Suffering for the Good of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 6/2/2023 at 3:22 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So god's higher purpose for the ten-year-old sex slave is to know and understand.  And god decided for her that she needs to know and understand.  god decided for her that she should have communion with and love her neighbor. 

 

And god decided for her that the best way for her to know and understand was to be constantly raped and brutalized.  

 

But god doesn't violate free will? 

 

Bullshit.

 

On 6/2/2023 at 3:39 PM, Edgarcito said:

It's his plan for ALL of us....then with adequate understanding, it's more likely that there won't BE the young girl....you recon..

 

On 6/2/2023 at 3:47 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then, you admit that god does violate free will.

 

So, why doesn't he violate the free will of the rapists and traffickers instead of the little girl?  Why is it always the free will of the innocent that god violates?  Never the Hitlers; always the Jews?

 

This is your all-powerful god of love?  Bullshit.

 

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Did you read the first fucking sentence doucebag?  You'd like to comment on that....."our system of morality...."

No, Ed, we are not discussing "our system of morality;" we are discussing god's.  You agreed that god does violate free will.  I apologize if my wording of the question allowed you to pretend you didnt know what we were talking about.  However, based on the conversation we are actually having, and not on your attempts to change the subject and shift the blame, please answer the question.

 

Why does god always violate the free will of the innocent, and never the free will of the evil?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That's not what I'm saying at all idiot.  You're just too stupid to understand.  Let me try a remedial thought that it might spark your redneck brain.  Absolute anything John is not ours at the moment.  To say that it is through "logic" is asinine. 

 

If we aren't born into sin, the what are we born into, knowledge?  Are we sinfilled of sinless when we are born.  Does humanity possess absolute knowledge or morality?

 

This is where all you logic fails, because your logic can't be based on what you don't know. 

 

Yet here we are again, you telling everyone how you have the answer to the gap....idiot.

I am not going to respond to this, as it is nothing more than an attempted diversion filled with typical christian "love."  When the ad hominems stop and you address the question of god violating free will, then I might consider entertaining your claims about "sin."

[walterpthefirst]

22 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The first consideration is that the "gap" in which Ed has been so valiantly attempting to find god does not actually exist.  What does exist is a very real (and obvious) problem of suffering and a concept of an all-loving god.  It is easy to see that these two are at diametrical extremes from one another, not simply opposite from, but completely opposed to one another.  The problem Ed, and others who share his faith, continue to unsuccessfully struggle with is in attempting to reconcile these two polar extremes.  

 

There aren't many possible avenues one might take toward reconciliation in this instance.  The Free Will argument is one such; but, as we've seen, it falls apart when one considers the free will of the innocent and the necessity that god must violate free will if he has a plan and higher purpose. 

 

Deism, or a variant thereof, is another means of attempting reconciliation, as it posits a vaguely described higher power who is loosely in control of things, but takes no hand in the general minutae of daily life.  For me, such a supposition runs afoul of the same problems with existence that its religious counterparts endure.

 

A third option is to create a "gap" which seems to allow god to still be in control while neatly exculpating him from any of the responsibilities that being in control should bear.  "We can't adequately explain..." represents a gap in knowledge, with the implication that god does know and can explain.  "Someday their suffering will be rewarded..." represents a gap in time, which for us is finite and limited, but for god is infinite.  The god of the gaps argument can take on any number of forms.

 

However, as a means to reconciliation between an all-loving god and the very real problem of suffering, make-believe gaps simply do not, and cannot, do justice to either side of the argument.  A god who can only appear in perceived gaps can hardly be omnipresent; and one who deliberately hides from suffering in those same gaps can hardly be omnibenevolent. I stated earlier in this thread that if one has to look for god in the gaps, that really should be a reality check.  To take this one step further, if one has to invent gaps in which to look for god, then even more so should this give one pause in considering whether such a god exists, let alone being worthy of trust and worship.

 

Prof,

 

There is another variation on the god of the gaps that Edgarcito likes to play and exploit.  It goes like this...

 

"We don't know EVERYTHING about (insert gap here) therefore that gap remains open and can never be closed."

