From another blog:
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2006/11/general-response-to.html
At 5:43 AM, Daniel Morgan said…
"The problem of evil is the sole real reason I do not believe in a god of any sort. If the problem had a satisfactory solution, I would consider Deism or some form of Theism as rational."
A striking admission.
"Prof. Witmer really hit the nail on the head with the PoE in this show -- God's desire to be glorified, at the expense of pain and evil and suffering, is still 'all-good'?"
If Witmer hit the nail on the head, then he was hammering away at the wrong nail. Pain and suffering don't exist due to God's desire to be glorified.
Rather, pain and suffering are a means by which his redemptive wisdom, mercy, and justice are manifested to his rational creatures for the benefit of the elect.
God is not doing something for himself at someone else's expense. Rather, he's doing something for someone else at his own expense (the Cross).
If Danny can't grasp that, it's no surprise that he's an apostate.
"It is better that God be glorified for 7000 years or so."
Throughout this thread, Danny equivocates on the true meaning of divine glorification.
In its theodicean dimension, God is not bringing glory to himself. Rather, God is revealing his glorious wisdom, justice, and mercy, so that his people may glory in God.
"But some of God's creatures experience eternal torment"
True, although this skates over the precise nature of the torment. Is Danny getting his conception from the Bible? Or from the likes of Dante, Hieronymus Bosch, John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and Stephen King?
One of Danny's problems throughout this thread is his basic failure to distinguish between two different questions:
1. How can God be blameless in ordaining the Fall?
2. How can God blame us for the consequences of the Fall?
The greater good defense is only designed to answer the first question, not the second.
An answer to the second question depends on your version of action theory; in this case, compatibilism.
The greater good defense is one plank of a broader theodicy.
"Than that God either:
i) make jesus-like humans"
Meaning what? 10 billion divine incarnations?
"ii) not make humans at all"
Is Danny sorry that he's alive? Would he rather be dead?
There's a simple solution to that. One well-placed bullet between the eyes.
The fact is that none of us would be here apart from the fall. Due to the fall, Cain slew his brother Abel.
That one deed, committed in the first generation of the human race, forever altered the family tree of mankind.
Apart from the fall, other men and women would exist, and also exist—at present—under happier conditions.
But you and I would not exist.
"iii) have the same conditions on earth that will exist in heaven, simply by showing the people in heaven a movie that describes pain and suffering and evil, and makes them grateful for God's sparing them all those things"
By showing them a movie.
Does that include popcorn?
"Apropos (iii), this is the issue that didn't get talked about as much because the show ended. Gene's contention is that God is justified in allowing all this evil because God displaying his own mercy/forgiveness is better than not allowing evil and having a scenario like (iii). So far, this is an assertion that flies in the face of credulity. Consider me saying, 'this toddler will never know the joy of having its arm unless I tear it off first and then reattach it.' You'd immediately call that ridiculous."
Yes, I'd call the illustration ridiculous.
One of the problems with his illustration is the way it assumes the prior possession of a certain state, followed by its loss, followed by its restoration.
Needless to say, this is disanalogous with the theodicy in view, according to which the redeemed will enjoy a level of enlightenment that transcends the state of unfallen Adam, and which was unattainable apart from the fall.
It's not taking away something they already had, and giving it back to them.
"Yet, God is 'glorified more' by allowing people to suffer (and some to suffer eternally) just so that they'll look backwards and say, 'Hey God, thanks for reattaching my arm, you're the best!'
Once again, this is not about glorification of God, but rather, the glorification of his people.
"It makes no sense."
True, it makes no sense when, like Danny, you're too shallow to grasp the position at issue.
"Besides the 'show them a movie of what things could otherwise be like' solution I propose, there are countless others. Do you beat your wife (but just once) to show her how grand it is not to be beaten???"
Yes, countless other specious comparisons.
"Gene used the analogy of the blind man being told about red -- this is a decent way to look at it. Is the blind man the one who is the center of this question, or the rest of us, wanting him to see red? Is it 'more good' for us, or 'more good' for God?"
Nothing is "more good" or better for God.
"Gene seems to think that people who live in absolute ignorance that evil and pain could even exist are somehow impoverished, compared to those who experience it personally. This is absurd."
Another lame brained oversight on Danny's part. The theodicy at issue doesn't begin and end with the Fall. There is also a little thing called redemption.
"You say the ultimate standard of what is good is God. You then say that in order for the 'highest good' to occur, sin has to occur (because mercy and forgiveness result)."
Is Danny making an effort to come up with so many unintelligent objections?
There is the ontological goodness of God.
There is also the epistemic goodness of his revealed goodness.
These are hardly the same thing.
"Has God ever experienced forgiveness or mercy? How is God 'more good' than us, if God has no courage (he cannot fear), God has never had mercy given to him, etc., etc., etc...it seems that we humans exemplify this 'highest good' if a universe without mercy is less good than a universe with it."
This series of accusatory questions is premised on his above-stated failure to distinguish between ontology and epistemology, viz. the goodness of God in himself, and the goodness of God shown to us.
"We become necessary in order for God to bring about the ultimate good. God cannot itself experience mercy, so it must make us, so 'highest good' becomes contingent upon us."
He continues to flog away at his simple-minded equivocation. Pity he can't keep more than one idea in his head at a time.
Let us hope that Danny is better at chemistry than theology.
"You don't like that idea, do you?"
I dislike lumbering, blundering incompetence. That's for sure.
"Neither do I."
In that case he should try to acquire an elementary understanding of the issue at hand.
"If God exists, and is all-good, then why or how could anything either add to or subtract from God's glory or perfection?"
It doesn't. Rather, it enriches the life of the redeemed.
"And so it seems logically necessary that only more perfection could be attained by God -- God would create and do only more perfect things. Yet, making mistakes happen in order to correct them is, at best, nullification of any 'net good' and, at worst, losing the status of perfection by instantiating evil."
Once more, a conclusion which is predicated on his systematic incomprehension of the status quaestionis.
"It is just beyond my ability to believe."
Believe what? His inept misstatement of the opposing position.
It's beyond my ability to believe his strawmen as well.
That’s one thing we agree on.
"You can say I 'harden my heart against it' if you want -- after all, Romans 9 makes you want to say that."
Indeed, Danny does an excellent job of illustrating how infidelity darkens the mind.
"And if it's true, then you can't blame me for not believing it."
This goes back to his failure to distinguish between the question of human complicity and the question of divine complicity. Separate questions, separate answers.
One thing you can say for Danny: he's consistent—consistently off-target.
"So, please don't tell me I'm incoherent or that I hold to unintelligible things. Not when you hold to these things."
Well, if he prefers, I could always employ other adjectives, such as "simplistic," "obtuse," &c.
I’m more than happy to accommodate.
In addition, even if he regards the Christian faith as incoherent, that in no way absolves him from discharging his own burden of proof.
It will hardly do for him to say, "Sure, I'm incoherent—but you're incoherent too!"
No comments:
Post a Comment