Why does God allow so much suffering?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SunnysideSea
Why so? Don't you agree that if the universe came into existence at an otherwise arbitrary point, and its cause (as you do seem to agree) is timeless, the cause must be capable of choosing when to make its 'effect' take place - using free will. If a material catalyst is placed in the same condditions it will always produce the same effect. So why the difference in this case? Clearly the cause was not material, and could what it produces and when. These are traditional characteristics of God.
But without time or space there are no "points" or "whens", in fact I think it is impossible to argue that any property can exist in the absence of time and space. Therefore I may deduce anything outside of time and space is undefinable, and you are erronously trying to define the undefinable.
Original post by RobML
But without time or space there are no "points" or "whens", in fact I think it is impossible to argue that any property can exist in the absence of time and space. Therefore I may deduce anything outside of time and space is undefinable, and you are erronously trying to define the undefinable.
Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
Original post by SunnysideSea
Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
Original post by SunnysideSea
Why so? Don't you agree that if the universe came into existence at an otherwise arbitrary point, and its cause (as you do seem to agree) is timeless, the cause must be capable of choosing when to make its 'effect' take place - using free will. If a material catalyst is placed in the same condditions it will always produce the same effect. So why the difference in this case? Clearly the cause was not material, and could what it produces and when. These are traditional characteristics of God.
There are no "points" in absence of space and time, points are defined by space and time, therefore there is not this "arbitrary point" you speak of. And I wasn't saying I agree with everything else you posted, it's just that I wanted to target more obvious problems.
Perhaps talking of a 'point' is misleading. I'm just experimenting here for a bit of fun (this is original philosophy lol):
1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.
2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)
3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.
Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.
2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)
3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.
Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SunnysideSea
Perhaps talking of a 'point' is misleading. I'm just experimenting here for a bit of fun (this is original philosophy lol):
1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.
2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)
3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.
Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1) If a cause exists eternally, without free will, its effect will exist eternally also.
2) The effect does not exist eternally. (we know this from premise 2 of the original argument)
3) Therefore, a cause does not exist eternally *without* free will.
Yet we know that an eternal cause does exist (from the conclusion of the original argument). Therefore, the eternal cause must be *with* free will.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm going to look at your argument again...
(let's take everything you said to be true)
-Premise A: You say "the ‘[first] cause’ chose the moment for its effect to take place at an otherwise arbitrary point".
-The cause did something- it "made" a "choice"
-A cause can do nothing but create effect
-Therefore the choice must be an effect
-Premise B: You say "If a cause exists eternally [...] its effect will exist eternally also"
-Therefore the choice is eternal
-This eternal choice was a cause to an effect (the universe)
-Therefore the universe is eternal
-This contradicts premise 2
-In order to not contradict premise 2 either premise A or premise B is false
-Premise B seems like a logical certainty, so premise A must be false
-Therefore there is nothing to support the first cause having a mind and free will
-Therefore there is nothing to support that God is the first cause if premise 2 is true
-If premise 2 is not true, the universe doesn't have a cause according to premise 1, and so there is no room for God if this is the case
I really hurt my brain figurig this out so I hope you reply lol
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SunnysideSea
Well, I guess you asked for this. Feel free to present any counter arguments - if we're going to talk Philosophy, let's do it properly:
Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
Stopped reading.
You can philosophize as much as you want. Ain't never gonna be anything more than wishful thinking.
Edit:
"What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent..."
"it must be" - says who, you? Other people that want it to be so? As I said "philosophy" is nothing but wishful thinking. You are not deducing anything. Looooooooool.
And as I have said before, even if there is a magnificent entity that created the universe, which I by no means complete discount, there is 0 evidence it is even remotely like the God as characterized in the Bible or the Quran or whatever.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SunnysideSea
Unless you can dispute either of these premises, I'm afraid you simply have to accept that something must have existed outside of space and time. This is simply how the argument works.
They are not premises they are assumptions.
No one has to accept anything. This is how the argument works???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
"I am saying Manu are a better football team than Arsenal"
"Why"
"Well you have to accept it. That's how the argument works".
I actually have much much less of a problem with blind religionists, that admit that it's just blind faith.
But people like you, trying to pretend there is evidence or even arguments for God. You are the worst. Completely and utterly delusional. And pathetic. You can't even admit to yourself that your belief is just that, blind faith. No you need justification but you know you can't find it so you come up with these lies to kid yourself. "It must be so" loooool what kind of argument is that...
Original post by inhuman
Stopped reading.
