theodicy

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:43 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Skeptical theism

Skeptical theism defends the problem of evil by asserting that God allows an evil to happen in order to prevent a greater evil or to encourage a response that will lead to a greater good. Thus a rape or a murder of an innocent child is defended as having a God’s purpose that a human being may not comprehend, but which may lead to lesser evil or greater good.


A lesser evil than raping or murdering an innocent child? Like raping or murdering two innocent children? A greater good that might be derived from it? Like the person who rapes or murders an innocent child, comes to see how terrible it is and then dedicates his or her life to doing only good deeds for innocent children?

Something like that?

Yes, if you can bring yourself to feel less outraged about the rape or murder of an innocent child by thinking like this then it worked for you. Whereas most are still more inclined to chalk it up to God's mysterious ways.

This is called skeptical theism because the argument aims to encourage self-skepticism, either by trying to rationalize God’s possible hidden motives, or by trying to explain it as a limitation of human ability to know.


All I think to say here is, "tell that to the innocent child who has been raped" or "tell that to the parents of the innocent child who has been murdered". Though, again, admittedly, what would I tell them? That the rape or the murder is no less a component of an inherently meaningless and purposeless world? Or that in the absence of God even behaviors such as this can be rationalized by the sociopaths?

The greater good defense is more often argued in religious studies in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil, while the free will defense is usually discussed in the context of the logical version. Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as “devaluing the suffering” and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and should be able to stop all suffering and evil, rather than play a balancing act.


Of course even scholars derive their conclusions about things like this given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. It's not like in being scholars this enables them to think out the problem of theodicy in the most rational manner. After all, where is the evidence and the logic that would allow them to accomplish this? Especially if they themselves have a child that has been raped or murdered. Or raped and murdered.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:45 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

“Greater good” responses

The omnipotence paradoxes, where evil persists in the presence of an all powerful God, raise questions as to the nature of God’s omnipotence.


The God of Rabbi Kushner: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =124582959

This has always seemed to me to be the most reasonable [and reassuring] path to take. Here you can embrace a loving just and merciful God, and argue that for reasons well beyond the capacity of mere mortals to Grasp, He is not all-powerful. He set in motion a creation that somehow got beyond His control. And, thus, He is as distraught by the carnage brought on by Earth's "natural disasters" -- the latest in Haiti -- as we are. I once even had a friend in the Unitarian Church who seriously believed that one day God would once again regain full control of things. Just not so far.

Some solutions propose that omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically impossible. “Greater good” responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for the existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent.


"In theory", this can seem reasonable to some, but when you bring it down to Earth and note particular contexts in which this might play out, the waters inevitably get muddier.

Anyone here care to take a crack at it. "Goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent"?

Either in terms of the large events where there are conflicting assessments of good and evil...or smaller events that played out in your own day to day interactions with others in which convictions revolving around good and evil cropped up.

Among the most popular versions of the “greater good” response are appeals to the apologetics of free will. Theologians will argue that since no one can fully understand God’s ultimate plan, no one can assume that evil actions do not have some sort of greater purpose. Therefore, the nature of evil has a necessary role to play in God’s plan for a better world.


Again, forget all the other explanations. This is really the only one you need. There's our "greater good" and God's Greater Good. Simply have faith that however fucked your own life becomes [in Haiti and Afghanistan for example] as long as you worship and adore God and avoid committing too many sins you are all but guaranteed both immortality and salvation.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 29, 2021 5:01 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Free will

The problem of evil is sometimes explained as a consequence of free will, an ability granted by God.


Of course this immediately introduces the problem [for some] in trying to reconcile an omniscient God with free will. Whether in the direction of good or evil [whatever that means], if what you choose is already known in advance by this omnipresent, all-knowing God, how can it really be a free choice at all?

But let's just assume that an omnipotent God manages to reconcile it as only He can.

Free will is both a source of good and of evil, and with free will also comes the potential for abuse, as when individuals act immorally. People with free will “decide to cause suffering and act in other evil ways”, states Boyd, and it is they who make that choice, not God.


Sure, when it comes to the terrible pain and suffering that men and women inflict on each other the free will argument is reasonable enough. God gives us the capacity to choose the good things or the bad things. So don't blame Him if some of are selfish assholes concerned only with themselves.

Still, as an omnipotent God, doesn't He have the capacity Himself to prevent this terrible pain and suffering. Of course: Cue His mysterious ways.

And yet that is not where I focus the beam here myself. It's theodicy and natural disasters -- what lawyers literally call "acts of God" -- that most perplexes me. For example, a 150 mph sustained winds category 4 hurricane is now bearing down on Louisiana. Any number of men, women and children will find their lives uprooted. Some will die truly ghastly deaths. So, no matter how far God's mysterious ways are stretched to explain things like this, I am unable myself to accept them as other than proof that an existing God is either not omnipotent or He is a sadistic monster.

