Religious free will and predestination

[Mercutio]

Enough said ...

In other words, the moment something disagrees with your preconceived notions, you quit attending to it. It does not matter that the rest of the post went on to answer the questions you asked. It does not matter that the answers given were respectful, complete, and thought-out. You asked the questions not even looking for information, but rhetorically, presupposing that there was no explanation for how morality could arise in an uncaring universe. Well, sorry, Iacchus, but there is a very good explanation. It is the one you chose to ignore the first time it was presented to you, and chose to ignore again this time. Your ignorance is now exposed as the intentional and motivated ignorance that it is. Again.

 

[uruk]

Except that by saying this, you are putting limits on that which is limitless.

How does god knowing what we will do in advance limit god? If god is omnicient, god knows what all of our actions and choices will be. So from god's perspective we do not have free will. If we have free will from god's perspective, then god cannot know what choices we will make untill we make them.

This would also apply to an interactive omnicient god. An omnicient god would know every permutation that would result from any interventions he may make.

I've made this point in another thread, but it's worth making here again - death means the end to us, but God may simply not view it that way. Granted, we view it with anguish and pain; but if you believe in (pick most any religion), then you are told that death is not the end. Therefore - assuming a given religion speaks for God - He has already told people to chill about death. If we ignore that and choose to freak out, that's our problem and not God's.

That's something I've thought about also. we and everything in this creation are god's to do with as he wishes. God may not see our suffering the same way we see it. And of course death would have no meaning to god only to us. His set of morals would be vastly different to ours.

Regarding God's intervention to prevent things like murder, rape, child molestation, etc... if He starts interfering, when does He stop? Does he start handling domestic disputes? Sibling rivalries? Jaywalking?

Well, god could have made us incapable of doing those things from the getgo. But how fun would that have been?

 

[RandFan]

So the question is essentially incoherent. But extremely interesting, nonetheless - See, this question is not about omniscience and free will, but another demonstration of the illucid nature of omnipotency. It invokes another paradox, like time travel/murder. So can God cause a paradox?

This is a variation of another paradox. Can god predict the future, write it down and then change the future from what he wrote? Can infinity be divided in half? The last question isn't a paradox and the answer is straight forward but it is just as nonsensical. Shoehorning omniscient and omnipotent together and trying to make sense of them both is more ridiculous than trying to make sense of them separately (if that is possible).

It IS an interesting question though and is worthy of discussion. But in the end it is only intellectually stimulating and offers no real insight other than the limits of unlimited knowledge and power as concepts.

 

[uruk]

And, if there's an actual basis for it. It sounds to me like you're trying to pass off everything that goes "wrong" in life to God?

Well if we can't blame god for everything that goes wrong, why should we thank him for everything that goes right? If god is an interactive god and is responsible for every good thing that happens, then god can be blamed for every bad thing that happens too because god either does nothing to prevent bad things from happening when he clearly has the capability to prevent them, or god causes bad things to happen for his purposes or reasons.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings my friend jmercer

"Smart" is not the issue, nor is it a word I used. "Alien" is a better word, perhaps - as in, a being that could create the cosmos is probably too alien for us to truly understand.

But what would not be is if this being says do not kill another then kills many for no reasons, causes suffering for no clear reason. Such would be illogical and not how a more “mature” being teaches a less “mature” being.

May I ask you what I have asked before.

Do you look at your 3 year old and tell them it is wrong to hit or harm their sister, the cat etc. Then turn around with him standing there and start beating his sister to death and follow that up by stomping the cat to death and then knock off mom too?


Would you then turn to him when he ask why and say “ I am older then you and made you and you have no reason to ask me that and you could not understand anyway for I am DAD”


Also if beings this God created can not understand his ways it would be his fault. I can not make a cake with all vanilla ingredients and them be stocked it did not came out of the oven chocolate.

It would be the height of folly to assume we could correctly put human interpretations on the motivations and decisions of a being of unimaginable power and knowledge, who's span of existence utterly dwarfs our own.

I would disagree.

