, and with Smithereens:

God doesn't have to give us a reason for every bad incident that happens (and he frequently doesn't from what I observe).

As Smithereens commented, the reason why bad things happen (one of the primary reasons from what I can put together) is because of sin. Sin destroys the world, decreases the quality of life, and puts the justification for having intelligent life into question . . . so God responds to sin by destroying people and civilizations that threaten life on the planet. A doctor must remove cancer (which is living but lethal) to save the greater patient. So it is with sinful communities that do not want to turn from their ways.

Now, is this the only reason why suffering exist in the world. I'm also going to say "no" here. Sometimes suffering happens because God has only crude methods to do things. Throughout Earth's history, entire species have gone extinct because God had ulterior plans that caused that species to disappear. There are other reaons why things suffer and die in our world.

But with respect to intelligent life (like us humans) I would venture to say that most suffering is caused by sin (either directly or inflicted divinely).
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:30:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also agree with Rational Thinker on another issue. I do not believe God inflicts suffering on the world so that mankind can glorify him.

Frequently when things go bad for me I gave God a good speech littered with a lot of derogatory words--so clearly he's not getting glorification from me when I suffer. I imagine this is true of other humans who suffer, too.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ultimately, the best way we can respond to pain and suffering on this planet as a species is by decreasing it! Our species does have some power it decreasing the pain others go through and in increasing the quality of life for the species (and other creatures) in general!

This is what we should focus on!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:43:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

But if God is omnipotent, he can create situations that lead to God's glory without suffering (there is no contradiction in that). So, if he willingly puts suffering into the world when it is not needed, then, that is pretty messed up lol


In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.

Again this makes no sense, as it is completely possible to have road to glorification without any suffering. It is conceivable to me at least..
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:49:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:43:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

But if God is omnipotent, he can create situations that lead to God's glory without suffering (there is no contradiction in that). So, if he willingly puts suffering into the world when it is not needed, then, that is pretty messed up lol


In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.

Again this makes no sense, as it is completely possible to have road to glorification without any suffering. It is conceivable to me at least..

Edwards argues that God is glorified in the demonstration of all his attributes. One of his attributes is wrath toward sin. God couldn't very well express that aspect of his personality if nobody sinned. And sin is harmful to people. So there's one example of an evil that is necessary for God's full glorification.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:49:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:43:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

But if God is omnipotent, he can create situations that lead to God's glory without suffering (there is no contradiction in that). So, if he willingly puts suffering into the world when it is not needed, then, that is pretty messed up lol


In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.

Again this makes no sense, as it is completely possible to have road to glorification without any suffering. It is conceivable to me at least..

Edwards argues that God is glorified in the demonstration of all his attributes. One of his attributes is wrath toward sin. God couldn't very well express that aspect of his personality if nobody sinned. And sin is harmful to people. So there's one example of an evil that is necessary for God's full glorification.

So deformed babies and starving innocent children are sinners? It seems that God brings wrath upon the innocent who do nothing to deserve it.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:39:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 6:27:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:49:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:43:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

But if God is omnipotent, he can create situations that lead to God's glory without suffering (there is no contradiction in that). So, if he willingly puts suffering into the world when it is not needed, then, that is pretty messed up lol


In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.

Again this makes no sense, as it is completely possible to have road to glorification without any suffering. It is conceivable to me at least..

Edwards argues that God is glorified in the demonstration of all his attributes. One of his attributes is wrath toward sin. God couldn't very well express that aspect of his personality if nobody sinned. And sin is harmful to people. So there's one example of an evil that is necessary for God's full glorification.

So deformed babies and starving innocent children are sinners?

No, that is not the point I made.

It seems that God brings wrath upon the innocent who do nothing to deserve it.

My argument isn't that all suffering is the sake of God displaying his wrath. My argument was that the glorification of God in the demonstration of his wrath was one reason for why there is sin.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 6:39:34 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 6:27:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:49:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:43:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:07:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 3:39:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 2:52:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

But he already has given a general reason for suffering and everything else. The ultimate reason for everything is for the glory of God. I don't know if Craig would agree with that, but that's what Jonathan Edwards argued in his book on The End For Which God Created the World.

So letting children die of hunger and kids being born with horrible sicknesses glorifies God? Sounds like a sick SOB this God of yours lol

God: "Lets torture some innocent people to glorify me! Mhuahah"

No, it isn't as if the suffering itself glorifies God. It's that the suffer leads to God's glory through a causal chain.

But if God is omnipotent, he can create situations that lead to God's glory without suffering (there is no contradiction in that). So, if he willingly puts suffering into the world when it is not needed, then, that is pretty messed up lol


In any situation where there are specific reasons and general reasons, there's a causal chain.

For example, people study for tests so they can make good grades. But making good grades isn't the ultimate end. It's just a means to a further end. They want good grades so they can graduate in good standing and get a degree. But that isn't the main goal either. That's a means to a further end--getting a a good job. And getting a good job is a means to making good money, which is a means to buying a house and having things and being able to take care of your family, etc.