This part:

Further, the free will argument asserts that it would be logically inconsistent for God to prevent evil by coercion and curtailing free will, because that would no longer be free will. This explanation does not completely address the problem of evil, because some suffering and evil is not a result of consciousness choice, but is the result of ignorance or natural causes (a child suffering from a disease), and an all-powerful and all-benevolent God would create a world with free beings and stop this suffering and evil.


Further, if God does exist and allowed for free will on my part, how can He then insist that the thoughts I think now about the possibility of Him being a sadistic monster are grounds for eternal damnation? It's not like I can just flick a switch in my head and -- presto! -- think righteous thoughts instead.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:01 pm

The argument to natural evils against the so-called omni-god — all knowing, all powerful, and all good — is pretty conclusive imo. Still the theodicy practitioner will move the goal posts, offer ad hoc rationalizations, and if necessary fall back on the “mysterious ways” copout.

I feel, though, that the common argument that God’s omniscience precludes human free will should be addressed as a matter of logic. The argument is not just poor, it is logically invalid and ought to be discarded.

It goes:

Today I had eggs for breakfast.

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before I was born — for all eternity, in fact — that I would have eggs for breakfast today.

If God knew even before I was born that I would have eggs for breakfast today, then I could not have had pancakes or anything else for breakfast today. My choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, I have no free will.

The argument commits the modal scope fallacy. The fallacy consists in confusing logical contingency with logical necessity.

The fallacious argument goes:

If God knows today that I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow, then I must (necessarily) have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.

The modal scope fallacy occurs when one applies the logical concept of necessity to the consequent of the antecedent alone, rather than to the conjoint relationship between antecedent and consequent.

The corrected argument is:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.)

The necessity lies only in the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and my free act.

To be sure, If God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, I WILL have eggs — but it does not logically follow that I MUST have eggs. All that logically follows from God’s omniscience is that what God foreknows, and what I freely do, must MATCH (as a matter of logical necessity).

If I freely choose today to have eggs for breakfast, it means I have provided the truth grounds for God’s foreknowledge of what I do. It does not mean that I could not have had pancakes. For if I had had pancakes, an omniscient agent would have known THAT fact instead — and we would get:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have pancakes for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have pancakes for breakfast tomorrow.)

I am free to have eggs or pancakes. If I have eggs, God will foreknow that I have eggs. If have pancakes, God will foreknow that I have pancakes. I can have eggs or pancakes, or anything else that I wish. I just can’t escape God’s infallible foreknowledge of what I freely do. To employ modal logic’s logically possible worlds heuristic:

There is a possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.
There is a possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:32 pm

pood wrote:
Today I had eggs for breakfast.

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before I was born — for all eternity, in fact — that I would have eggs for breakfast today.

If God knew even before I was born that I would have eggs for breakfast today, then I could not have had pancakes or anything else for breakfast today. My choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, I have no free will.


Next up:

Today, Mary aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells, Jane

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before Mary was born — for all eternity, in fact — that she would abort Jane today.

If God knew even before Mary was born that she would abort Jane today, then she could not have not aborted Jane today. Her choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, Mary has no free will.

Now, here is the even trickier part for some. Substitute Nature for God above. Trickier because even though some determinists argue that Mary was never able to opt not to abort Jane, unlike God, there is seemingly no intent behind the laws of Nature. No teleology. Only whatever the ontology is here going back to a complete understanding of Existence itself.

Logic applicable here.

In other words, accepting that the only reason logic exists at all is because "somehow" the laws of lifeless matter managed to configure into living biological matter configuring into human brains. The profound mystery of that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
pood wrote:
Today I had eggs for breakfast.

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before I was born — for all eternity, in fact — that I would have eggs for breakfast today.

If God knew even before I was born that I would have eggs for breakfast today, then I could not have had pancakes or anything else for breakfast today. My choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, I have no free will.


Next up:

Today, Mary aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells, Jane

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before Mary was born — for all eternity, in fact — that she would abort Jane today.

If God knew even before Mary was born that she would abort Jane today, then she could not have not aborted Jane today. Her choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, Mary has no free will.



Did you even read what I wrote? Did you read BEYOND the part that you quoted?

I have just demonstrated to you, via elementary modal logic, that God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s choice does NOT preclude her from either aborting, or not aborting, Jane. I have just SHOWED it to you!

Why don’t you attend to what I wrote rather than filter everything through your preconceived ideas, which are almost always wrong?
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:55 pm

It seems you somehow missed this part. Please read carefully and try to read for comprehension:

pood wrote:
The argument commits the modal scope fallacy. The fallacy consists in confusing logical contingency with logical necessity.

The fallacious argument goes:

If God knows today that I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow, then I must (necessarily) have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.

The modal scope fallacy occurs when one applies the logical concept of necessity to the consequent of the antecedent alone, rather than to the conjoint relationship between antecedent and consequent.