So to kill is wrong but to kill is right. To make another suffer for no reason is bad but to make another suffer for no reason is good?

This is illogical thinking. I would agree with you that we can not know what an all knowing being would know but we can know to cause harm to another innocent person for no reason is always wrong.

Balony. You are referring to beliefs that were repudiated by mainstream Christianity a long time ago. In fact, modern mainstream Judaism has also repudiated that view.

Prove that. I posted from the bible itself. What is “mainstream Christianity”? each sect will say they are “mainstream Christianity”
Are you sayin the Bible is wrong where it says in Exodus 4:11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or
makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?


Or that God makes people lie 1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

And makes people believe lies

II Thess. 2:11; For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

There are still cults and sects that state these things, but they are most emphatically not a part of mainstream Christianity today

You would have to prove that and also demonstrate what is mainstream Christianity.

I suggest that you discuss these beliefs with a Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran theologians before continuing basing your viewpoint on them.

I have I was born and raised and schooled as a Catholic, spend most of my life studying the belief and the bible.

I am an active Catholic, was an active Lutheran, and went to Methodist church services for years before making any kind of commitments to anything... and I can tell you that these religions do NOT believe that God inflicts disabilities or suffering on people.

I can list hundreds of Bible passages that say that is wrong, have you simply removed what you do not like from the Bible and kept what you do?

You can find any quote in the bible you wish to support just about any possible point of view. The entire book is full of contradictions, flaws, inconsistencies and logical errors. Taking one (or a dozen) such quotes out of context is really just cherry-picking.

I agree it is full of contradictions, flaws, inconsistencies and logical errors.

Ancient Judaism (from which the OT derives) believed that afflictions such as blindness, leprosy, etc., were punishments from God for sin... and so did the authors of those books when they were written. Unless you believe the bible is 100% accurate, and truly refelcts the "word of God" in every aspect?

The largest growing population of Christians today are the evangelicals they very much do believe it is word for word truth.

First, according to Christianity, he doesn't go to hell as long as he accepts Christ as the son of God and askes for forgiveness. 100% escape clause, requiring only a moment of belief and acceptance before the end of his life.

And what a sad belief, that a God places his need to be worshiped before the needs of a child. To believe you can do what ever you like as long as you apologize to God and not to the people and just simply believe in him seems sad.


What of the people who do good all their lives, seek to help all and harm none, because they do not believe in your God they are screwed, that is great egotism not unconditional love.

Regarding "God's plan", again, you are falling into the view of predestination.

I do not believe in predestination. What I said is if a God knows all I will do before I am born, knows lets say I will be tortured so badly my mind will become so warped I kill thousands it is his fault for allowing such. A loving parent would never allow such.

And as I said, if God controls us, this whole discussion is meaningless... but if you believe in free will, then what was done to this poor man was a crime by humanity against humanity. God had no part in it, and we are perfectly capable of addressing these behaviors.

Your God would have known ahead of time yet choose to stand by and watch the suffering, not a loving father.

Since we are capable of addressing this kind of abuse, why should we blame God for not intervening? Shouldn't we blame ourselves first?

How are you capable of addressing this kind of abuse for the child who is killed or kills himself soon after as that is the usual result.

What of the 26000 starving today due mainly to drought? Yes I believe we all should do more but I do not believe a God is allowing the drought.

I do not believe a God, a loving God does not place all his children on an even playing field.

So? Your argument is for the abolishment of all religions, including Buddhism.

Where did I say that? Please post where I said that.

I respect all beings and what they choose to believe, I do not wish to see or have the power to ban anything.

Frankly, the one justification for religion that can be truly cited is the comfort it gives over the death of a loved one, or the pending death of the individual.

I respect that.

Regarding the mother and her situation - who is at fault? Is it God, or humanity, for permitting these conditions to exist? Again, why blame God when we have all the tools and resources we need to correct the situation, but simply don't have the will to do so? Isn't it OUR responsiblity to do all that can be done before turning to God?

What tool do you have to make it rain? What tool do you have to end birth defects?

