Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem (William Lane Craig Edition) (feat. Prophet of Zod)
Paulogia | 14.VIII.2020
- 4:16 Already the fact that you believe in CPS shows a kind of fault in your moral compass.
It cannot be a minimal expactation of CPS to prevent all child molestation.
- 1) some is hidden, and could only be prevented if CPS were allowed (as it sometimes alas is) to condemn parents on suspicions
- 2) some of it is committed by the kind of people CPS are neither used to or trained to suspect : well off, the kind who could sue CPS to Hell because they can hire good lawyers.
Ergo, a CPS that is supposed to prevent all reasonably detectable child molestation will not prevent some other child molestation which is not reasonably detectable.
On the other hand a CPS that can take children away on suspicion, prevent not reasonably detected child molestation, is itself a child molester in non-sexual ways, and sometimes enables child molestation in the sexual way we were talking about.
So, God not living up to CPS is a point in God's favour.
- 6:54 A police officer is one in the number of people who before God are supposed to freely do good. And one good to do is stop an evil one can stop (by the way, tell me when you last stopped an abortion from taking place).
And other people depriving us of free use of our freewill, that is, our freewill not succeeding, is actually part of our condition : but if it were always part of our condition for certain deeds that hurt others, we would not be really free in even our freewill.
And there is a point that being able to do things that hurt others is necessary for tasks like protection - like the task the police officer was going to do, if he were good, for instance.
So, the alternative is then, either freewill with danger or a world in which everyone was always hampered in anything that would hurt anyone else, no one needed to protect either self or other from an unjustified hurt, since God were always preventing all hurts ... I'd consider such a world one in which freewill would be non-existant.
7:42 The key is, you are asking God to do it everytime.
You live in a world in which any attack on anyone else is impossible, because God is always restraining? You'd be about as free to will an attack as you are to chose to fly by jumping up into the air and flapping your arms.
8:20 A world in which God actively prevents all misery is one which can only be desired by those who love being around God.
That's why it is reserved for Heaven, since Heaven is reserved for those who love God.
8:40 Eh, no, bringing freewill into it is very justified considered you just said something about preventing every "single brutal act of murder, rape, torture and child abuse" since these things are only possible to will in a world where they are possible to sometimes do.
And the next question is, would you equally have a world in which every act of unchaste desire or violation of Catholic sex morality were automatically prevented, because God doesn't sit around doing nothing, but prevents everything that is evil?
Because, your distaste for brutal acts of murder, rape, torture and child abuse actually comes from your being created in the image of a God who hates these things, but also hates for instance sexual infidelity, getting to go before marriage, or using contraceptives.
So, last time you bought a package of condoms in order to have sex but no child from it, should God almighty have made the condoms burst like balloons as soon as you extracted them from the package, one by one?
That's the exact world you are asking for, unless you are simply taking your distaste for brutaility causing physical suffering as the one absolute, and any other values the good God has as so much irrelevant prejudice, because you kind of believe you are the creator, when you aren't.
- 9:31 Not really.
If the stakes for those who go through horrible suffering with undaunted confidence in God are eternal bliss, then 40 years of suffering might possibly make one so irritated one misses this, but if one calmly considers the stakes, it shouldn't.
Any finite suffering is justified compared to infinite bliss.
And suffering which is not infinite in every direction, but in one, that of duration, is justified compared to preferring finite bliss or satisfaction (even grim satisfaction) over eternal bliss. Over infinite good.
9:45 "to everybody else"
In your town, neighbourhood and age group, definitely generation, you may indeed feel you atheists outnumber Christians.
But overall, it's still Christians outnumbering you, world wide.
10:28 You are also comparing God stepping back in respect of freewill, to a rock doing nothing about anything at all.
First, we consider God gave us the ability to think. Whatever I know about computers suggests very clearly that it cannot be a complex interaction in matter that thinks.
Second, we consider God also gave us the moral compass. Some people are not just BDSM in a consensual way, but really in a toxical one (see Marquis de Sade bragging about this), so such a moral compass does not just follow from having a human physique.
Third, this means all the pressure on police officers to intervene and rescue people they need ... except when it comes to rescuing poor families from unjustified interference by CPS.
Obviously I am not at all considering the greater plan is beyond our finite understanding, I just gave basic catechetical understanding of the plan.
Some details in it are beyond the understanding of those concerned. The plan overall isn't.
- 11:17 The universe is also full of stars and planets including Sun and Moon, that God is moving every day around earth. And seasons that allow growth cycles, and night and day allowing our circadian rhythm to be good (except for those whose circadian rhythm is interfered with "gently" but too consistently by "well meaning" harrassers) ....
Why, in terms that are accessible, fine, but that means you are asking me to go from theodicy problem to intelligent design.
While I am then proposing intelligent design to prove God is in charge, I mean ID of a classic Thomistic type, not the modern watered down version, you can then jump back to references obliquely impressive about the theodicy problem ... and so on. Each time pretending to be in a position of one who hasn't heard the least of the solution to the other problem.
Theodicy and existence of God are two separate problems in natural theology.
The normal use of theodicy is to people who have already gone through the reasons why God exists and is in charge of the universe. But the fact that it can then be done should mean, you should logically stop using theodicy presumed unsolvable to block any discussing of the proofs of God's existence.