The corrected argument is:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have eggs for breakfast tomorrow.)

The necessity lies only in the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and my free act.

To be sure, If God knows today that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, I WILL have eggs — but it does not logically follow that I MUST have eggs. All that logically follows from God’s omniscience is that what God foreknows, and what I freely do, must MATCH (as a matter of logical necessity).

If I freely choose today to have eggs for breakfast, it means I have provided the truth grounds for God’s foreknowledge of what I do. It does not mean that I could not have had pancakes. For if I had had pancakes, an omniscient agent would have known THAT fact instead — and we would get:

Necessarily (if God knows today that tomorrow I will have pancakes for breakfast, then I will [not must!] have pancakes for breakfast tomorrow.)

I am free to have eggs or pancakes. If I have eggs, God will foreknow that I have eggs. If have pancakes, God will foreknow that I have pancakes. I can have eggs or pancakes, or anything else that I wish. I just can’t escape God’s infallible foreknowledge of what I freely do. To employ modal logic’s logically possible worlds heuristic:

There is a possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.
There is a possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have eggs for breakfast and God foreknows that I have pancakes.
There is no possible world at which I have pancakes for breakfast and God foreknows that I have eggs.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:10 pm

pood wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
pood wrote:
Today I had eggs for breakfast.

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before I was born — for all eternity, in fact — that I would have eggs for breakfast today.

If God knew even before I was born that I would have eggs for breakfast today, then I could not have had pancakes or anything else for breakfast today. My choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, I have no free will.


Next up:

Today, Mary aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells, Jane

But if God is omniscient, he knew even before Mary was born — for all eternity, in fact — that she would abort Jane today.

If God knew even before Mary was born that she would abort Jane today, then she could not have not aborted Jane today. Her choice was foreordained by God’s foreknowledge.

Hence, Mary has no free will.



Did you even read what I wrote? Did you read BEYOND the part that you quoted?

I have just demonstrated to you, via elementary modal logic, that God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s choice does NOT preclude her from either aborting, or not aborting, Jane. I have just SHOWED it to you!

Why don’t you attend to what I wrote rather than filter everything through your preconceived ideas, which are almost always wrong?


Click.

Yes, I read it. But all it demonstrates to me is that if I can ever come to agree with you about the definition and the meaning that you give to this "intellectual contraption" assessment below the actual existential context above, I'll agree with you.

Note to others:

Give it your best shot...

In the manner in which you think you understand what this...

"I have just demonstrated to you, via elementary modal logic, that God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s choice does NOT preclude her from either aborting, or not aborting, Jane. I have just SHOWED it to you!"

...means, please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary given what you construe to be the actual "for all practical purposes" relationship between the laws of a seemingly mindless Nature [rather than the Commandments of an omniscient, mindful God], her brain and the fate of Jane.

Nature and theodicy?

By coincidence, the very thing I am attempting to explore with Maia here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197290
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:...please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary ...


Assuming Mary has half a brain, she would understand easily. You are another matter.

If God knows in advance that Mary WILL DO a certain thing, it does not logically follow that she HAS TO (MUST) do that thing. If Mary does something else, then God will know that SOMETHING ELSE instead. How hard is this for you to comprehend?

Yes, God will always know in advance what Mary will do. But Mary is free to do as she wishes. It is just that what she does, and what God knows, must MATCH. I showed this to you with the possible worlds heuristic. Honestly, do you have anything at all intelligent to say on this board?

It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:...please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary ...


pood wrote:Assuming Mary has half a brain, she would understand easily. You are another matter.


Translation:

"Assuming Mary thinks about Nature, it's laws and human pain and suffering in exactly the same manner as I do --- theoretically for example -- she necessarily understands me easily. "

pood wrote:If God knows in advance that Mary WILL DO a certain thing, it does not logically follow that she HAS TO (MUST) do that thing. If Mary does something else, then God will know that SOMETHING ELSE instead. How hard is this for you to comprehend?


Right, like you are completely adept at applying the logic of infinitesimally tiny specks of existence that are mere mortals here on planet Earth to an omniscient God that knows in advance everything that Mary will do; but that somehow "logically" Mary can still choose to do something other than what He already knows she will do. He'll just know that instead.

And then because I refuse to accept his own "theoretical constructs" here [because, let's face it, no actual God has been demonstrated to exist able to actually resolve it] this necessarily demonstrates instead that I have nothing intelligent to say here.

And, irony of ironies, all I'm really doing here is pointing out how this...

"It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe"

...is precisely how he goes about exchanging "serious philosophy" here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:30 am

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:...please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary ...


pood wrote:Assuming Mary has half a brain, she would understand easily. You are another matter.


Translation:

"Assuming Mary thinks about Nature, it's laws and human pain and suffering in exactly the same manner as I do --- theoretically for example -- she necessarily understands me easily. "


No. Mary can understand what I am saying without agreeing with me. If she understands but disagrees, she can say, “I understand what you are arguing for, but I disagree for the following reasons: x,y,z ...” See? That’s how philosophical conversations go. Why can’t you learn that?