But yes I believe it is always our responsibility to do all we can to help others all others, I never turn to God, I do not believe in a God but respect you do.


This has nothing to do with my blaming God as I do not believe in a God, I am discussing beliefs that do believe in God and looking at their beliefs .

Literally, of course, you're correct. In terms of the overall message, though, you are incorrect. Just about every belief system we have been discussing has a fundamental implication that a person continues on after death. The big question seems to be "Will you be happy, or will you suffer afterwards?"

I believe such is dependent on ones actions, I only believe in the death of something that is not me, the body and the conditioned mind. I believe the true nature of mind is endless, without creation or decay. That is just what I believe.

Well, if you take the bible literally, we (once upon a time) had exactly that state - a state of grace... but we blew it and got tossed out.

Regarding placing information inside, etc., again, you're stating that there's no free will. If God supplied us with all knowledge (assuming we could even tolerate it!), we would simply become god-puppets.

I of course do not take the bible literally but most Christians do not all, but the rising tide of evangelicals do for sure.

Please show me where I said there was no free will????????

That sucks, and I know kids (and adults) like that, too. I admire that you and your kids get involved with people's suffering like that, and provide whatever comfort you can. That's a lot more than most people do.

I teach my children as I am sure you do and most do to simply love all beings and to help where ever we can seeking nothing in return, to simply love without condition.

I do not believe we do anything you would not do.

My kids often visit "adult homes" for people who are too infirm with age to actually do anything. They help them with their food, play games with them, put on little shows, etc. They've been doing it for years, and I encourage it. They've also volunteered for soup kitchens and other kinds of work that makes a difference for those less fortunate.

Kids are kids if they are 6 or 96, we are all the children of someone. I find it sad that many times you will see people love any child regardless of race or anything and do so also for old people saying “ how cute they are”. Yet seek out every reason to hate people in between these ages, looking for what seems to make us different rather then what makes us the same.

I do my own things to help people, but it's more selective and private.

Ours is also private I only bring this up to make a point.

Is God responsible for the actions of the families who have abandoned these people?

I do not believe in God, I look at the causes and conditions, I know there are conditions behind all actions and know the ones for this child and his parents. I separate the act from the actor. I look to always live by the Longfellow quote at the end of my post.

Or for the rest of us who walk (or drive) by while trying to ignore their existence? How about the millions of people who don't contribute to foundations dedicated to finding a cure for MS, or any number of other diseases and problems? Is that God's fault, too?

If there is a God and it know ahead of time what and or a child will be born and does nothing about it, yes it is its fault.

If you knew of a human father that could do something to save his child but did nothing and just stood there and watched him be killed. Knowing before hand the killer would be there, knew what he would do and knew he could stop it yet still brought his child there to be killed. You would want him in jail and rightly so.

No. It's our responsiblity to act on other's suffering, and blaming God for any of this is a cop-out.

I do not believe in God so blame “him” for nothing. Tell me what shall you do to end birth defects or drought for example? What of the countless billions that have died and suffered so greatly until fixes are found?

A God could have simply put in place a better plan with an even playing field for all, I would have and I am no God. Well LG says I am…lol

As I said prior to this, if God controls everything, then we're just meat-puppets... and God doesn't need to explain anything, because everything we do, feel and believe is utterly controlled by Him.

What has that to do with what I said?

Again, you are arguing for predestination. I don't believe in that, nor do any of the mainstream Christian religions today.

I do not arguing for predestination or God or 100’ bunnies I do not believe in any of them.

Again what is “mainstream Christian religions today”? All of my family and most friends are Christian.

I think I answered this with my other responses above.

No really you did not.

But please do now answer to what I asked How are the kids I told you about in the hospital, or the people that die from starvation or great disease or the man in the story I told you about “capable of dealing with these issues,”

You too. I respect you for caring and working toward relieving suffering... to me, that's more important than any theological or skeptical debate.

I agree fully and respect you and what you believe.

 

[username]

I respect that, I just do not agree.

I understand that you do not agree, but I do not understand the reason you disagree.

No, and or it is irrelevant to me for the first part but I see no evidence of such a being.

