Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

God & a child dies an agonizing cancer death

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:19:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The God we are talking about here is the classic OMI God, All knowing, All powerful, All loving/benevolent/morally perfect.

Lets look at the two different Scenarios Both scenarios involve a common fact, the agonizing painful death of a child from cancer.

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now I would like to look at 2 different scenario's............

Scenario 1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God EXISTS and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it. Not only this but there are people who CORRECTLY believe that God allows such for a "greater good"

Scenario 2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer and there are people who WRONGFULLY believe that God allowed it for a "greater good"

Note: In scenario 1) people who believe that God is allowing to do it for a greater good are correct in that belief cause in the first scenario such a God exists and is indeed choosing to allow such things happening for a greater good.

In scenario 2) the people who believe that God is choosing to allow it for a greater good are wrong in that belief cause in the 2nd scenario God does not exist and thus God is not choosing to allow anything to happen for any reason yet alone a greater good. In scenario 2 the belief that God is allowing it for a greater good is just a rationlization to reconcile their prior belief in the existence of God with the evidence of God not stopping the painful agonizing death of the child.

POP quiz hot shots.............how do you tell the difference between these two scenarios ?

Is it even possible to tell the difference between which two scenarios you are in ?

There are issues of plusability and falseafiability here.

If you can't tell the difference, then shouldn't you go with scenario 2 over scenario 1 because of occams razor ?
"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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 1:41:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, but isn't a leap of faith so much more gratifying? You get more special privileges. Own a house? Start a church!

Bam, no property taxes. Boo ya.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:29:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So ummmm, anyone want to have a stab at the question I asked.
"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
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:29:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So ummmm, anyone want to have a stab at the question I asked.

I can't tell what question you asked.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:03:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't believe it's possible to know whether or not a God exists.
I'm sure some people THINK that they know, but when they try to explain how they know, it usually comes down to faith, which I find to be rather vapid.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:04:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:59:52 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:29:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So ummmm, anyone want to have a stab at the question I asked.

I can't tell what question you asked.

1) How do you tell the difference between those two sceaniros

2 )If you can't tell the difference should you believe in scenario 2 over scenario 1 based on Occam razor.
"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
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 6:31:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Baby shows up. Chase tells you that two people exchanged fluids to create this being. I tell you that one stork dropped the little tyke off in a diaper. You going to go with the two or the one?"

I think this argument of yours is just an inappropriate use of Occam's Razor. First of all, Occam's Razor isn't meant to prove or conclude anything. Secondly, the assumptions for both conditions are not equal, because other arguments exist against condition 1 and for condition 2. Those have to be taken into account.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 7:05:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is a third scenario: God exists, but He is a total and utter bastard, you know, the sort of deity that would flood the entire planet killing millions of people, including innocent women and children, just for a laugh.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 7:25:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 7:05:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is a third scenario: God exists, but He is a total and utter bastard, you know, the sort of deity that would flood the entire planet killing millions of people, including innocent women and children, just for a laugh.

Wrong, that would be covered in my second scenario. If God is an utter bastard ergo not all loving/benevolent I have that option covered. I describe at the start what I mean't by God, either God exists or God does not there isn't a third option here.

People don't seem to be answering the question, how do you tell the difference.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 7:42:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can not choose between the two options with logical certainty, though I am inclined to option 2 due to inductive reasoning.

Option 1 does not merely require for the childs death to be for the greater good. That is relatively easy to understand, lets say the child is assured heaven, stress causes the couple to break up. The father realises his potential as a drummer, the mother re-enlists with mossad and saves the world from an Iranian nuke.

No, it requires that everything be of maximal goodness, every last thing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 8:02:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 7:42:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You can not choose between the two options with logical certainty, though I am inclined to option 2 due to inductive reasoning.

Option 1 does not merely require for the childs death to be for the greater good. That is relatively easy to understand, lets say the child is assured heaven, stress causes the couple to break up. The father realises his potential as a drummer, the mother re-enlists with mossad and saves the world from an Iranian nuke.

No, it requires that everything be of maximal goodness, every last thing.

Why in scenario 1 would it have to be "maximal" good. Why isn't allowing the agonizing death from cancer resulting in a greater good enough ?
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 8:11:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 8:02:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:42:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You can not choose between the two options with logical certainty, though I am inclined to option 2 due to inductive reasoning.

Option 1 does not merely require for the childs death to be for the greater good. That is relatively easy to understand, lets say the child is assured heaven, stress causes the couple to break up. The father realises his potential as a drummer, the mother re-enlists with mossad and saves the world from an Iranian nuke.

No, it requires that everything be of maximal goodness, every last thing.

Why in scenario 1 would it have to be "maximal" good. Why isn't allowing the agonizing death from cancer resulting in a greater good enough ?

You have specifically defined God as the OMNI-Potent and the OMNI-Benevolent. By definition every single thing, must be of maximal goodness.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 8:27:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 8:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/12/2011 8:02:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:42:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You can not choose between the two options with logical certainty, though I am inclined to option 2 due to inductive reasoning.

Option 1 does not merely require for the childs death to be for the greater good. That is relatively easy to understand, lets say the child is assured heaven, stress causes the couple to break up. The father realises his potential as a drummer, the mother re-enlists with mossad and saves the world from an Iranian nuke.

No, it requires that everything be of maximal goodness, every last thing.

Why in scenario 1 would it have to be "maximal" good. Why isn't allowing the agonizing death from cancer resulting in a greater good enough ?

You have specifically defined God as the OMNI-Potent and the OMNI-Benevolent. By definition every single thing, must be of maximal goodness.

Only God is defined as OMI, whether the results are maximal or a greater good is up for grabs is it not ?

God is omi therefore everything else must be of maximal goodness ? How does that follow ?
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 8:54:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 8:27:41 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/12/2011 8:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/12/2011 8:02:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:42:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You can not choose between the two options with logical certainty, though I am inclined to option 2 due to inductive reasoning.

Option 1 does not merely require for the childs death to be for the greater good. That is relatively easy to understand, lets say the child is assured heaven, stress causes the couple to break up. The father realises his potential as a drummer, the mother re-enlists with mossad and saves the world from an Iranian nuke.

No, it requires that everything be of maximal goodness, every last thing.

Why in scenario 1 would it have to be "maximal" good. Why isn't allowing the agonizing death from cancer resulting in a greater good enough ?

You have specifically defined God as the OMNI-Potent and the OMNI-Benevolent. By definition every single thing, must be of maximal goodness.

Only God is defined as OMI, whether the results are maximal or a greater good is up for grabs is it not ?

God is omi therefore everything else must be of maximal goodness ? How does that follow ?

Are you being serious?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.