You can philosophize as much as you want. Ain't never gonna be anything more than wishful thinking.
Edit:
"What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent..."
"it must be" - says who, you? Other people that want it to be so? As I said "philosophy" is nothing but wishful thinking. You are not deducing anything. Looooooooool.
And as I have said before, even if there is a magnificent entity that created the universe, which I by no means complete discount, there is 0 evidence it is even remotely like the God as characterized in the Bible or the Quran or whatever.
You can philosophize as much as you want. Ain't never gonna be anything more than wishful thinking.
Edit:
"What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent..."
"it must be" - says who, you? Other people that want it to be so? As I said "philosophy" is nothing but wishful thinking. You are not deducing anything. Looooooooool.
And as I have said before, even if there is a magnificent entity that created the universe, which I by no means complete discount, there is 0 evidence it is even remotely like the God as characterized in the Bible or the Quran or whatever.
Original post by inhuman
They are not premises they are assumptions.
No one has to accept anything. This is how the argument works???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
"I am saying Manu are a better football team than Arsenal"
"Why"
"Well you have to accept it. That's how the argument works".
I actually have much much less of a problem with blind religionists, that admit that it's just blind faith.
But people like you, trying to pretend there is evidence or even arguments for God. You are the worst. Completely and utterly delusional. And pathetic. You can't even admit to yourself that your belief is just that, blind faith. No you need justification but you know you can't find it so you come up with these lies to kid yourself. "It must be so" loooool what kind of argument is that...
No one has to accept anything. This is how the argument works???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
"I am saying Manu are a better football team than Arsenal"
"Why"
"Well you have to accept it. That's how the argument works".
I actually have much much less of a problem with blind religionists, that admit that it's just blind faith.
But people like you, trying to pretend there is evidence or even arguments for God. You are the worst. Completely and utterly delusional. And pathetic. You can't even admit to yourself that your belief is just that, blind faith. No you need justification but you know you can't find it so you come up with these lies to kid yourself. "It must be so" loooool what kind of argument is that...
I must say, I probably enjoy it most when my opposition get so visibly frustrated that they're losing an argument!
Perhaps 'philosophy' was the wrong word to use here. Let's try another one, how about 'logic' or 'reason'. The syllogism is a form of argument which uses the rules of both of these. So unless you are seriously suggesting that using logic is false, I suggest you pipe down and reread the argument.
If you had been bothered to read and comprehend, you would have noticed why 'it must be etc'. I don't just nake a statement - I explained it thoroughly also (that's what all those words that cone after it mean).
As for the insults, again, they're not an argument. They're just insults, and possibly a sign of desperation.
If you want to regain your intellectual dignity I suggest you choose one of the argument's premises and argue why it is false. Until then, the conclusion stands.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SunnysideSea
I must say, I probably enjoy it most when my opposition get so visibly frustrated that they're losing an argument!
Perhaps 'philosophy' was the wrong word to use here. Let's try another one, how about 'logic' or 'reason'. The syllogism is a form of argument which uses the rules of both of these. So unless you are seriously suggesting that using logic is false, I suggest you pipe down and reread the argument.
If you had been bothered to read and comprehend, you would have noticed why 'it must be etc'. I don't just nake a statement - I explained it thoroughly also (that's what all those words that cone after it mean).
As for the insults, again, they're not an argument. They're just insults, and possibly a sign of desperation.
If you want to regain your intellectual dignity I suggest you choose one of the argument's premises and argue why it is false. Until then, the conclusion stands.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Perhaps 'philosophy' was the wrong word to use here. Let's try another one, how about 'logic' or 'reason'. The syllogism is a form of argument which uses the rules of both of these. So unless you are seriously suggesting that using logic is false, I suggest you pipe down and reread the argument.
If you had been bothered to read and comprehend, you would have noticed why 'it must be etc'. I don't just nake a statement - I explained it thoroughly also (that's what all those words that cone after it mean).
As for the insults, again, they're not an argument. They're just insults, and possibly a sign of desperation.
If you want to regain your intellectual dignity I suggest you choose one of the argument's premises and argue why it is false. Until then, the conclusion stands.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I get frustrated because I am talking to a crazy person. Who lies by pretending assumptions are premises.
You win arguments by saying "it must be so".
I am frustrated yes. As would anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of what is written in your posts.
And no, philosophy is exactly the right word. Because that is what you are doing. Philosophy. Logic is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were using logic correctly I would have no qualms with your argument.
Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be? or this one, "it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever". Oh great, because it seems impossible to you, that means it must be so? And how did God come into being? Oh wait, he is timeless, he just is. Yea, makes total sense. What you is logic here, is pure and simple conjecture, based on a desperate hope that there is a God out there.
If your argument was actually 100% logical then it would be widely accepted. But it is not. Because it is a philosophical idea of how things could be. Not logic. So yes again, I get very frustrated by people that are intellectually dishonest like you are, that pretend ideas are logic. That are as arrogant as you are ("I don't just make a statement...", kiddo, that is exactly what you are doing and your so-called reasoning is pure conjecture).
ps ofc you get most enjoyment out of that. you are nothing but a troll with an agenda.
(edited 7 years ago)
Haha that looks very well thought through! I suggest putting your head in a fridge for a bit - help the old brain cool off
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by inhuman
I get frustrated because I am talking to a crazy person. Who lies by pretending assumptions are premises.
You win arguments by saying "it must be so".
I am frustrated yes. As would anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of what is written in your posts.
And no, philosophy is exactly the right word. Because that is what you are doing. Philosophy. Logic is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were using logic correctly I would have no qualms with your argument.
Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be?
If your argument was actually 100% logical then it would be widely accepted. But it is not. Because it is a philosophical idea of how things could be. Not logic.
ps ofc you get most enjoyment out of that. you are nothing but a troll with an agenda.
You win arguments by saying "it must be so".
I am frustrated yes. As would anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of what is written in your posts.
And no, philosophy is exactly the right word. Because that is what you are doing. Philosophy. Logic is exactly what you are NOT doing. If you were using logic correctly I would have no qualms with your argument.
Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be?
If your argument was actually 100% logical then it would be widely accepted. But it is not. Because it is a philosophical idea of how things could be. Not logic.
ps ofc you get most enjoyment out of that. you are nothing but a troll with an agenda.
Firstly, my original post was a condensed version of WLC's argument. In academic circles, this argument was part of what has been a positive revolution in theological philosophy over the last 50 years, partly caused by new scientific discoveries providing useful new evidence (see premise 2). In this sense, it is widely accepted, or at least taken seriously (nothing in philosophy is ever wholly accepted - there's always room for argument, which, imo, is one of its beauties). You can't separate logic and philosophy. Logic is a subject you take when you study Philosophy for goodness sake! Without logic philosophy is nothing, so let's be thankful it relies wholly on logic. I know the argument is logically sound because it has been in existence for a thousand years, and any number of philosophers and mathematicians etc. have been unable to find logical contradiction in it. Indeed, this particular formulation was put together by someone with a PhD in Philosophy - of anyone, he would know if an argument contained logical contradiction.
As for something requiring a cause, this is the defence of the first premise, so I invite you to look there for reasons as to why it is so.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by inhuman
Take any one of them say that something must have a cause. Why? And even if, what do you define "cause" to be? or this one, "it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever". Oh great, because it seems impossible to you, that means it must be so? And how did God come into being? Oh wait, he is timeless, he just is. Yea, makes total sense. What you is logic here, is pure and simple conjecture, based on a desperate hope that there is a God out there.
The properties of the cause I am happy to accept initially as being anything - the final paragraph (conclusion) is a deductive analysis through which the properties are established.
The 'it seems logically impossible' was, firstly, just ome of many defenses of this argument provided, and, secondly, I would ask, does it not seem so to you? As a seeker of truth, does it seem possible to you that material could arrive from not just empty space, but quite literally *nothing* at all. Not even space itself? If you are happy to postulate that this is possible it is you whonis relyibg in faith.
The reason God is timeless is that time is a property of the universe. Thus, existing independent if the universe, God is independent if time (timeless).
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SunnysideSea
Haha that looks very well thought through! I suggest putting your head in a fridge for a bit - help the old brain cool off
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that not everything has a cause...
But anyway, let's take your argument: "Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?" What does that even mean? I am confused, looks like you are. I may have rambled on a bit but every piece of ramble was on point. You, like all you apologetics, make confused statements leading to the other debator having to waste time and effort sieving through the mess before being in a position to answer. In this example, you have turned my words around. I did not say that a cause can do nothing. I said the assumption that a cause must exist is just that, an assumption, not a premise. That is not the same as you have now made my point out to be.
Do you now see why I am saying you are intellectually dishonest?
Original post by inhuman
Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that not everything has a cause...
