Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> But you have also said that pretty much nothing short of a dedicated science experiment with unassailable audio-video evidence would ever persuade you otherwise. But I honestly wonder if you have established for yourself an incoherent criteria for proof. There is probably no such thing.

What makes you think that there is no such thing? Why couldn't God appear in the sky in such an experiment (or something similar?).

[jimwalton]

The Bible is quite clear that God is not a servant at our beck and call. He doesn't often respond to our sense of timing and He's not interested in putting on a show. The only occasion (and it's the only one I can think of) where he does such is in 1 Kings 18 when Elijah is on Mt. Carmel). God's response in that case is situation-specific and is not portrayed as normative or something we can expect. In that case God shows up to falsify the reality of Baal because of the people's attraction to it. It was a turning point for Israel. There would be no reason to expect He'd put on a display to satisfy a science experiment. He's not a stage performer trying to please the crowd.

[Book Mitten]

> A good being can allow suffering and evil (examples of surgeons and oncologists) when such suffering is the only road to healing; allowing suffering doesn't negate their goodness

As I was saying earlier, surgeons are working in limited conditions. If I remember correctly, you argued that God works within logical limits as well. These limits are different however. I don't see how evil is necessary for good. I don't see how rape or torture is metaphysically necessary for heroism. (And if it were, the evil might not even be evil in the first place) A heroic person may overcome such things, but that is by their own effort, and to the extent that it isn't, God is responsible for the lack of magnitude in virtue elsewhere (elsewhere being someone who is less blessed with the magnitude of virtue displayed by someone who is). You used, in response to this, an analogy of a parent advising their child but their child disobeying. I don't think this is the same, as God sets up many of the metaphysical conditions in which the child operates to begin with, whereas the parent is adapting and working within an already existing state of affairs. Also, if a virtuous parent could observe their child commiting an act of severe evil, I would expect they would attempt to stop said evil, even if the child was strictly speaking responsible.

Things like these are the reason why a pandeist conception of God seems more reasonable in my opinion. That way if humanity is part of God, as would be nature, consciousness, etc themselves, God could be responsible for his/her/its own achievement, over coming and self overcoming. Such traits are manifestly depicted to a degree in Christ withstanding difficulty, but pandeism (where God is a state of flux that becomes the universe and then develops; this might counter the objection to pantheism of conflicting elements of nature, as God overcoming himself might explain it) seems to me more likely to include our own achievements in God's virtue.

[jimwalton]

> If I remember correctly, you argued that God works within logical limits as well

Yes.

> I don't see how evil is necessary for good.

I think I've clarified several times that I don't think evil is necessary for good.

> I don't see how rape or torture is metaphysically necessary for heroism.

Rape and torture are not necessary for heroism, but heroism by definition requires a desperate situation that is overcome by courageous goodness and the willingness to sacrifice for another.

> Also, if a virtuous parent could observe their child commiting an act of severe evil, I would expect they would attempt to stop said evil, even if the child was strictly speaking responsible.

Yes, definitely. The parent would work within the constraints of what was logical and possible to contain or stop said evil. I would contend that God does the same thing but on a very different scale. He is taking into account the whole picture (cosmos and life), and we all know that taking the whole picture into account doesn't necessarily mean that every individual gets what they want, think they need, or evaluate would be to their benefit.

> That way if humanity is part of God

Yeah, we've dealt with this. If humanity is part of God, there is no subject/object relationship and therefore no basis for creation (nature), knowledge, morality, or personality. There is nothing but a bare unity. But covering old ground doesn't resolve our obvious differences in perspective and the conclusions we draw from the available data.

[Book Mitten]

> He's not a stage performer trying to please the crowd.

Is that why Jesus fed the 5000 with a few loaves and a few fish?

[jimwalton]

The feeding of the 5000 was one of the most blatant messianic signs Jesus gave, and it had tremendous spiritual significance. Aside from the resurrection, it is the only miracle recorded in all 4 Gospels. There was nothing about it that was a performance to please the crowd. By this miracle, He put Himself in the role of a divine king, one superior to Moses, inviting people metaphorically to the Banquet feast of God.

[Book Mitten]

> But covering old ground doesn't resolve our obvious differences in perspective and the conclusions we draw from the available data.

We're not covering old ground. I responded to the point about bare unity; that a pandeist God, different from Pantheism, is in a perpetual state of flux and becoming, and thus must overcome certain parts of itself, the same way Nietzsche's concept of the superman overcomes itself; the parts it overcomes are in a sense part of itself and therefore bare unity, but it overcomes them all the same, hence the explainable space for flux.

[jimwalton]

I question the deity of a "god" who is still becoming and must overcome previous iterations or a circumstantial ontological identity.

[Book Mitten]

> He is taking into account the whole picture (cosmos and life), and we all know that taking the whole picture into account doesn't necessarily mean that every individual gets what they want, think they need, or evaluate would be to their benefit.

Why does the individual have to conflict with the whole picture? Many people are happy to sacrifice some of their interests to be part of something "bigger" than themselves.

[jimwalton]

Where there are individual identities there are necessarily variant (and usually competing) processes at work. Pediatric leukemia is not a matter of sacrificing to be part of a larger picture, nor is rape (generally, though some women allow themselves to be raped if it "guarantees" her or her children's better treatment at the hands of soldiers, for instance).

In actuality, we don't have a deep enough understanding of all the causes and effects at play to be able to assess what the conflicts at issue are, let alone what the whole picture looks like. Our view is necessarily personal and not universal.