I agree it is irrelevant (to this discussion) whether such a being exists or not.

making an “logical” conclusion based in no supporting facts based on a belief based on no supporting facts does not make the “logical” conclusion logical.

For example.

The 100’ invisible pink bunny exist and is a 100’ invisible pink bunny so he must be pink and really smart.

Here is where I think we have a misunderstanding.

We can avoid any discussion of whether or not an omniscient being exists or not as it is irrelevant. We simply need to look at the definition of the word omniscient. The word means all knowing. If there was an entity who was omniscient then it logically follows that this entity would be mostly incomprehensible to us because we are not omniscient. Do you agree or disagree with my previous sentence? If you disagree please explain why you disagree as I am not clear on that.

In your example you assert that there is an entity which is a bunny, is 100' tall, is invisible and is pink. Ignoring the apparent contradiction between the color pink and invisibility, if we assume that such a being exists then it does logically follow that this being is, as you said, pink. It does not logically follow that it must be smart.

What does this have to do with a all powerful all knowing perfect being telling smaller beings not to kill each other then the all powerful being kills. It is totally fear based to just simply say “ well he is God and perfect and we can not judge him or know his ways”

I don't think so. As an adult parent I teach my child to be kind to animals, never to hurt or kill them. To a 2 year old this seems like an absolute rule. However, if we are walking down the street and a viscious dog attacks us I will use physical force against it. My 2 year old may not understand that my use of force was justified even though to him it appears I broke my own rule of 'don't hurt animals'. Likewise I may tell my 2 year old never to accept candy from a stranger, but I myself might do so. It could be that my 2 year old perceives the people behind the booth at the fair as strangers, but I perceive them as trustworthy so accept the candy. Again, I broke the rule I taught my 2 year old. He won't comprehend the whys of it because my intellect and understanding are far beyond his.

This is how it would have to be between us and an omniscient being.

I ask but you did not answer the following.

Will you tell your 2 year old not to kill or harm another then beat him silly and kill his mother and brothers? Then say “ well I am an adult and it is not for you to judge” the child through fear will grow believing this while it has nothing to do with truth or logic.

I agree that for me to do this would represent hypocracy, but I gave 2 examples above where I would appear to contradict the rules I taught my 2 year old that I believe explain this.

 

[Iacchus]

I believe little is black and white for this reason in Buddhism we have precepts not commandments they are worded “ I seek to refrain from killing/ taking the life of another etc” Intention is everything for us.

The realty is you can not move through life with killing living things every second. But you can seek to avoid setting out to cause harm and suffering to another.

So, does this mean we should stop eating chicken for dinner? Obviously the chicken suffered in order to be put on the plate.

No, because no God seems to exist who would have set up this situation, thus what is, is and we can only do our best to do our best and help ease the sufferings of others where we can.

But what is suffering? Is it something which is unfair? Something which is unjust? If there is nothing beyond death, and the life of the this world entails nothing "but" suffering, wouldn't the best thing to do for someone is to kill them? Why is killing such a bad thing?

amoral means without God??LOL WOW that is self-serving.

There are/ have been billions of people who lead very moral lives and believe in no God, There are/ have been billions of people who believe in Gods and have lead lives of great evil and do so many times in the name of their God.

Morallity? Based upon? Would that be akin to something like the law of gravity?

 

[Iacchus]

How does god knowing what we will do in advance limit god? If god is omnicient, god knows what all of our actions and choices will be. So from god's perspective we do not have free will. If we have free will from god's perspective, then god cannot know what choices we will make untill we make them.

This would also apply to an interactive omnicient god. An omnicient god would know every permutation that would result from any interventions he may make.

Yet what if we were very much like the sons and daughters of God (as the Bible seems to suggest) and were all a part of His extended family? We have the capacity to replicate ourselves, why should that exclude God's ability to do so?

 

[Pahansiri]

I understand that you do not agree, but I do not understand the reason you disagree.

I understand you do not understand.

Here is where I think we have a misunderstanding.

