Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 7:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 1:24 am
And this has exactly what to do with those of your ilk demonstrating to us how an omniscient God would not be an embodiment of determinism?

It's already obvious.  Knowlege does not make things happen.  Omniscience is a claim about God's knowledge, not about his making of things to do this or that.  Thus, omniscience does not at all entail Determinism.

So the burden is on you to make the countercase, if you think you can.

Okay, just out of curiosity then, how does that work here:

"Texas Flood Live Updates: ‘Devastating’ Wait as Rescuers Seek Missing Campers
At least 27 people died in fast-moving floodwaters northwest of San Antonio, including nine children. Twenty-seven girls remained unaccounted for from a camp on the Guadalupe River."

Make that 79 dead, including 15 children.

With ten little girls still missing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 amIf you were tracking the conversation at all, you would already be aware that I finished up my last message to Belinda with a note about the important difference between human and “natural” evils, and with a willingness to address both.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 amBut you were asleep, apparently.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 amHowever, as soon as you justify your own claim, instead of trying to deflect to a new problem you would foist on me, if you could, I’ll even include you in my answer to her.  I can’t be more fair than that.

The tenth video: Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem

https://youtu.be/k64YJYBUFLM?si=_rb4BBVMWcc3nXEw

My reaction:

As I note from time to time, it's not the existence of the Christian God that most intrigues me. I was once a Christian myself and who really knows for certain if He either does or does not exist? No, instead, what always intrigued me more was how a God I was told was "loving, just and merciful" could be responsible for all of these utterly ghastly things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

The only explanation that ever really made sense to me was Harold Kushner's: a loving, just and merciful God created existence, Earth, human beings etc., and then found out he was not omnipotent.

The video begins...

"We are all aware of the suffering in the world, horrific suffering, unspeakable evil...how then can anyone believe in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God? And if God does exist, why would anyone want to worship Him?"

Yep, that about sums it up for those like me.

Cue Epicurus...

"If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then He is not all-powerful. If He is able to prevent evil but not willing, then He is not good. But if He is both willing and able, how can evil exist? And if He is neither able or willing, why call Him God?

Cue logic:

"P1 It's logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist
P2 We know full well that suffering exists
Conclusion:  Therefore, God does not"

Then [to me] this bizarre comparison...

"Are these two statement logically inconsistent...

1] An all-powerful, all-loving God exists
2] Suffering exists

No.

Here is an example of 2 logically inconsistent statements...

1] David is married
2[ David is a bachelor"

Look, if you are actually able to believe that this lets God off the hook for "acts of God" down here, well, what can I say... whatever works?

Cue the "hidden assumptions" of the atheists
 
"If God is all-powerful, He can create ANY WORLD HE WANTS. If God is all-loving he PREFERS a world without suffering...Since suffering does exist, the atheist concludes, then God does not exist."

Now for the a God, the God rebuttal.

[Again, however, as with all of the other videos so far, it's not the Christian God Himself that is named. It's always just God this and God that.]

The narrator notes the atheists first assumption and suggests...

"...what if God wants a world where people have free will? It's logically impossible for God to force someone to freely choose to do good. Forcing free choices is like making a square circle."

Though, sure, in order to sustain your comforting and consoling belief in immortality and salvation, you accept this as perfectly logical.

On the other hand, how exactly does one reconcile an all-knowing God with men and women having free will?

Then [to me] this incredible conclusion...

"It's not that God lacks the power to perform the task [ridding the world of evil] it's that the task itself is just NONSENSE."

And, again, the focus here is on evil brought into existence by mere mortals. We are not to refer to the suffering brought about through natural disasters that grimly unfold as a result of how God created Earth itself as evil.

Next atheist assumption...

"Is it necessarily true that God would PREFER a world without suffering? How could we possibly know this?"

The narrator then suggests that God permits human suffering brought about by human beings themselves, as opposed to the suffering brought about by "acts of God", for the "greater good". And, of course, what can we possibly know about the "greater good" from the perspective of God.

Bingo: cue His mysterious ways.

Then back to us...philosophers.

"...even atheist philosophers have given up on the logical problem of evil"

Indeed, in a No God world, philosophers like me suggest that good and evil themselves are rooted historically and culturally in a "human all too human" existence that is essentially meaningless and purposeless. Though any number of secular philosophers here are convinced we need not go that far.