Right, like you are completely adept at applying the logic of infinitesimally tiny specks of existence that are mere mortals here on planet Earth to an omniscient God that knows in advance everything that Mary will do; but that somehow "logically" Mary can still choose to do something other than what He already knows she will do. He'll just know that instead.


That’s exactly right. It’s a simple modal logical demonstration.

And then because I refuse to accept his own "theoretical constructs" here [because, let's face it, no actual God has been demonstrated to exist able to actually resolve it] this necessarily demonstrates instead that I have nothing intelligent to say here.


You certainly haven’t demonstrated much knowledge here, but it does not follow that you necessarily have nothing intelligent to say. See: modal logic.

And, irony of ironies, all I'm really doing here is pointing out how this...

"It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe"

...is precisely how he goes about exchanging "serious philosophy" here.


That’s wrong as a matter of fact. I have already stated that I could be wrong in some of my arguments, though the modal argument described above is a matter of logic. In any case, since I have stated, specifically in the determinism thread, that my take on regularity theory could be wrong, you either can’t read for comprehension, or you are lying.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:53 am

iambiguous wrote:...please attempt to note how you would explain it to Mary ...


pood wrote: Assuming Mary has half a brain, she would understand easily. You are another matter.


iambiguous wrote:Translation:

"Assuming Mary thinks about Nature, it's laws and human pain and suffering in exactly the same manner as I do --- theoretically for example -- she necessarily understands me easily. "


pood wrote: No. Mary can understand what I am saying without agreeing with me. If she understands but disagrees, she can say, “I understand what you are arguing for, but I disagree for the following reasons: x,y,z ...” See? That’s how philosophical conversations go. Why can’t you learn that?


Yes, as long as the discussion revolves around "simple modal logic". The demonstration as well basically coming down to how you argue about the theoretical relationship between God and nature and abortion and human pain and suffering.

And how on Earth would you actually demonstrate that your God [the one in your head] can be omniscient and yet Mary can still choose not to do what He as an omniscient entity already knows what she will do from the cradle to the grave. How he knows instead this different thing that she chooses to do.

Really, what might this demonstration actually consist of? Could it perhaps be videotaped and put on YouTube?

You would never allow the fact that next to an omniscient God you are just an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence get in your way would you? After all, consider all the many, many others here over the years with their own grand TOE. They never let that stop them from insisting that, no, it's how they view these "metaphysical" relationships that pins it down. I call this the James S. Saint Syndrome myself.

No wild ass guesses from them!

And then because I refuse to accept your own "theoretical constructs" here [because, let's face it, no actual God has been demonstrated to exist able to actually resolve it] this necessarily demonstrates instead that I have nothing intelligent to say here.


pood wrote: You certainly haven’t demonstrated much knowledge here, but it does not follow that you necessarily have nothing intelligent to say. See: modal logic.


Modal logic, meet "the gap". :lol:

And, irony of ironies, all I'm really doing here is pointing out how this...

"It’s like you are totally incapable of even CONSIDERING anything else other than what you already erroneously believe"

...is precisely how you go about exchanging "serious philosophy" here.


pood wrote: That’s wrong as a matter of fact. I have already stated that I could be wrong in some of my arguments, though the modal argument described above is a matter of logic. In any case, since I have stated, specifically in the determinism thread, that my take on regularity theory could be wrong, you either can’t read for comprehension, or you are lying.


Okay, if you admit that you could be wrong about some of your arguments, pin that down to those parts you might be wrong about in a discussion with Mary if she behaves in a manner that causes pain and suffering to others...given that an omniscient God knew that she would cause this pain and suffering for others. How could she logically choose not to cause this pain and suffering instead.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:26 pm

And how on Earth would you actually demonstrate that your God [the one in your head] ...


NOTE: I don’t believe that any God, or omniscient, agent exists. This is an argument about logic that predates Christian theism. The argument is called the Problem of Future Contingents, also known as Logical Determinism. Bringing an imaginary God into the picture is just a subset of Logical Determinsim. It is called Epistemic Determinism.

... can be omniscient and yet Mary can still choose not to do what He as an omniscient entity already knows what she will do from the cradle to the grave.


I already have demonstrated it. Pity you can’t read for comprehension.

I will make it simpler.

Here is the fallacious argument that God knowing in advance what Mary will do, forces Mary to do that thing:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D


In the above argument, Premise 3 is false. It commits the modal scope fallacy.

The corrected argument goes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃D
————————
∴ D

The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. We see (from other threads) that Causal Determinism fails to impugn human free will. Now we see that Logical and Epistemic Determinism also fail to impugn human free will.