We can avoid any discussion of whether or not an omniscient being exists or not as it is irrelevant. We simply need to look at the definition of the word omniscient. The word means all knowing.

Yes I know what it means and for our talk we are saying “if” such a being existed.

If there was an entity who was omniscient then it logically follows that this entity would be mostly incomprehensible to us because we are not omniscient. Do you agree or disagree with my previous sentence? If you disagree please explain why you disagree as I am not clear on that.

As I said of course a lesser being would could not know all an all knowing being knows.

Again I must ask What has this have to with my point an all powerful all knowing perfect being telling and teaching smaller beings not to kill each or harm each other only to then as an all powerful being, a father figure/ teacher go and kill lesser beings, his children?

To justify it by saying. “ well he is God and perfect and we can not judge him or know his ways and he must have a good reason”
Is to be blind and fear based. It is how governments etc have sought to control people.

In your example you assert that there is an entity which is a bunny, is 100' tall, is invisible and is pink. Ignoring the apparent contradiction between the color pink and invisibility, if we assume that such a being exists then it does logically follow that this being is, as you said, pink. It does not logically follow that it must be smart.

Not at all, if we believe a God is all powerful perfect having perfect love then how is it we can justify anger, hate and killing of it’s children.

If you say the 100' tall, is invisible and is pink. You can assume it is pink as you say, if you say “ God loves you with perfect love, you can expect he will not kill you.

I don't think so. As an adult parent I teach my child to be kind to animals, never to hurt or kill them. To a 2 year old this seems like an absolute rule. However, if we are walking down the street and a viscious dog attacks us I will use physical force against it. My 2 year old may not understand that my use of force was justified even though to him it appears I broke my own rule of 'don't hurt animals'. Likewise I may tell my 2 year old never to accept candy from a stranger, but I myself might do so. It could be that my 2 year old perceives the people behind the booth at the fair as strangers, but I perceive them as trustworthy so accept the candy. Again, I broke the rule I taught my 2 year old. He won't comprehend the whys of it because my intellect and understanding are far beyond his.

This is how it would have to be between us and an omniscient being.

I teach my children as Buddhism teaches seek not to harm another living being, we do not have commandments we have precepts in Buddhism for we can never not kill we do every second some life form. We seek always to have right intention seek not to harm. War in Buddhism is always avoided, war of aggression that is, one must always protect themselves and weaker ones.

But what do your examples have to do with killing innocent people intentionally? Remember also you may have to kill the dog attacking a God would know it was going to attack and could simply before it’s birth remove the causes and conditions in its life to avoid the attack. A God would not have to kill anything. Correct?

I agree that for me to do this would represent hypocracy, but I gave 2 examples above where I would appear to contradict the rules I taught my 2 year old that I believe explain this.

Not at all. You did not address what I asked as I believe it is closer to the God analogy then the Dog. AS a God would never need to kill as there would always be a better way.

My analogy is the right one, as the father can not tell the little boy to not harm his sister then get mad at the little girl and kill her for no reason, Then the mother and poor kitty and simply explain it away by saying “ my ways are not to be judged I am smarter then you”

 

[Pahansiri]

So, does this mean we should stop eating chicken for dinner? Obviously the chicken suffered in order to be put on the plate.


But what is suffering? Is it something which is unfair? Something which is unjust? If there is nothing beyond death, and the life of the this world entails nothing "but" suffering, wouldn't the best thing to do for someone is to kill them? Why is killing such a bad thing?

Morallity? Based upon? Would that be akin to something like the law of gravity?

So, does this mean we should stop eating chicken for dinner? Obviously the chicken suffered in order to be put on the plate.

That is up to you. I do not tell you what to do or believe I have no such power over you.

But what is suffering? Is it something which is unfair? Something which is unjust? If there is nothing beyond death, and the life of the this world entails nothing "but" suffering, wouldn't the best thing to do for someone is to kill them? Why is killing such a bad thing?

Hard to fully answer. There is real physical and emotional suffering we cause ourselves and others then there is suffering we believe others cause us but in fact we are causing ourselves. This is perceived suffering, for example when you said you were mad no one here believes what you say just because you believe it. You are causing your owns suffering not the others.