The eleventh video: Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version

https://youtu.be/cxj8ag8Ntd4?si=c7iQYZyY__5EWUP8

My reaction:

This is the longest video. And it's part two. Thirteen minutes devoted to that which almost certainly pops into the head of those who suffer mightily: Why?

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must I suffer like this?"

Or:

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must my beautiful child suffer so terribly?"

This from the Christian Relief Fund website:

Every day 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. That’s three times the death toll of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined!

Ten thousand sets of parents around the globe watching their children die in agony from starvation. Every single day. Or is that mitigated by the fact the most of them are in some Third World hellhole...and worship the wrong God?

Or, if not from starvation, one or another of these afflictions: https://www.unicef.org/health/childhood ... berculosis.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/h ... -illnesses

The narrator begins...

"But wait, while it's logically possible that God and suffering both exist, it's far from likely. There's just so much pointless suffering, it seems improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting it."

This he calls, "the probability version" of suffering and evil.

He notes that some make the argument that, "suffering provides empirical evidence that God's existence is not impossible, just highly unlikely".

Is this a good argument?

No.

For three reasons:

"1. We're not in a position to say with any confidence that 'God probably lacks reason for allowing suffering in the world.'

Here [to me] he expresses just another rendition of "God works in mysterious ways":

To wit:

"The problem is we're limited in space and time and in intelligence and insight."

God, however, sees "every detail" of history...of reality itself. So, as mere mortals, we just have to figure that all of this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...is factored into His Divine Plan.

Thus...

"In order to achieve His purposes, God may have to allow a great deal of suffering along the way."

We see it as pointless, but we're not called "mere mortals" for nothing.

"2. "Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence may well be probable"

Here -- starting at 1:45 -- you'll have to help me out. Something about probabilities and background information and weight and sumo wrestlers.

I think the point is this: that we might think what looks like a really fat man in the video could not be an athlete. But then we find out he's a sumo wrestler and the weight makes sense. The same thing with God? We don't have all the facts about him, so we don't really and truly understand Him?

So, if we talk about God in terms of probability, but do not possess all of the "background information" about Him, then, of course, if we only consider all of the suffering, it might seem improbable that He exists?

Then the narrator basically tells us that if we are willing to accept everything we've been told about God in the first ten videos, then we have all the background information we need to grasp this suffering.

"3] Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and suffering".

Here God is finally named. He the Christian God.

Then the 4 "Christian Doctrines""

"1] the chief purpose of life is not happiness"

God's role in our life, we are told, is not to give us a snug and comfortable existence. We're not His "pets". No, our purpose is to know God."

Got that? Okay, once that is understood, you become aware that, "suffering can bring about a deeper, more intimate knowledge of God, either on the part of the one who is suffering or those around him."

Suffering is actually a good thing because it brings you closer to God? So, take advantage of it?

Then this [to me] unbelievable assertion:

"...suffering is one way that God can draw people freely to Himself. In fact, countries that have endured the most hardships -- the worst natural disasters -- often show the highest growth rates for Christianity".

I'm sorry if I'm offending some Christians here, but how fucking hideous is that?!!

Then this quote from C. S. Lewis, not only explaining the pain but again practically reveling in it...

"God whispers to us in our pleasure, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse A DEAF WORLD."
So, anyone here not roused by the terrible pain and suffering that comes from these "acts of God"?

"2] Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose."

Thus the "depravities" that occur around the globe is something that the Christians expect. And if approximately 3,650,000 children have to starve to death each year, well, what do you expect given all of that depravity?

The adults do the depraved things so that justifies all the agonizing deaths of the truly innocent?

"3] God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life"

So, those 36,500,000 children who have died in agony from starvation over the past decade are experiencing that now?

On the other hand...

"Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, underwent afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings imprisonments, hunger...yet he wrote, 'we do not lose heart, for this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we do not look to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.'"

So, let's pass this on to those 10,000 innocent children who will die in agony from starvation over the next 24 hours. Not to mention the pain and suffering of their loved ones.

