A Defense of Theodicy

[SnakeLord]

unlike the support for "the universe according to snakelord", huh?

Avoidance. You made a claim that only a few people go to material existence. Get back to me when you can establish reality of your claim. Or continue trying to pass the buck, whatever.

without having recourse to omniscience, it could very well appear that way

The question must therefore be asked again: why create imperfect beings? You assert that these beings will become perfect when they stop messing up, (lg says: "we become perfect when we are no longer a “fuck up”"), so if one is to become perfect why not just make them perfect to begin with?

given the insignificance of your senses and the size of the universe, that could be some time

Or, and more appropriately: given your absolute inability to ever establish any of your pointless theistic claims, it could be a very long time.

if ALL are created equal and if ALL don't arrive here, then its not clear why you ask why SOME were created to come here.

???

You see, I ask: "We were created yes? We are imperfect yes? Why make an imperfect being?"

Earlier you claimed that we were made imperfect so that we could tell the difference between us and god, but you then state that these imperfect creations will become perfect - which, following on from your statements, must mean that eventually these imperfect beings will become perfect and not know the difference between them and god - so why not just create perfect beings to begin with given that the eventual outcome is going to be the same?

basically you assume that because the living entity deals with the material world in a different way to the spiritual world, that the same must be true of god. This is foolishness.

I didn't assume anything, I asked: why create beings that you know are going to suffer?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

unlike the support for "the universe according to snakelord", huh?
”
Avoidance. You made a claim that only a few people go to material existence. Get back to me when you can establish reality of your claim. Or continue trying to pass the buck, whatever.

you reject it on the strength of your "authority"
:shrug:

“
without having recourse to omniscience, it could very well appear that way
”
The question must therefore be asked again: why create imperfect beings?

first establish why they are created as imperfect, since all of them don't venture into ignorance

“
given the insignificance of your senses and the size of the universe, that could be some time
”
Or, and more appropriately: given your absolute inability to ever establish any of your pointless theistic claims, it could be a very long time.

such is the quandary of a person who hold empiricism as the ultimate authority in discerning truth

“
if ALL are created equal and if ALL don't arrive here, then its not clear why you ask why SOME were created to come here.
”
???

You see, I ask: "We were created yes?

contingent would be a more correct word, but we will ride "created' since it seems to work better with your authority

We are imperfect yes?

we are created without a constitutional recourse to omniscience - much like our hand is created without the ability to taste food - the hand is perfect when it places food in the mouth - the hand is imperfect if it tries to taste food.
similarly the living entity is perfect when it is serving god and it is imperfect when it is not serving god - since service to god requires love, and love requires independence, whether the living entity is serving god(perfection) or not (imperfection) is up to the living entity

Why make an imperfect being?"

is your hand imperfect because it cannot taste food?

“
basically you assume that because the living entity deals with the material world in a different way to the spiritual world, that the same must be true of god. This is foolishness.
”
I didn't assume anything, I asked: why create beings that you know are going to suffer?

once again, you make such statements because you assume the living entities movements over the chalk line somehow bewilders god

 

[SnakeLord]

you reject it on the strength of your "authority"

Incorrect. I wont just believe you telling me that something is true when you can't do anything to support your claim. I get the feeling you would do exactly the same, (in fact you have), when I assert that Lenny the leprechaun is real. This is where for some bizarre reason you grab an old book and try to assert it's authority purely on the basis that it says so.

What we're left with is you asserting your authority based on a belief lifted from a book and people that you claim are authorities on the mere basis that they say they are. Why then whinge to me about authority?

first establish why they are created as imperfect, since all of them don't venture into ignorance

So.. those that don't venture into ignorance/the material world were created perfect?

such is the quandary of a person who hold empiricism as the ultimate authority in discerning truth

As opposed to... ?

is your hand imperfect because it cannot taste food?

If you made it to taste food but it didn't work then yes. Of course the designer would also therefore be incompetent.

once again, you make such statements because you assume the living entities movements over the chalk line somehow bewilders god

No.. I ask the question, (not statement), because I'm interested to hear why a being would purposely create an entity that it knows is going to suffer.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
you reject it on the strength of your "authority"
”
Incorrect. I wont just believe you telling me that something is true when you can't do anything to support your claim.

support through your accepted authority?

“
first establish why they are created as imperfect, since all of them don't venture into ignorance
”
So.. those that don't venture into ignorance/the material world were created perfect?

the nature of their imperfection doesn't lie with the creator - just like if I sell you a brick and if you throw it through a shop window, I am not culpable

“
such is the quandary of a person who hold empiricism as the ultimate authority in discerning truth
”
As opposed to... ?

rationalism is another alternative (when we reach the limits of our sense perception, we call on our faculties of speculation) - although this is also faulty

authoritative testimony is another

perhaps I will make a thread on this

“

is your hand imperfect because it cannot taste food?
”
If you made it to taste food but it didn't work then yes. Of course the designer would also therefore be incompetent.

obviously the hand is not made to taste food - but if it had free will it my try to imitate the mouth ("hey why am I doing all the work for that mouth guy - from now on I am going to eat everything") then it would have the capacity to be imperfect (and ironically it would suffer since by feeding the mouth, the hands derives sustainance and vitality)

“
once again, you make such statements because you assume the living entities movements over the chalk line somehow bewilders god
”
No.. I ask the question, (not statement), because I'm interested to hear why a being would purposely create an entity that it knows is going to suffer.

:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

support through your accepted authority?