Morallity? Based upon? Would that be akin to something like the law of gravity?

Based upon not seeking to cause suffering to another being for your pleasure or gain, not doing to another what you would not wish done to yourself.

Is that really that hard for you to understand?

I needed no God for this it is common sense and respect.

 

[Iacchus]

That is up to you. I do not tell you what to do or believe I have no such power over you.

Hard to fully answer. There is real physical and emotional suffering we cause ourselves and others then there is suffering we believe others cause us but in fact we are causing ourselves. This is perceived suffering, for example when you said you were mad no one here believes what you say just because you believe it. You are causing your owns suffering not the others.

Based upon not seeking to cause suffering to another being for your pleasure or gain, not doing to another what you would not wish done to yourself.

Is that really that hard for you to understand?

I needed no God for this it is common sense and respect.

Suffering my dear friend, is the coin of the realm. It seems like no matter what we do, we cannot avoid suffering. In which case what we have to ask, is what kind of suffering is preferred over others? And this I'm afraid is where morality comes in which, is strictly not the by-product of an amoral Universe. If the Universe doesn't care, there's no reason why we should care either.

 

[RandFan]

But what is suffering?

If you don't know then don't worry about it. I'm serious. I think your question is a valid one philosophically. However for practical purposes it is something that really does not need defining.

There are two options based on your discussion.

1.) There is a god. In which case we are confronted with all sorts of philosophical contradictions as to the nature of god and morality. Sometimes it is ok to kill children sometimes it is not. Relative is up to god.

2.) There is no god and we must act in a way that is consistent with our own nature, the law and societal norms. In which case objective means are used to determine how to be consistent and non arbitrary in the application of laws and standards.

 

[username]

Again I must ask What has this have to with my point an all powerful all knowing perfect being telling and teaching smaller beings not to kill each or harm each other only to then as an all powerful being, a father figure/ teacher go and kill lesser beings, his children?

I am not sure why my analogies aren't making sense for you. I don't know how to communicate more clearly.

To justify it by saying. “ well he is God and perfect and we can not judge him or know his ways and he must have a good reason”
Is to be blind and fear based. It is how governments etc have sought to control people.

Yes, but you are judging an omniscient being by comparing his actions with the actions of finite beings (human government). This would not be a valid comparison. You are saying that humans do things with particular motives and then project those motives onto the omniscient being simply because to our eyes the external actions appear similar. Similarity of outward actions doesn't imply similarity of internal motives.

Not at all, if we believe a God is all powerful perfect having perfect love then how is it we can justify anger, hate and killing of it’s children.

The problem can be resolved by a clear definition of 'perfect love'. Punishing a child to teach him not to run into the street may not seem like perfect love to a child, but it really is a loving act to provide corrections like this.

If you say the 100' tall, is invisible and is pink. You can assume it is pink as you say, if you say “ God loves you with perfect love, you can expect he will not kill you.

I do not agree. You assume that physical death is as big a deal to the eternal, omniscient being as it is to humans. Is the 2 year old's lollipop as important to the parent as it is to the child?

I teach my children as Buddhism teaches seek not to harm another living being, we do not have commandments we have precepts in Buddhism for we can never not kill we do every second some life form. We seek always to have right intention seek not to harm. War in Buddhism is always avoided, war of aggression that is, one must always protect themselves and weaker ones.

Yes, but buddhism has no concept of an omniscient being, therefore the precepts of buddhism are human based, not based upon the wisdom of an omniscient being.

But what do your examples have to do with killing innocent people intentionally? Remember also you may have to kill the dog attacking a God would know it was going to attack and could simply before it’s birth remove the causes and conditions in its life to avoid the attack. A God would not have to kill anything. Correct?

A god could orchestrate things so no violence or suffering ever occured, but is that the best plan? Even we humans recognize the positive role negative events such as suffering produce in ourselves. Perhaps in the eyes of this god, suffering is a necessary part of the plan.