 

The trick Ed is trying to pull here is to make it necessary for us (the sceptics) to know have to know everything about said gap before he will admit that it is closed.  Since he understands that we can clearly never know everything about said gap this allows him to claim that what we know is insufficient to close said gap.

 

But Ed is simply employing the informal logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Ed will raise the bar of the standard of evidence he will accept as closing the gap to infinitely high, meaning that the gaps into which he inserts his god can never be closed.  That, or he will simply refuse to accept that said gap has been closed by evidence.

 

So Ed is being disingenuous on two fronts. 

 

First, by employing an informal logical fallacy.  If something is logically fallacious it cannot be valid, genuine or true.  It is invalid, bogus and untrue.  Second, by refusing to accept the possibility of the closure of a gap.  Anyone who sets up a challenge while refusing to accept the possibility of the challenge being met is not arguing honestly.  They have no intention of dealing honestly with their challengers.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That's not what I'm saying at all idiot.  You're just too stupid to understand.  Let me try a remedial thought that it might spark your redneck brain.  Absolute anything John is not ours at the moment.  To say that it is through "logic" is asinine. 

 

If we aren't born into sin, the what are we born into, knowledge?  Are we sinfilled of sinless when we are born.  Does humanity possess absolute knowledge or morality?

 

This is where all you logic fails, because your logic can't be based on what you don't know. 

 

Yet here we are again, you telling everyone how you have the answer to the gap....idiot.

 

But you don't know that we were born into sin, Ed.

 

You believe that by faith and without evidence, remember?

 

If you are claiming that we are born into something then it falls to you as the claim maker to show us the evidence of whatever it is you think we are born into.

 

So, what we are born into, Ed?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

My thoughts are everyone in innocent but “born into”.  You’re essentially asking “Why did God”.  I don’t know John.  I speculated one time that God being God, he might be looking for love but all he created was a whore.  Good question.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

My thoughts are everyone in innocent but “born into”.  You’re essentially asking “Why did God”.  I don’t know John.  I speculated one time that God being God, he might be looking for love but all he created was a whore.  Good question.

 

And what objective evidence do you base this line of thinking on?

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

How about the most logical answer.  That our system of morality has set it up that way.  

 

The reality is J, that both sides violate the innocence of the other whether they know it or not.....weak or strong, big or large, young or old, slow or intelligent.  The Gap says this is the case.  So essentially your premise is lacking.

 And now the "gap" is its own entity?

"Both sides" violate the innocence of the other? How so? This sounds like political-speak. It seems we need definitions for this sort of word salad.

What/who are "both sides?"

What is "our system of morality?" 

How and what is meant by "being set up that way?" What way?

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The interesting thing is the Gap says that we CAN know it at this time...oooh, the irony.

Again, who/what is "the Gap?"

What exactly is it that "the Gap says?"

What is it that "we can know" and how is this supposed to make any sense to anyone except the writer?

It is so frustrating seeing this sort of vague, unsupported, undefined response to other posts that are thoughtful, reflective, and full of clearly written examples. Over and over again it seems Ed is purposely attempting to use vague wording as a poor attempt at smoke and mirrors.

[walterpthefirst]

Well, what you observe in Edgarcito's posts hardly surprising, Freshstart.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.

• Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings.
• Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.  Often paired with moving the goalposts, as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.

 

A few minutes ago I posted that Ed is 'moving the goalposts' to try and keep his 'gaps' open so that he can insert his god into them.

 

And as you can see from the Wiki link, moving the goalposts is a kind of equivocation.

 

Ed doesn't want to be pinned down to specifics, so he's equivocating.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

My thoughts are everyone in innocent but “born into”.  You’re essentially asking “Why did God”.  I don’t know John.  I speculated one time that God being God, he might be looking for love but all he created was a whore.  Good question.

Here again, Ed.  This is nothing more than god violating the free will of the innocent.  By your own admission, we are all born innocent; but god decided for us that we should be born into sin, through no choice of our own.