Hope that helps.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:51 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Alvin Plantinga has suggested an expanded version of the free will defense. The first part of his defense accounts for moral evil as the result of human action with free will. The second part of his defense suggests the logical possibility of “a mighty non-human spirit” (non-God supernatural beings and fallen angels) whose free will is responsible for “natural evils“, including earthquakes, floods, and virulent diseases.


Ah, third parties. The evils that mere mortals are responsible for because God gave them free will and they chose to use it to, among other things, rape and murder and commit themselves to genocide. Then the "logical possibility" that "non-God supernatural beings and fallen angels" are responsible for the natural disasters that are erroneously attributed to the loving, just and merciful God. And why does an omnipotent God not just flick His wrist and send them tumbling into oblivion? Of course: His mysterious ways.

Most scholars agree that Plantinga’s free will of human and non-human spirits (demons) argument successfully solves the logical problem of evil, proving that God and evil are logically compatible but other scholars explicitly dissent. The dissenters state that while explaining infectious diseases, cancer, hurricanes and other nature caused suffering as something that is caused by the free will of supernatural beings, solves the logical version of the problem of evil, but it is highly unlikely that these natural evils do not have natural causes that an omnipotent God could prevent, but instead are caused by the immoral actions of supernatural beings with free will who God created.

According to Michael Tooley, this defense is also highly implausible because suffering from natural evil is localized, rational causes and cures for major diseases have been found, and it is unclear why anyone, including a supernatural being who God created would choose then inflict localized evil and suffering to innocent children for example, and why God fails to stop such suffering if he is omnipotent.


Exactly.

God either is or is not omnipotent. Things like the Devil or supernatural beings are either no match for this omnipotent God or God has His mysterious reasons for allowing them to plague mere mortals with utterly endless calamities that have absolutely nothing to do with their own free will.

And, for all practical purposes, how exactly does the relationship between God and the Devil/supernatural beings work? Why this disaster here and not there? And why would God both allow for these terrible things and yet allow in turn for mere mortals to lessen the damage. Create the covid-19 virus but also allow medical science to create vaccines for it. Then the part where bad things here happen to good people. What on earth is He thinking?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:21 pm

And how on Earth would you actually demonstrate that your God [the one in your head] ...


pood wrote: NOTE: I don’t believe that any God, or omniscient, agent exists. This is an argument about logic that predates Christian theism. The argument is called the Problem of Future Contingents, also known as Logical Determinism. Bringing an imaginary God into the picture is just a subset of Logical Determinism. It is called Epistemic Determinism.


God, the epistemologist! God and logic! Meanwhile the terrible pain and suffering that mere mortals still endure goes on. And they cry out for an explanation that is perhaps a little more substantial than Epistemic Determinism, a subset of Logical Determinism.

... can be omniscient and yet Mary can still choose not to do what He as an omniscient entity already knows what she will do from the cradle to the grave.


pood wrote: I already have demonstrated it. Pity you can’t read for comprehension.

I will make it simpler.

Here is the fallacious argument that God knowing in advance what Mary will do, forces Mary to do that thing:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃ ☐D
————————
∴ ☐D


In the above argument, Premise 3 is false. It commits the modal scope fallacy.

The corrected argument goes:

gKD
~◊(gKD & ~D)
gKD ⊃D
————————
∴ D

The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. We see (from other threads) that Causal Determinism fails to impugn human free will. Now we see that Logical and Epistemic Determinism also fail to impugn human free will.


Anyone here suffering terribly as a result of one or another natural disaster or "act of God"? Or know of someone who is?

Does this clear things up for you?

Pood hopes it helps.



Note to others:

This part in particular escapes me...

"The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. "

God, being omniscient, knows everything and knows that Joe murdered Linda. But Linda is not dead because Joe decided not to murder her. So did this omniscient God know both that Joe murdered Linda and that Joe changed his mind and did not murder her?

How "for all practical purposes" does that work?

Again, I'm not asserting that pood is wrong in his analysis here. I'm only noting that it doesn't make sense to me "here and now". And that in the absence of proof that a God/the God does in fact exist we can't know for sure how He Himself would finally resolve it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Anyone here suffering terribly as a result of one or another natural disaster or "act of God"? Or know of someone who is?

Does this clear things up for you?

Pood hopes it helps.


The argument above has NOTHING — ZERO — to do with the Problem of Natural Evil. Please try to keep arguments straight.



Note to others:

This part in particular escapes me...

"The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. "

God, being omniscient, knows everything and knows that Joe murdered Linda. But Linda is not dead because Joe decided not to murder her. So did this omniscient God know both that Joe murdered Linda and that Joe changed his mind and did not murder her?


No, that would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, has has NOTHING, ZERO, to do with the corrected modal argument.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:35 pm

pood,

Just out of curiosity, are you moreno/karpel tunnel? Some are rather good here at figuring things like that out. The arguments, the inflection, the words used. But I'm not one of them.