But anyway, let's take your argument: "Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?" What does that even mean? I am confused, looks like you are. I may have rambled on a bit but every piece of ramble was on point. You, like all you apologetics, make confused statements leading to the other debator having to waste time and effort sieving through the mess before being in a position to answer. In this example, you have turned my words around. I did not say that a cause can do nothing. I said the assumption that a cause must exist is just that, an assumption, not a premise. That is not the same as you have now made my point out to be.
Do you now see why I am saying you are intellectually dishonest?
But anyway, let's take your argument: "Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?" What does that even mean? I am confused, looks like you are. I may have rambled on a bit but every piece of ramble was on point. You, like all you apologetics, make confused statements leading to the other debator having to waste time and effort sieving through the mess before being in a position to answer. In this example, you have turned my words around. I did not say that a cause can do nothing. I said the assumption that a cause must exist is just that, an assumption, not a premise. That is not the same as you have now made my point out to be.
Do you now see why I am saying you are intellectually dishonest?
Sorry I meant that as a reply to RobML (forgot to quote him). That's why you're confused
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SunnysideSea
The properties of the cause I am happy to accept initially as being anything - the final paragraph (conclusion) is a deductive analysis through which the properties are established.
The 'it seems logically impossible' was, firstly, just ome of many defenses of this argument provided, and, secondly, I would ask, does it not seem so to you? As a seeker of truth, does it seem possible to you that material could arrive from not just empty space, but quite literally *nothing* at all. Not even space itself? If you are happy to postulate that this is possible it is you whonis relyibg in faith.
The reason God is timeless is that time is a property of the universe. Thus, existing independent if the universe, God is independent if time (timeless).
Posted from TSR Mobile
The 'it seems logically impossible' was, firstly, just ome of many defenses of this argument provided, and, secondly, I would ask, does it not seem so to you? As a seeker of truth, does it seem possible to you that material could arrive from not just empty space, but quite literally *nothing* at all. Not even space itself? If you are happy to postulate that this is possible it is you whonis relyibg in faith.
The reason God is timeless is that time is a property of the universe. Thus, existing independent if the universe, God is independent if time (timeless).
Posted from TSR Mobile
Except "seem" is not good enough when trying to show something logically...
As a seeker of truth, does it not seem implausible (forget the idea of the God that you love) to you that there is something unimaginably powerful that has existed forever? To me, that seems incredibly implausible.
And let me use your own arguments against you. Matter is timeless, ubiquitous, etc. matter is everything you have just described God to be. You know something "external" as you call it. Suddenly pieces of matter collide and voila you have a big bang and a universe.
That is perfectly logically coherent inside the framework of your argumentation.
And finally, something I said before, something you haven't addressed, even if your God version is true, that in no way, shape, or form is equivalent to the God being the benevolent being that the silly books of Christians or Muslims think watches over us.
Original post by SunnysideSea
Haha that looks very well thought through! I suggest putting your head in a fridge for a bit - help the old brain cool off
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why can a cause do nothing but create the effect?
Your counter seems to rest on that, so I'd appreciate an explanation, because aren't there examples of 'causes' e.g. humans, doing many things besides causing a specific effect? Perhaps I've misunderstood you
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you have a faulty of understanding of what a cause is. A cause isn't a thing, but a specific event or change. I.e. a volcano isn't a specific cause but an eruption is.
A cause either does something or it does not. If it does something, it is to create an effect, for all things that happen are by definition effects.
Original post by SunnysideSea
Sorry I meant that as a reply to RobML (forgot to quote him). That's why you're confused
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
So?
You have no argument do you, that's why suddenly you replied to someone else rather than answering my argument.
Original post by inhuman
Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that not everything has a cause...
Actually it has only shown that the connection between cause and effect is not always deterministic.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- GCSE English language question 5
- Edexcel IGCSE RS - The Religious Community Revision
- I think I'm (possibly) dead
- AQA A-level Religious Studies 1 (7062/1) 12 Jun & 2 (7062/2A-2E) 19 Jun [Exam Chat]
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- A&P revision recommendations
- i dont feel close to god anymore
- T level Digital support services ESP questions
- Macbeth essay
- When you find out that someone who used to bully you is achieving a lot
- Explore how Shakespeare presents attitudes to the supernatural
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- How to accept the past
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- Experiencing massive fallout and isolation in school
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 3 minutes ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Ninth SessionLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of Liverpool Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 3 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
PWC fly start degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
please help fill out my survey! My dissertation deadline is less than a month away.Last reply 6 minutes ago
Waitlisted at Imperial college for MSc Startegic Marketing 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Best university for (mechanical) engineering?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