The difficulty you are having is directly due to your assuming that this omniscient being must be held accountable to your limitted ability to understand what is happening, the reason for it happening etc. This is no more reasonable than the 2 year old having a temper tantrum because he is forced to eat his vegetables.

Not at all. You did not address what I asked as I believe it is closer to the God analogy then the Dog. AS a God would never need to kill as there would always be a better way.

Better according to your finite understanding of what is best or according to the omniscient being's understanding of what is best?

My analogy is the right one, as the father can not tell the little boy to not harm his sister then get mad at the little girl and kill her for no reason, Then the mother and poor kitty and simply explain it away by saying “ my ways are not to be judged I am smarter then you”

Again, you are assuming that this god does things with the same motivations as humans.

If we assume the existence of an omniscient being then we must accept that we are incapable of understanding things at the level of the omniscient being. As such it is pointless to reason from our human perspective as to whether the actions of this being are good, bad, evil, just, immoral or any other human valuation. We simply aren't capable of possessing enough knowledge to make a sound judgement.

 

[RandFan]

Suffering my dear friend, is the coin of the realm. It seems like no matter what we do, we cannot avoid suffering. In which case what we have to ask, is what kind of suffering is preferred over others? And this I'm afraid is where morality comes in which, is strictly not the by-product of an amoral Universe. If the Universe doesn't care, there's no reason why we should care either.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to suffer. I care about that. I'm capable of empathy. It pains me when others suffer. To reduce my own suffering it is in my best interest to act in a way to mitigate suffering in my actions and in the laws of my community. If I want others to be fair to me then I need to be fair and demand fairness from my society.

Eliminating suffering is but one human goal. Humans are also capable of greed, envy and other traits which are contrary to the goals of no suffering.

 

[Iacchus]

I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to suffer. I care about that. I'm capable of empathy. It pains me when others suffer. To reduce my own suffering it is in my best interest to act in a way to mitigate suffering in my actions and in the laws of my community. If I want others to be fair to me then I need to be fair and demand fairness from my society.

Eliminating suffering is but one human goal. Humans are also capable of greed, envy and other traits which are contrary to the goals of no suffering.

We are here for but a brief period of time. Perhaps suffering is the best thing for us?

 

[Pahansiri]

Suffering my dear friend, is the coin of the realm. It seems like no matter what we do, we cannot avoid suffering. In which case what we have to ask, is what kind of suffering is preferred over others? And this I'm afraid is where morality comes in which, is strictly not the by-product of an amoral Universe. If the Universe doesn't care, there's no reason why we should care either.

Suffering my dear friend, is the coin of the realm. It seems like no matter what we do, we cannot avoid suffering.

remember I am Buddhist, we call this realm samsara and life here is marked by suffering none are free from it. Some have far less some far more but no one is free.

As I said I believe we are the cause of most of our suffering.

It seems like no matter what we do, we cannot avoid suffering.

For sure. What we can do is care for and love ourselves and each other seeking to ease and not cause suffering to oneself or others. If there is a God it is above suffering and should be above desires and needs such as belief or worship. It would seem to me anyway it’s concern would be more for its children then its own needs. What is perfect can have no needs. No desires as a desire means there is a lacking, there can be no lacking in an all powerful being.

In which case what we have to ask, is what kind of suffering is preferred over others?

All beings wish to be happy and free from suffering. I know of no one or thing that really desires suffering.

And this I'm afraid is where morality comes in which, is strictly not the by-product of an amoral Universe. If the Universe doesn't care, there's no reason why we should care either.

Fully illogical. I do not base my actions on yours or any other. Sad you do.

 

[Iacchus]

If we didn't suffer the pain for someone having broken our leg, what purpose would that serve? At the very least to serve as a reminder that we should all strive for wholeness and completeness, correct?

 

[Pahansiri]

Yes, but you are judging an omniscient being by comparing his actions with the actions of finite beings (human government).

Can you show me an omniscient being so I may judge against that?


“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to
explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.” David Brooks

This would not be a valid comparison.

Can you show me an omniscient being so I may judge against that?


