Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 300 (303125)
04-11-2006 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
04-10-2006 7:57 PM


impossibility of semi-powerful God
Those are your assumptions. I don't really have anything to do with figments of YOUR imagination or creations of YOUR fantasies.
OK.
maybe we can have a productive discussion.
I suspect that's not possible.
So I'll talk to myself and see what I come up with. This God of yours began the universe and created the process known as evolution. He might not have done it that way. He might have made all creatures by specially creating them. But He preferred the killing field known as evolution. Assuming that this God exists, He is mighty cruel. In addition to evolution, He wreaked havoc in various ways down through the centuries--the plague years being an example, when He wiped out betwen a third and a half of Europe and Asia with a hideous and very painful disease.
One response might be that this is a Deistic God. He set the universe in motion and then sat back, so to speak, to watch developments. But the fact that He merely set in motion a natural process does not mean that He is not responsible unless we think of Him as a rather impotent God indeed who had no idea what He had set in motion. Such a semi-powerful or semi-knowledgable God won't do logically, I don't think. He's extraneous.
We have 2 choices as regards the origin of the universe:
1. An eternal Being created it.
2. The universe has always existed (in some form)
What must be the attributes of the God in Choice #1 to keep Him distinct from choice #2? Well, for one thing, He could not have come from nature, since He created nature. There must be nothing anterior to this Being. There must be no "natural" moral standard to which this Being must adhere; a natural moral standard would include a nature, but there can no nature before the creation of nature. There must be absolutely nothing in addition to this God before the creation of nature. Everything that there is is Him--because there are only two possible entities--nature (including all its products) and Him.
Would it be possible for this God to be less than all-powerful or less than all-knowledgable, anything less in fact than an ideal Being?
I'm inclined to say no, it would not be possible. Let's say that this God didn't know everything--didn't know, for example, everything that evolution entailed, didn't know exactly what would be produced or how. That would mean that there was a body of knowledge to which this God was not privy, which was knowledge about nature.
I don't think such a God is possible. For this state of affairs to exist, there would have to be some sort of nature out of God's control, something around that is separate from this God. Otherwise He would know it. There would have to be a part of nature that is "on its own." But this part of nature that is on its own would have had to always been on its own. There would be nothing to make it be on its own later on. Certainly not nature. Nature as a whole can't make nature as a whole do something.
And if it was always on its own, then it would have always existed, which means we are back to choice #2.
So a semi-powerful, semi-knowledgable God is not possible.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 06:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 04-10-2006 7:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 8:10 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 300 (303272)
04-11-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by jar
04-11-2006 8:10 AM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
OK, here's what you said:
About 65 million years ago an asteroid smashed down into the Gulf of Mexico a few hundred miles from where I live. That was a monentous event. For a long period of time the dinosaurs had been the dominate lifeform on the planet. They had been very successful and lasted far longer than we have and had expanded into all of the niches that humans now occupy. They lived in warm and cold, high and low, forest and plain, swamp and meadow.
The asteroid strike 65 million years ago must be considered a very bad thing for the dinosaurs. So we can ask the same question as about your nephew. Why do bad things happen?
Well, here is the fundamentalists chance to show the big picture, how it was bad for the dinos but good for us, right? Well, no, that's not the argument I hope to make.
Although the changes after the asteroid strike did open up environmental opportunities that mammals expanded into, I do not see the strike as some act of GOD to bring about humans. Instead, it was a normal result of the universe we live in, one of the random and unfeeling incidents we have both mentioned before.
Basically, over the last 65 million years or so all of the evolution of the mammals has happened. That's pretty quick, a rush job as it were, and it shows. If you look at the result (and IMHO this single fact is enough to blow any thoughts of Intellegent Design out of the water), what evolved are critters that are just barely good enough. This is true of every mammal out there. None of them are really well designed overall. They are all a collection of mismatched parts and Rube Goldberg engineering. They get sick. They break. They wear out way too soon.
The Fundamentalist might say, "Well, that's all after the fall and before then man was perfect." Fine, they may believe that but frankly, there is no evidence to support such a contention and trying to do so simply opens up way to many other issues. The result of such mental gymnastics is a theology that is an even bigger Rube Goldberg than life as evolved.
Back towards the topic.
If we look at life today we find similar effects and issues regardless of species. Animals and plants get sick. They have systems that don't function or they break. It's pretty normal.
But finally, this gives me the opportunity to point out some of the things I see that show GOD is good.
First, the system.
IMHO GOD designed a universe that is, unlike the individuals in it, self healing. We can see this at every scale, every level. If we look out way beyond our local neighborhood we can see stars exploding, galaxies colliding. Yet the result of such catastrophies is not an end but a beginning. New stars and galaxies form, new elements are made, we get the iron that forms the core of our planet and our very existence from such events.
Closer to home we can see the same thing. The catastrophy 65 millions years ago was healed. The system is designed to assure that if life exists, it will evolve to fill the available environments regardless of what they are. If tomorrow something happened that wiped all mammals from the face of the earth, something else will evolve to fill the world again.
Even if all life were destroyed, it's likely it would start again. It certainly happened at least one time before and most likely, several times. Since we know that life began even if we do not know how, there is no reason to believe it could not happen again.
So the system GOD created is pretty good. It works well and seems to be self healing.
