david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (01/12/84)
James Jones posted a reasonable article asking some questions. (I have deleted those paragraphs which I feel did not ask for a response; if I missed something, James, please let me know). >>... [Tim's] argument [about why he does not worship the Christian God] >>seems sort of circular to me. > I think not; it's of the form of the proverbial Caliph's argument for > burning the Alexandrian library (the comparison is intended *solely* > as a brief description of logical form, not to indicate disapproval), > i.e. 1. p -> q > 2. !p -> q > therefore q. My point was to drive home the premises for the discussion; i.e., that God exists. Tim prefaced his first article with "I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument...". Tim has, I think, realized this. What I was trying to avoid is just what has happened (but from other net readers): "You haven't proved God exists", or "the assumption that God exists is stupid". That is not what Tim and I are debating. When I said Tim's initial argument seemed "circular", I was trying to prevent the old "argument-hopping" technique. I did not mean to imply logical error. > I'd greatly appreciate a description of what you mean by the term "free will," > and what it means for a creature to have free will given the existence of an > omniscient and omnipotent God. ... > > Surely God is aware we all fall short, or rather at the time (if that makes > any sense) we (or the universe) were created He knew we would all fall short > of His standards. If we were created despite that knowledge, then God either > indeed wants many of us to go to Hell or considers it worth the suffering of > the vast majority of us to have a few escape. ... > > ... If one accepts this analogy, > one grants that it's worth the eternal suffering of some to save others, > although under this analogy the proportions are skewed.)... > > OK. Granted that, surely God knows that as well as you do, so again, why > would He create a race that was certain to wind up in eternal torment? > > You may be right; please give details of the proof of the former statement, > being sure to include what you mean by "usable" (I assume that information > about what love is will be included). I lumped these together as the topic seemed to be the same. You would make it seem that, for some to go to Heaven, others are *required* to go to Hell; as if it were some kind of prerequisite. I don't think this is the case. Again, we return to the topic of free will. I think that it is easy to see that, for love to exist, it must be given freely. You can't force someone to love you. In order that man be allowed eternal life, he must also be allowed to choose eternal damnation. Take away that choice, and we take away any love inherent in that system. This hints at God's purpose at creating man. The fact that this is a boolean decision does not imply "the lesser of two evils" (this, I think, is what Tim & I are debating). Clearly, God does not want anyone to go to Hell; but He must allow you that decision in order for love to exist. Now some feel that God is getting something out of all this praise and worship. A Christian's love for God stems from God Himself. Humans are like mirrors, whose brightness depends wholly on the light that shines on them; they have no inherent luminosity of their own. If a boy asked his father for a quarter to buy him, say, a birthday present, we can easily see that the father is no more ahead on the deal. God is not getting anything He has not already given. I had supposed that the requirement of suffering wherever there is love was very generally understood. For a quick example, take the love of one human for another one. Sooner or later, one of them is going to die. This will most certainly cause pain and grief (sometimes anger and resentment) in the other party. Anything less, and I might conclude that they didn't love each other after all, or that they aren't very human. The only way of avoiding this is to love no one and nothing. This assumes that love is needed in a workable system, and I suppose that someone would debate it; but I find it hard to imagine how a universe would work. "The Four Loves" (Lewis) does very well in describing Christian Love; I would recommend it to anyone. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-74800:uokvax:8300029:000:3719 uokvax!emjej Jan 19 16:20:00 1984 First, I'd like to thank David for his thoughtful response; now, to comment further... /***** uokvax:net.religion / ssc-vax!david / 6:16 pm Jan 13, 1984 */ >... You would make >it seem that, for some to go to Heaven, others are *required* to go to Hell; >as if it were some kind of prerequisite. I don't think this is the case. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was speaking in part to your automotive analogy, which I took as suggesting for consideration that it may be reasonable for the mechanic (God) to repair a car (the human race) by trashing defective parts (the Midianites, although I'm not sure why nubile women would be worth saving while children weren't). Also, there is again the question of what knowledge God might have had of the (even approximate) number of unrepentant sinners who would eventually live and die, but as you point out... >Again, we return to the topic of free will. Yes. I'm not sure there is such a thing (Raymond Smullyan's *Is God a Taoist?* dialogue in *The Tao is Silent* expresses my beliefs in regard to "free will" better than I can). Even if there were, might not something akin to Asimov's (fictional, so far) psychohistory indicate that with high probability x% of all humans would wind up in Hell? (It's not even clear that that is necessary to God; I forget whether it is A.J. Ayer or someone he quotes in *Language, Truth, and Logic* that said that God would need no logic, because he would immediately perceive all those propositions we laboriously derive, but the same would probably hold for science, too.) >I think that it is easy to see >that, for love to exist, it must be given freely. You can't force someone to >love you. I am pretty sure that *I* can't; I'm less sure about what God can do (although in part the question requires that I check out your Lewis reference (for which thanks, by the way) to see whether "Christian love" is defined so as to rule out being compelled). On the other hand, I could certainly see that if God were to create creatures that were guaranteed to love Him, He might feel about them rather the way I would about someone whose mean distance from me was inversely proportional to the difficulties she was having with assembumbler. On the third hand, maybe He feels that way anyhow--how can He *not* consider that those humans who do love Him are doing so involuntarily? This would seem to be a problem with omnipotence. >I had supposed that the requirement of suffering wherever there is love >was very generally understood. For a quick example, take the love of one >human for another one. Sooner or later, one of them is going to die. This >will most certainly cause pain and grief (sometimes anger and resentment) in >the other party. I'm reminded of the myth of Baucis and Philemon, who came off rather better at the hands of Zeus and Apollo (not that Z. and A. didn't behave as obnoxiously toward others in said myth as Jesus did to a certain fig tree). I've come (uncomfortably, when I think back on it) close to that at least once, when I told someone that if they were going to commit suicide, do it while we were both in the car. Cannot God do at least as well? (It shouldn't be hard, in the latter case.) >Anything less, and I might conclude that they didn't love >each other after all, or that they aren't very human. But then, if the mutually loving humans are Christian, won't they consider that they will meet in heaven, and thereby not suffer? /* ---------- */ Once again, David, thanks for your comments. I guess I flamed out on religion when I was in high school here in the Bible Belt, so maybe I'm at the point of being able to discuss such questions calmly. (I hope.) James Jones