 

Now that it is clear that god does violate the free will of the innocent, and you have no idea why, let's ask a different question. 

 

What kind of god intentionally violates the free will of the innocent?  A loving god, or a powerful one?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here again, Ed.  This is nothing more than god violating the free will of the innocent.  By your own admission, we are all born innocent; but god decided for us that we should be born into sin, through no choice of our own.

 

Now that it is clear that god does violate the free will of the innocent, and you have no idea why, let's ask a different question. 

 

What kind of god intentionally violates the free will of the innocent?  A loving god, or a powerful one?

Tell me where specifically it started please 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Tell me where specifically it started please 

Certainly.  Just as soon as you answer my question. 

 

What kind of god intentionally violates the free will of the innocent? A loving god, or a powerful one?

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Tell me where specifically it started please 

 

I can tell when 'It' started, Ed.

 

'It' started with god.

 

Anything that originated with god and from god precedes any choice made by anyone.

 

Therefore, god decided before he made the universe to violate the free will of otherwise innocent humans.

 

Now you know.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Certainly.  Just as soon as you answer my question. 

 

What kind of god intentionally violates the free will of the innocent? A loving god, or a powerful one?

Depends on the goal for the innocent…. We would assume if a god could manipulate, then power would be necessary.

[Edgarcito]

A common retort of the residents here is A and E were innocent.  So let’s follow my thoughts. 
 

What was the goal of God for them.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

A common retort of the residents here is A and E were innocent.  So let’s follow my thoughts. 
 

What was the goal of God for them.

 

If god created them innocent of both good and evil...

 

Genesis 3 : 22

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

...then god created them to be IGNORANT of the good goal you were about to claim he had lined up for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

A common retort of the residents here is A and E were innocent.  So let’s follow my thoughts. 
 

What was the goal of God for them.

No.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Depends on the goal for the innocent…. We would assume if a god could manipulate, then power would be necessary.

And there it is, given the choice between a god of love or a god of power, it always comes down to power.  And rightly so; because if god was a god of love, then violation of anyone's free will would never be an option.

 

Who is god to decide, against someone else's free will, what the goal should be?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And now we'll talk about the unfillable gap of how we don't know what god's goal is but it must be good because love and grace and jesus and faith and shit.

 

But it's just another gap into which Ed hopes to insert god.

[walterpthefirst]

Do you see the dilemma you are caught in, Edgarcito?

 

If A & E were created innocent, then god created them ignorant and unable to recognize, understand or choose the good you might propose that he had planned for them.  

 

But if you claim that A & E were not created innocent, this contradicts three verses in Genesis 3 ( 5, 7 & 23) which specifically say that their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil after eating the forbidden fruit.  

 

So scripture clearly says that god created them innocent.

 

There's no middle ground here.

 

There's no gap for you or your god to hide in.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And now we'll talk about the unfillable gap of how we don't know what god's goal is but it must be good because love and grace and jesus and faith and shit.

 

But it's just another gap into which Ed hopes to insert god.

As opposed to what, your logic based on no evidence?

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

As opposed to what, your logic based on no evidence?

 

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

 

You're the one who believes this shit on the basis of faith and no evidence, remember?

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Do you see the dilemma you are caught in, Edgarcito?

 

If A & E were created innocent, then god created them ignorant and unable to recognize, understand or choose the good you might propose that he had planned for them.  

 

But if you claim that A & E were not created innocent, this contradicts three verses in Genesis 3 ( 5, 7 & 23) which specifically say that their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil after eating the forbidden fruit.  

 

So scripture clearly says that god created them innocent.

 

There's no middle ground here.

 

There's no gap for you or your god to hide in.

 

 

 

 

Do you see your bias here Walter… that you are assigning intent?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

 

You're the one who believes this shit on the basis of faith and no evidence, remember?

Right, faith…

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Do you see your bias here Walter… that you are assigning intent?

 

Then where do you stand on the question, Ed?

 

Did god create A & E innocent of the knowledge of good and evil, just as scripture says?

 

Yes or No?

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Right, faith…

 

Thank you for owning the 'shit'.