Now let's return to your nephew. He is typical of all the life we see around us. Every living thing we've found so far is subject to desease, to injury, to the limitations of the individual critter. Animals break bones. They get sick. They wear out. Their systems vary from individual to individual.
Unfortunately, your nephew has diabetes. I'm sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
There is one thing though that also brings me back to the Good GOD, something I've mentioned before. It's something unique to humans that I see as evidence of that Good GOD.
We can treat his diabetes. In fact, we are at the point where we can do more for him than ever before. And there is a very good chance that in the not too distant future we may be able to prevent such incidents.
Humans, through the scope, extent and intent of their capabilities can do things to help. If he were any other mammal, suffering any desease or breakage, he would be on his own. The other primates do not set and brace broken limbs. They do not treat the deseases that inflict others of their kind, much less other species.
That brings me to the fourth attribute that I've mentioned in the past, Empathy.
Humans have empathy that extends beyond their immediate family, their species, their clan, their nation. They are the only critters that actually intentionally try to improve the lives of other critters regardless of relationship. The concept of a veterinarian is uniquely human.
Yes, when I look around, I see the product of a Good GOD.
This meteor crashing into the earth was a "random and unfeeling incident." It just happened. God did not make it happen. It didn't happen for any particular reason. It happened because the system He set up was such that it could and did happen. Well, It's God's responsibility. He made nature.
Animals break bones. They get sick. They wear out. Their systems vary from individual to individual.
But thanks to God we are now making progress in curing disease. Too bad for all those people who suffered in the centuries before us. Tough luck for them. Also too bad about all those diseases that we can't cure yet. This God seems rather hit-and-miss in his applications of goodness. And why would he set up a system in which animals have such fragile bodies?
But on the other hand,"the system GOD created is pretty good."
Pretty good? All the Almighty God can do is pretty good?
Your comments don't provide any sort of explanation for the problem of pain--none whatsoever. You religion is a bit of sentimentality--a let's-look-on-the-bright-side attitude--which might be fine for everyday practical life but is not any good philosophically.
In order to solve the problem philosophically, you would have to show that the set-up we have is the only possible set-up, or that at any rate a pain-free set-up is impossible.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 02:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 8:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:50 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 300 (303280)
04-11-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by jar
04-11-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
Good and Bad are but a human construct and depends totally on the particular circumstances.
That's certainly true if there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 300 (303285)
04-11-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
04-11-2006 3:59 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
That's why we were given the great gift of the ability to tell right from wrong, the ability to make those subjective decisions.
If right and wrong are subjective, they are ultimately meaningless.
Your morality consists of the following dicta:
What's right--trying real hard
What's wrong--not trying hard enough.
If this set of rules is subjective, something you made up, then it's of no more significance than my prefering blue shirts to green shirts.
"Subjective" means the idea has no logical basis.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:16 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 300 (303294)
04-11-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by jar
04-11-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
What is right in one case may well be wrong in another.
You're confusing subjectivity with circumstantiality.
Let's assume for a moment that morality is objective. You might still have cases where what is right in one case is wrong in another. The reason is that if you had multiple virtues, sometimes these virtues might clash.
For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Why? Because there is a higher virtue that clashes with it (compassion for a victim). That would not violate the objective nature of either rule--if they really were objective.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:24 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-12-2006 05:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 4:42 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 291 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:44 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 293 by lfen, posted 04-11-2006 11:20 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 300 (303447)
04-12-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2006 4:42 PM


Re: Wrong!
That is incorrect. If you have an objective morality, some that is wrong is wrong in ALL cases, by definition.
It could be objective but complicated. If you have multiple virtues, it will be complicated.
One must never tell a lie except in such cases where lying is in conflict with a higher virtue. This would be true at all times in all places.
And you could have this heirarchy of virtues all laid out.
There are lots of objective statements that have these exceptions built in as part of the idea.
X=P except when P is less that X.
Objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 300 (303448)
04-12-2006 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by lfen
04-11-2006 11:20 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
Yes, ifen. Now imagine setting out the rules for human morality. Vastly more complicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by lfen, posted 04-11-2006 11:20 PM lfen has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 300 (303449)
04-12-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
04-11-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Robin your points are so good
Notice as we move through this it doesn't really matter if there is a GOD or not, since everyman, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist faces the same set of choices.
The fact that people disagree about morality is not what illustrates its subjectivity. It's the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective.
If there were a God, and he implanted into us moral truths, then there would be no doubt about it. There would be a ground and we would know what that is. It would be as obvious as 2 plus 2 make 4.
All we have now are our feelings--which are notoriously misleading.
More about this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 9:46 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 300 (303462)
04-12-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
04-11-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Robin your points are so good
The thing we all need to fear is the arrival of someone with THE ANSWER, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist, a Hindu Fundamentalist, a Secular Fundamnetalist, anyone that comes to you with THE ANSWER is to be feared.
I don't see why this applies just to "fundamentalists." They're just as moralistic on the Left as on the Right. One minute the Left is talking about how all morals are relative, and the next minute they are waxing with moralistic fervor about some injustice they think has occurred.
Take an issue like abortion, for example. Both sides are extremely moralistic.
pro-life: Thou shalt not kill an embryo which is a human being.
pro-choice: Thou shalt not interfere with a woman's right to choose.
Can either of these moral statements be proved? Of course not.
How do we decide? We rely on our feelings. That's all we have to rely on when it comes to morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:38 AM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024