It's just that, as with him, we seem to share the same prejudices in regard to politics and religion. And, as with him, you don't take well to those who refuse to see things as you do. And, most of all, as with him, this fierce, hostile reaction to me.

On the other hand, I don't recall him being inclined to things like modal logic and regularity theory.

Anyway, just curious.


iambiguous wrote:Anyone here suffering terribly as a result of one or another natural disaster or "act of God"? Or know of someone who is?

Does this clear things up for you?

Pood hopes it helps.


pood wrote:The argument above has NOTHING — ZERO — to do with the Problem of Natural Evil. Please try to keep arguments straight.


Why should it? It's not the "up in the intellectual clouds" argument about the Problem of Natural Evil that people who suffer terribly from natural disasters and "acts of God" are most concerned with. It's why on Earth the disasters exist in the first place. Given what most have been told is an omnsicient/omnipotent, loving, just and merciful Creator.

Note to others:

This part in particular escapes me...

"The corrected argument shows that Mary can do whatever she wants in the presence of God’s foreknowledge. It’s just that whatever she does, God will foreknow. No big deal. "

God, being omniscient, knows everything and knows that Joe murdered Linda. But Linda is not dead because Joe decided not to murder her. So did this omniscient God know both that Joe murdered Linda and that Joe changed his mind and did not murder her?


pood wrote:No, that would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, has has NOTHING, ZERO, to do with the corrected modal argument.


Note to others:

Explain that to me!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:44 pm

iambiguous wrote:pood,

Just out of curiosity, are you moreno/karpel tunnel?


No.

It's just that, as with him, we seem to share the same prejudices in regard to politics and religion. And, as with him, you don't take well to those who refuse to see things as you do. And, most of all, as with him, this fierce, hostile reaction to me.


No, as I explained earlier, I am perfectly happy with disagreements. Such as, in regard to the determinism thread, if someone were to read up on regularity theory, and then say: “Interesting, Pood, but I don’t really agree, for the following reasons (lists reasons).” Then a discussion begins. See? That is not what you do, however. You avoid the issue, dodge questions, mischaracterize what I write, and generally behave in a trollish manner. I’m not the only one you do this with, either.

Why should it? It's not the "up in the intellectual clouds" argument about the Problem of Natural Evil that people who suffer terribly from natural disasters and "acts of God" are most concerned with. It's why on Earth the disasters exist in the first place. Given what most have been told is an omnsicient/omnipotent, loving, just and merciful Creator.


Except I was not addressing the Problem of Natural Evil. I was addressing a DIFFERENT aspect of theodicy, namely the claim that God’s foreknowledge precludes human free will, a claim that YOU brought up. Now, as is your wont, you are shifting the goalposts again.

Note to others:


Explain that to me!


Explain the Law of Non-Contradiction? Really?
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:32 pm

iambiguous wrote:pood,

Just out of curiosity, are you moreno/karpel tunnel?


pood wrote: No.


Yep, that's exactly what he would say.

It's just that, as with him, we seem to share the same prejudices in regard to politics and religion. And, as with him, you don't take well to those who refuse to see things as you do. And, most of all, as with him, this fierce, hostile reaction to me.


pood wrote: No, as I explained earlier, I am perfectly happy with disagreements. Such as, in regard to the determinism thread, if someone were to read up on regularity theory, and then say: “Interesting, Pood, but I don’t really agree, for the following reasons (lists reasons).” Then a discussion begins. See? That is not what you do, however. You avoid the issue, dodge questions, mischaracterize what I write, and generally behave in a trollish manner. I’m not the only one you do this with, either.


I created three posts there giving my reactions to it. I stopped though because it really didn't focus in on determinism/moral responsibility. I'd let you connect those dots for me but I'm not too big on exchanges up in the theoretical clouds where everything revolves around definitional logic and deductions.

Also, once again, why on earth do you follow me around responding to my posts, when you feel such disdain for me? Sounds like a personal problem to me. You know, in the "click" world.



Nature to pood:

He does have a point. Compelled or not. In fact, he' s even got me not being entirely sure now.

Why should it? It's not the "up in the intellectual clouds" argument about the Problem of Natural Evil that people who suffer terribly from natural disasters and "acts of God" are most concerned with. It's why on Earth the disasters exist in the first place. Given what most have been told is an omniscient/omnipotent, loving, just and merciful Creator.


pood wrote: Except I was not addressing the Problem of Natural Evil. I was addressing a DIFFERENT aspect of theodicy, namely the claim that God’s foreknowledge precludes human free will, a claim that YOU brought up. Now, as is your wont, you are shifting the goalposts again.


Gasp! We're addressing two very different approaches to determinism/moral responsibility!! You up in the theoretical clouds, me down in the "for all practical purposes" interactions of actual flesh and blood human beings!!!

Note to others:

Explain that to me!


pood wrote: Explain the Law of Non-Contradiction? Really?