Earthly pain is temporary. Our pain will give way to eternal salvation. In other words, after watching all 17 videos and grasping that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact exist, your own pain will all be put into Divine perspective.

"4] The knowledge of God is an incomparable good."

So, however much excruciating pain and suffering you or someone you love experiences, you will know that "God is good to you".

Yes, if you can believe that, sure, more power to you. But most who do believe it also believe that, in the end, immortality and salvation await them.

Indeed, the narrator seems to recognize this himself...

"If [my emphasis] Christianity is true, it is not at all improbable that SUFFERING AND EVIL should exist."

Then this part:

"But even if the intellectual arguments fail, the emotional problem of suffering and evil remains very powerful."

In other words, you just feel the absence of God in your life.

Not to worry:

"You are not alone. God knows your name. He knows who you are and what you are going through. God promises to be with you through your suffering."

Then the part where Jesus Christ also suffered: "He was tortured and sentenced to death."

Okay, but He was God, wasn't He? No leap of faith for Him. It's not quite the same for us mere mortals.

And this is when I bring up these points...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of other Gods were/are championed. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 amNow meet your burden of proof, and justify your belief that God is Deterministic.

I can't justify anything that I believe about God and theodicy. As for the "burden of proof", that is always said to be incumbent upon those who do claim to believe in something. 

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 7:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 am It's already obvious.  Knowlege does not make things happen.  Omniscience is a claim about God's knowledge, not about his making of things to do this or that.  Thus, omniscience does not at all entail Determinism.

So the burden is on you to make the countercase, if you think you can.

Okay, just out of curiosity then,

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:28 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 7:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 2:59 am It's already obvious.  Knowlege does not make things happen.  Omniscience is a claim about God's knowledge, not about his making of things to do this or that.  Thus, omniscience does not at all entail Determinism.

So the burden is on you to make the countercase, if you think you can.

Okay, just out of curiosity then,

You’ll get your answer when you answer my question. Otherwise, you get nothing. Choose what you want to get.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:28 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 7:08 pm

Okay, just out of curiosity then,

You’ll get your answer when you answer my question. Otherwise, you get nothing. Choose what you want to get.

About what I suspected. No one gets anything from him about the Christian God unless they are willing to accept as the gospel truth what he believes "in his head" himself about Him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:01 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:28 am
You’ll get your answer when you answer my question. Otherwise, you get nothing. Choose what you want to get.

About what I suspected. No one gets anything from him about the Christian God unless they are willing to accept as the gospel truth what he believes "in his head" himself about Him.

And, philosophically, in my view, that is basically just bullshit. It's the "my way or the highway"/"my way or else" mentality of those -- God and No God -- who believe that what they do believe "in their head" need be as far as it goes in order to make it true.

I notice, as anybody else will, that you didn’t answer.

You don’t have an answer. And so, you don’t have an objection, either.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:01 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:46 am

About what I suspected. No one gets anything from him about the Christian God unless they are willing to accept as the gospel truth what he believes "in his head" himself about Him.

And, philosophically, in my view, that is basically just bullshit. It's the "my way or the highway"/"my way or else" mentality of those -- God and No God -- who believe that what they do believe "in their head" need be as far as it goes in order to make it true.

I notice, as anybody else will, that you didn’t answer.

You don’t have an answer. And so, you don’t have an objection, either.

Just out of curiosity, is there any answer other than your own that will suffice?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:01 am

I notice, as anybody else will, that you didn’t answer.

You don’t have an answer. And so, you don’t have an objection, either.

Just out of curiosity, is there any answer other than your own that will suffice?

Yes. Yours is what I’ve been asking for. I still don’t have it, but it’s the only one I’ve been asking for.

Going to offer anything? Or are you just flummoxed?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:32 am

Just out of curiosity, is there any answer other than your own that will suffice?

Yes. Yours is what I’ve been asking for. I still don’t have it, but it’s the only one I’ve been asking for.

Going to offer anything? Or are you just flummoxed?

How about we get back to this:

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 3:32 am

Just out of curiosity, is there any answer other than your own that will suffice?

Yes. Yours is what I’ve been asking for. I still don’t have it, but it’s the only one I’ve been asking for.

Going to offer anything? Or are you just flummoxed?