Such analogies don't apply to God conceived as all knowing all powerful. God isn't restricted by lack of capability as this God doesn't need the baby cancer to achieve anything.

Yet there does exist baby cancer........


Edwards argues in his book that the glory of God is the ultimate end in everything. That is the general reason for why suffering and everything else happens. But to give a specific reason would be to explain the immediate end of a particular case of suffering.

Again the God conceived of can do that without all the sh*t.


Again this makes no sense, as it is completely possible to have road to glorification without any suffering. It is conceivable to me at least..


Edwards argues that God is glorified in the demonstration of all his attributes. One of his attributes is wrath toward sin. God couldn't very well express that aspect of his personality if nobody sinned. And sin is harmful to people. So there's one example of an evil that is necessary for God's full glorification.

So deformed babies and starving innocent children are sinners?

No, that is not the point I made.

It seems that God brings wrath upon the innocent who do nothing to deserve it.

My argument isn't that all suffering is the sake of God displaying his wrath. My argument was that the glorification of God in the demonstration of his wrath was one reason for why there is sin.

And baby cancer is explained in your frame work how again ?

TO glorify God ?

As punishment ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Many people argue that even if God has reasons for causing the suffering he does, we should be the first to know, so the fact that we don't can still be used as evidence against a certain type of God, even if we grant that this God may have good reasons to allow the suffering. William Craig has an awful argument against this. He states that if God let us know all the reasons for why he did the things he did, then the universe would be like a haunted house. Every time someone stubs their toe for example, God would say "this is why I did this!". The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

For example, if I have a beef with Kyle, all a person needs to know is that I have beef with Kyle. If I punch Kyle, Kyle pokes a hole in my tires, or a have sex with a wife, nobody has to tell someone after each incident why it happened, because it all comes together once people know I have beef with Kyle.

Similarly, all God has to do is give us a general reason. He doesn't have to tell frank why he allowed his toe to be hurt at that moment, and every instant after that he will get hurt, as all he has to do is let us know why he allows that type of suffering in the first place.

Ergo, William Lane Craig's argument about why God wouldn't let us know why he allows suffering, based on how absurd it would be to live in a haunted house fails, because nobody is saying that we have to have a specific reason for each incident, just a general reason for all incidents.

I'm honestly shocked that William Lane Craig thought this was a valid response to the argument that we should be the first to know these morally sufficient reasons. A simply blanket reason would suffice, not a reason for every single thing that happens.

And how would God give us that reason? Appear or CNN? Write an elaborate message on the clouds? Talk to us at night? God may very well have overriding reasons to not make his existence too obvious.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 3:05:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:18:44 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/25/2014 5:26:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Many people argue that even if God has reasons for causing the suffering he does, we should be the first to know, so the fact that we don't can still be used as evidence against a certain type of God, even if we grant that this God may have good reasons to allow the suffering. William Craig has an awful argument against this. He states that if God let us know all the reasons for why he did the things he did, then the universe would be like a haunted house. Every time someone stubs their toe for example, God would say "this is why I did this!". The problem is that, all God has to do is let us know why he allows all this suffering in general. He doesn't have to let us know why every incident happens.

For example, if I have a beef with Kyle, all a person needs to know is that I have beef with Kyle. If I punch Kyle, Kyle pokes a hole in my tires, or a have sex with a wife, nobody has to tell someone after each incident why it happened, because it all comes together once people know I have beef with Kyle.

Similarly, all God has to do is give us a general reason. He doesn't have to tell frank why he allowed his toe to be hurt at that moment, and every instant after that he will get hurt, as all he has to do is let us know why he allows that type of suffering in the first place.

Ergo, William Lane Craig's argument about why God wouldn't let us know why he allows suffering, based on how absurd it would be to live in a haunted house fails, because nobody is saying that we have to have a specific reason for each incident, just a general reason for all incidents.

I'm honestly shocked that William Lane Craig thought this was a valid response to the argument that we should be the first to know these morally sufficient reasons. A simply blanket reason would suffice, not a reason for every single thing that happens.

And how would God give us that reason? Appear or CNN? Write an elaborate message on the clouds? Talk to us at night? God may very well have overriding reasons to not make his existence too obvious.

How convenient lol
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 5:06:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 3:05:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


And how would God give us that reason? Appear or CNN? Write an elaborate message on the clouds? Talk to us at night? God may very well have overriding reasons to not make his existence too obvious.

How convenient lol

How would God give us that reason ? I dunno, by talking for it's self.

Isn't it amazing how great God is when people want him to be, the knower of all knowledge, the builder of dna, the creator of universes, raises the dead, heals the amputee, heals the blind, exists in all places at all times, the supreme being which nothing exists nor can conceivable exist greater than it........

BUT suddenly, holy f8ck, how is that God mean't to explain anything !!!! WAAA WAAAA WAAAAA CNN ??? WAAA WAAAA

It just excuse after excuse after excuse aint' it dream................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12