No, explain it to Mary who, re the laws of matter, was never able not to abort Jane but who is still moral responsible for killing her.

After all, in a determined universe as I understand it nothing can be contradictory if everything can only unfold as it must. Unfortunately, I am compelled by nature to note in turn that this is entirely applicable to your posts as well as mine.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:14 pm

Yep, that's exactly what he would say.


Troll. Check.

I created three posts there giving my reactions to it. I stopped though because it really didn't focus in on determinism/moral responsibility. I'd let you connect those dots for me but I'm not too big on exchanges up in the theoretical clouds where everything revolves around definitional logic and deductions.


You really are a goddamned idiot. It DOES focus on determinism/moral responsibility. It shows how the problem is DISSOLVED by abandoning YOUR view of causal determinism as falling dominoes. How many times, in how many ways, have I tried to explain this to you? Whether this is correct or not — whether it’s true, as I hold, and the linked author holds, that “falling dominoes” determinism is false — is another matter. But you won’t even address the merits of the argument, either because you are stupid or a troll or both.

Also, once again, why on earth do you follow me around responding to my posts, when you feel such disdain for me? Sounds like a personal problem to me. You know, in the "click" world.


You have no sense of self-knowledge and no understanding of irony.

As I noted, I do not “follow” you around. It is unfortunately the case that you plague this board like herpes, and happen to post in threads about topics that interest me. So inevitably I am going to run across your crap. It’s true I don’t have to respond to it, but after all, this is a discussion board, so if you say something I am likely, sooner or later, to respond to it — to, you know, discuss it.

The irony, and your lack of self-knowledge, has to do with the following:

Earlier, you said that nature had “ordered” you not to respond to me. Yet, here you are, responding! So I guess your idiotic idea that nature “orders” you to do things is false, no?

You claim I am following you around, which is false, but it is demonstrable that you are following Maia around, hectoring her, and, as I believe, stalking her.

You are badgering Maia to consider an alternative version of herself, in which she did not become a Pagan. This from a guy who claims “the laws of matter” make a world different from this one IMPOSSIBLE. O, irony! But you are oblivious to all of it.

Gasp! We're addressing two very different approaches to determinism/moral responsibility!! You up in the theoretical clouds, me down in the "for all practical purposes" interactions of actual flesh and blood human beings!!!


No. Since I don’t believe causal determinism actually causes us to do anything, then I think we have full moral responsibility for our acts. I’m not a determinist and I’m not a copmpatibilist. Surely by now you must understand this, unless you are invincibly stupid.

No, explain it to Mary who, re the laws of matter, was never able not to abort Jane but who is still moral responsible for killing her.


Since I don’t believe the so-called laws of matter compelled Mary to have an abortion, Mary was free not to have an abortion. That solves your whole problem right there.

What part of that eludes you?
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 09, 2021 9:55 pm

Note to karpel tunnel. I still think that he is you. And as you [if only in my head] he is little more than just another Stooge. That would make him Moe here.

Yep, that's exactly what he would say.


Moe wrote: Troll. Check.


If you really want to expose to others here what a devastating impact a troll can have in a philosophy forum send them here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=197162
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Stop me before I troll again!!

I created three posts there giving my reactions to it. I stopped though because it really didn't focus in on determinism/moral responsibility. I'd let you connect those dots for me but I'm not too big on exchanges up in the theoretical clouds where everything revolves around definitional logic and deductions.


Moe wrote: You really are a goddamned idiot. It DOES focus on determinism/moral responsibility. It shows how the problem is DISSOLVED by abandoning YOUR view of causal determinism as falling dominoes. How many times, in how many ways, have I tried to explain this to you? Whether this is correct or not — whether it’s true, as I hold, and the linked author holds, that “falling dominoes” determinism is false — is another matter. But you won’t even address the merits of the argument, either because you are stupid or a troll or both.


In that case, I challenge you to note a particular chunk of it in which it can be most readily grasped that in regard to things like Mary's abortion or God's involvement in nature disasters, moral responsibility is established in a determined universe for both mere mortals and the Gods. Or in however a "theoretical" manner you connect the dots here down on the ground.

Also, once again, why on earth do you follow me around responding to my posts, when you feel such disdain for me? Sounds like a personal problem to me. You know, in the "click" world.


Moe wrote: You have no sense of self-knowledge and no understanding of irony.

As I noted, I do not “follow” you around. It is unfortunately the case that you plague this board like herpes, and happen to post in threads about topics that interest me. So inevitably I am going to run across your crap. It’s true I don’t have to respond to it, but after all, this is a discussion board, so if you say something I am likely, sooner or later, to respond to it — to, you know, discuss it.


Nope, still sounds like a personal problem to me. Either that or complete bullshit.

Moe wrote: The irony, and your lack of self-knowledge, has to do with the following:

Earlier, you said that nature had “ordered” you not to respond to me. Yet, here you are, responding! So I guess your idiotic idea that nature “orders” you to do things is false, no?