We both seem to work on the same basis, (Lenny). No? Offer me something else then.

the nature of their imperfection doesn't lie with the creator

Ohhhh... that old chestnut. They created it for themselves! :roflmao:

rationalism is another alternative..although this is also faulty

According to Spinoza and Leibniz, gaining knowledge is 'not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics'. I'd have to agree.

authoritative testimony is another

That's not going to get anyone very far.

Anything else?

obviously the hand is not made to taste food

So the competent designer decides not to make it that way, and make it in a fashion whereby it doesn't want or pretend to be a mouth. He can do this without hindering 'free will'. He knows that if he makes this specific hand that it will use it's free will to act like a hand should act, thus he makes that hand instead of the other hand. It's not like he's going to run out material to make hands.

:shrug:

Was an easy question.. Try harder.

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny, I didn't say that free will can't exist without evil, I said that evil can't exist without free will.

If there is no 'soul' and we are just ran by chemicals and sensory impulses, then perhaps there is no true free will.

What are you basing this on? Your wild imagination?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

Right because it has beings with free will called humans. No humans no evil. Get it? Evil is a man-made invention.

Except, we did not become human overnight. We are still left with the remnants of our animal past in which 'evil' could be a byproduct. Society has helped towards reducing 'evil' acts that were common place in lawless societies.

Allows it? It's not free will if it wouldn't be allowed. Besides, I'm not speculating about other "imaginary universes" I'm talking about this one and the fact that no free will=no evil.

And since drugs etc can make us more violent, then it shows that it's little to do with this thing you call 'free will' and more that we are governed by drugs and that certain people are predisposed to carrying out 'evil' than others?

 

[grover]

If there is no 'soul' and we are just ran by chemicals and sensory impulses, then perhaps there is no true free will.

Yep. And then there is no evil. Just a big valueless void.

Except, we did not become human overnight. We are still left with the remnants of our animal past in which 'evil' could be a byproduct. Society has helped towards reducing 'evil' acts that were common place in lawless societies.

Um, commonplace in lawless societies? Laws are only needed when people stop acting right. Laws are a symptom that something has gone awry, as far as I know traditional societies didn't have laws because they didn't need them.

And since drugs etc can make us more violent, then it shows that it's little to do with this thing you call 'free will' and more that we are governed by drugs and that certain people are predisposed to carrying out 'evil' than others?

Are you saying that people don't have a choice whether or not to take drugs? They chose cheap sensual pleasure that lead them down a road where they eventually become slaves to their desire.

 

[superluminal]

Yep. And then there is no evil. Just a big valueless void.

I agree with this. In absolut terms, it is. "value" is assigned by an organism that has something to be gained by the "valued" object.

 

[grover]

I meant valueless in the sense of no good or evil.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

support through your accepted authority?
”
We both seem to work on the same basis, (Lenny). No? Offer me something else then.

given that your whole lenny thing is a rhetorical device, it doesn’t constitute a radical departure (its still the “universe according to Snakelord”)

“
the nature of their imperfection doesn't lie with the creator
”
Ohhhh... that old chestnut. They created it for themselves!

certainly – its called free will

“

rationalism is another alternative..although this is also faulty
”
According to Spinoza and Leibniz, gaining knowledge is 'not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics'. I'd have to agree.

so you have officially shifted your stance from empiricism?

“
authoritative testimony is another
”
That's not going to get anyone very far.

seems to work okay
after all people with broken cars accept the advice or car mechanics
people with medical problems accept the advice of doctors
etc etc
all these people who take authoritative testimony are going nowhere?
I doubt it

“
obviously the hand is not made to taste food
”
So the competent designer decides not to make it that way, and make it in a fashion whereby it doesn't want or pretend to be a mouth.

the only way the hand is made that way is if it is made with out free will

He can do this without hindering 'free will'. He knows that if he makes this specific hand that it will use it's free will to act like a hand should act, thus he makes that hand instead of the other hand. It's not like he's going to run out material to make hands.

free will without free will?
interesting concept
kind of like water without wetness ...

“

”
Was an easy question.. Try harder.

the difficulty wasn't so much your question but your inability to progress with the answer

 

[SnakeLord]

given that your whole lenny thing is a rhetorical device

Incorrect.

certainly

Right, so here you espouse that man created imperfection for himself but earlier told me that god created man imperfect so that he would know the difference between him and god. Kindly make up your mind and get back to me.

so you have officially shifted your stance from empiricism?

No, the Spinoza statement was with regards to rationalism. My fault though so relax.

after all people with broken cars accept the advice or car mechanics

Yeah and as you'll find littered all over the news/google etc etc usually end up getting ripped off for parts they don't even need.

In fact the car repair industry has been given one last chance to improve it's service - after 30 years of warnings.

A Which? survey in 2004 found that 73% of garages offered an unsatisfactory service.

all these people who take authoritative testimony are going nowhere?
I doubt it

It is too easily corruptable.

the only way the hand is made that way is if it is made with out free will

Incorrect. Free will is still fully intact if the designer has omniscience and thus knows that this specific hand will use it's free will to not want to pretend it's a mouth.

free will without free will?
interesting concept

Your question doesn't make sense.

Let's say that you and I have free will. This god also knows how we will use that free will. You will use your free will to serve and worship god, (as he wants), I will use mine for things other than what he wants. If he doesn't create me in the first place then he's happy and everyone that exists is doing what he wants while still having their free will.

Think about it a while.