How about we get back to this:

"Death Toll Nears 90 in Texas Floods, With 27 Killed at Summer Camp
Questions about warnings intensified as the search for unlikely survivors became more desperate following one of the deadliest U.S. floods in decades. Ten campers and a counselor are among those still missing."

Sounds to me like the Christian God Himself may well be rather flummoxed in regard to the meaning of "loving, just and merciful".

Or are there two of them?

The OT God, appalled by sin wipes out the entire human population save for Noah and his family. Then as with Adam and Eve, they repopulate the planet through...incest?

On the other hand, in the NT, Jesus Christ -- God -- dies for our sins.

On the other other hand, the floods in Texas pale next to other floods historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

Still, it will soon join the list. Why? Because the list only notes those floods where 60 or more died.

Actually, it's already on the list: 90+ July 2025 Central Texas floods United States 2025

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 9:30 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:09 pm
Yes. Yours is what I’ve been asking for. I still don’t have it, but it’s the only one I’ve been asking for.

Going to offer anything? Or are you just flummoxed?

How about we get back to this:

"Death Toll Nears 90 in Texas Floods, With 27 Killed at Summer Camp
Questions about warnings intensified as the search for unlikely survivors became more desperate following one of the deadliest U.S. floods in decades. Ten campers and a counselor are among those still missing."

Sounds to me like the Christian God Himself may well be rather flummoxed in regard to the meaning of "loving, just and merciful".

Or are there two of them?

The OT God, appalled by sin wipes out the entire human population save for Noah and his family. Then as with Adam and Eve, they repopulate the planet through...incest?

On the other hand, in the NT, Jesus Christ -- God -- dies for our sins.

On the other other hand, the floods in Texas pale next to other floods historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

Still, it will soon join the list. Why? Because the list only notes those floods where 60 or more died.

Actually, it's already on the list: 90+ July 2025 Central Texas floods United States 2025

Oh look, the broken record continueth!

If iambiguous is not in some form of perfect and obvious HEAVEN then, clearly GOD doesn't exist.

The fact that the souls of these people within these floods can be taken prior to great suffering and eventually reincarnated again <--- that is plausible of GOD, means naught to him.

Why do you bother, you just go around and around on and on about the same SHITE!

Fine. You hate GOD if IT exists because clearly its not as benevolent as you would like. You clearly don't ever want to exist again because you have to witness, AND could also fall victim to being drowned, blown off the top of a volcano etc..

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:29 pm Actually, even if God does exist and is in fact a sadistic monster, I'd still roll the dice and believe in Him. After all, isn't that the only way for mere mortals to avoid eternal damnation in Hell? Or oblivion?

And, as always [if I do say so myself], you post the sort of SHITE that revolves almost entirely around what you believe in your head about GOD.

I'd challenge you to actually demonstrate empirically what you believe above but it would just be more of the same.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:46 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:29 pm Actually, even if God does exist and is in fact a sadistic monster, I'd still roll the dice and believe in Him. After all, isn't that the only way for mere mortals to avoid eternal damnation in Hell? Or oblivion?

And, as always [if I do say so myself], you post the sort of SHITE that revolves almost entirely around what you believe in your head about GOD.

I'd challenge you to actually demonstrate empirically what you believe above but it would just be more of the same.

To be honest, CBF. Too busy and I'm lovin' HEAVEN MODE

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 11:25 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:46 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:29 pm Actually, even if God does exist and is in fact a sadistic monster, I'd still roll the dice and believe in Him. After all, isn't that the only way for mere mortals to avoid eternal damnation in Hell? Or oblivion?

And, as always [if I do say so myself], you post the sort of SHITE that revolves almost entirely around what you believe in your head about GOD.

I'd challenge you to actually demonstrate empirically what you believe above but it would just be more of the same.

To be honest, CBF. Too busy and I'm lovin' HEAVEN MODE

CBF?

Or, perhaps, he meant CBB: "can't be bothered"

iambiguous wrote:And that makes sense because he clearly can't -- won't -- be bothered to connect the dots between what he thinks about God "in his head", and the sort of evidence he would demand of others in regard to any other extraordinary claims.

iambiguous wrote:As for HEAVEN MODE, that doesn't involve Maia, does it?