You claim I am following you around, which is false, but it is demonstrable that you are following Maia around, hectoring her, and, as I believe, stalking her.


My "notes to" here are the actual exercises in irony! Or an attempt on my part to introduce a little levity into exchange. Though few things are more excruciating here then your own attempts at...wit?

Moe wrote: You are badgering Maia to consider an alternative version of herself, in which she did not become a Pagan. This from a guy who claims “the laws of matter” make a world different from this one IMPOSSIBLE. O, irony! But you are oblivious to all of it.


Badgering? How are my arguments to her and flannel jesus toward the end of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 7&start=50 -- not sincere attempts on my part to explore the nature of human identity in regard to value judgments?

Well, in the real deal free will world anyway.

Gasp! We're addressing two very different approaches to determinism/moral responsibility!! You up in the theoretical clouds, me down in the "for all practical purposes" interactions of actual flesh and blood human beings!!!


Moe wrote: No. Since I don’t believe causal determinism actually causes us to do anything, then I think we have full moral responsibility for our acts. I’m not a determinist and I’m not a compatibilist. Surely by now you must understand this, unless you are invincibly stupid.


Right, like noting what you believe here "theoretically" constitutes a demonstration enough that it is true. Definitional logic being the bottom line "up there".

No, explain it to Mary who, re the laws of matter, was never able not to abort Jane but who is still moral responsible for killing her.


Moe wrote: Since I don’t believe the so-called laws of matter compelled Mary to have an abortion, Mary was free not to have an abortion. That solves your whole problem right there.

What part of that eludes you?


Again, the part where you demonstrate to us how you go about putting together an accumulation of actual evidence in order to demonstrate -- to illustrate -- how your own intellectual contraption concerning physical and scientific laws are able to establish the extent to which both Mary and God either are or are not responsible [morally or otherwise] for aborting Jane or for the existence of millions of miscarriage.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby pood » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 pm

troll wrote:
Again, the part where you demonstrate to us how you go about putting together an accumulation of actual evidence in order to demonstrate -- to illustrate -- how your own intellectual contraption concerning physical and scientific laws are able to establish the extent to which both Mary and God either are or are not responsible [morally or otherwise] for aborting Jane or for the existence of millions of miscarriage.


:lol:

I’ve already explained exactly how this affects Mary numerous times. There’s no reason to explain it again. As for God, this has nothing to do with God — quite the opposite. Regularity theory holds that the belief in “Laws” of nature is a hangover from a false belief in God, the belief that God dictated the laws and hence the laws are prescriptive. I have gone over this again and again with you, and will do so no longer.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:45 pm

pood wrote:
troll wrote:
Again, the part where you demonstrate to us how you go about putting together an accumulation of actual evidence in order to demonstrate -- to illustrate -- how your own intellectual contraption concerning physical and scientific laws are able to establish the extent to which both Mary and God either are or are not responsible [morally or otherwise] for aborting Jane or for the existence of millions of miscarriage.


:lol:

I’ve already explained exactly how this affects Mary numerous times. There’s no reason to explain it again. As for God, this has nothing to do with God — quite the opposite. Regularity theory holds that the belief in “Laws” of nature is a hangover from a false belief in God, the belief that God dictated the laws and hence the laws are prescriptive. I have gone over this again and again with you, and will do so no longer.


Note to others:

Yes, he has "explained" what "Regularity Theory" holds to be true here.

Now let him move on from theory to practice. What experiments can he set up, what practical experiences has he had, that would allow him to demonstrate -- beyond a world of words and definitional logic -- the existential relationship between Mary and her moral responsibility in aborting Jane, or God and the role He plays down here on Earth when the discussion shifts to theodicy.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:50 pm

Nobody and I mean nobody philosophizes about theodicy like the beloved Biggie, the Great. :evilfun:

:banana-angel: :banana-blonde: :banana-blonde: :banana-dreads: :banana-dreads: :banana-fingers: :banana-fingers: :banana-gotpics: :banana-guitar: :banana-jumprope: :banana-linedance: :banana-ninja: :banana-rainbow: :banana-rock: :banana-skier: :banana-stoner: :banana-tux: :banana-wrench: :banana-wrench: :banana-parachute: :banana-dreads: :banana-angel:
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 9688
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:55 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Nobody and I mean nobody philosophizes about theodicy like the beloved Biggie, the Great. :evilfun:

:banana-angel: :banana-blonde: :banana-blonde: :banana-dreads: :banana-dreads: :banana-fingers: :banana-fingers: :banana-gotpics: :banana-guitar: :banana-jumprope: :banana-linedance: :banana-ninja: :banana-rainbow: :banana-rock: :banana-skier: :banana-stoner: :banana-tux: :banana-wrench: :banana-wrench: :banana-parachute: :banana-dreads: :banana-angel:


Note to God:

Explain this you sadistic bastard!! [-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46443
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users