“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to
explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.” David Brooks


Am I to believe that a higher being makes it right to be unkind? Seems a perfect being would have perfect love.

You are saying that humans do things with particular motives and then project those motives onto the omniscient being simply because to our eyes the external actions appear similar. Similarity of outward actions doesn't imply similarity of internal motives.

When is it proper to kill an innocent child?

The problem can be resolved by a clear definition of 'perfect love'. Punishing a child to teach him not to run into the street may not seem like perfect love to a child, but it really is a loving act to provide corrections like this.

teaching a child to not run in the road so as he will not be harmed is love, you tell a child not to run in the street so as he will not be harmed then throwing him under a car is not love.

I do not agree. You assume that physical death is as big a deal to the eternal, omniscient being as it is to humans.

As I said I do not fear physical death as it is as normal as birth, we are talking about suffering and being killed, tortured, birth defects etc.The physical death of a parents child means a great deal to them but after the death nothing to the child. As a father I do not wish to see my kids children die more so for the great suffering of my kids not the child after her death.

Is the 2 year old's lollipop as important to the parent as it is to the child?

To me it would be, if it brought joy, I would not give it to her then take it and beat her to death with it.

Yes, but buddhism has no concept of an omniscient being,

Sure we do, we conceive it does not seem logical but really do not care if there is or not is irrelevant as to life here.

therefore the precepts of buddhism are human based, not based upon the wisdom of an omniscient being.

not the 100’ bunny..
“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to
explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.” David Brooks

A god could orchestrate things so no violence or suffering ever occured, but is that the best plan? Even we humans recognize the positive role negative events such as suffering produce in ourselves. Perhaps in the eyes of this god, suffering is a necessary part of the plan.

Not what I said, come-on you know that. I said a better game plan is an even playing field.

The difficulty you are having

???? I am having no difficulty.

is directly due to your assuming that this omniscient being must be held accountable to your limitted ability to understand what is happening, the reason for it happening etc. This is no more reasonable than the 2 year old having a temper tantrum because he is forced to eat his vegetables.

I do not assume omniscient does anything, nor do I assume it would both your assuming and mine are just that.

Your analogy using a 2 year is illogical, really as we are not 2, we know that to make suffer an innocent person is not good and right.

Better according to your finite understanding of what is best or according to the omniscient being's understanding of what is best?

“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to
explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.” David Brooks



I must believe using what is known that to cause suffering to an innocent person is always not good.


A child born to a life time of pain is never good and of no positive to that child.

Again, you are assuming that this god does things with the same motivations as humans.

If its motivation is not love, to seek the best most loving thing for its child it is a lesser being.

If we assume the existence of an omniscient being then we must accept that we are incapable of understanding things at the level of the omniscient being.

Of course I do not assume one and if I did I would assume it would at least have the limited love, compassion and respect we lesser beings have. I would assume that we as its children have the traits that my child has from me.

As such it is pointless to reason from our human perspective as to whether the actions of this being are good, bad, evil, just, immoral or any other human valuation. We simply aren't capable of possessing enough knowledge to make a sound judgement.

I agree we could not know what this being knows but it is illogical to say we can believe in perfection bad is good and good is bad.

We are going in circles now.

I respect your opinion and agree with many parts but we are dragging on now.

Be well my great friend.

 

[Pahansiri]

We are here for but a brief period of time. Perhaps suffering is the best thing for us?

Come to the childrens Hospt Sat and tell the kids that. Tell that to the child and parent a day from death from starvation.

 

[Pahansiri]

If we didn't suffer the pain for someone having broken our leg, what purpose would that serve? At the very least to serve as a reminder that we should all strive for wholeness and completeness, correct?

Do you ever feel bad for not answering a question but only asking them?

A broken leg happens so we can feel compassion for another? PLEASE no one ever get hurt again I already have love and compassion for you. PLEASE do suffer.

Should I beat my son so he can have compassion for others?

No, I have taught him though logic though teaching him way it is good for them and him to love all beings. He needed no pain to know others suffer and that he will also and that compassion eases pain for him and them. Love them simply to love them.