Hello Spook. Thanks for sharing your philosophical views with me. Hope you don't mind if I compartmentalize a bit, but I'll address all your issues:
OPINION VS FACT:
It's difficult to here infer from Jcanon's choice in words just what exactly his definition of opionions/ facts are. .
This is meant in the most general way. That is, an opinion that completely contradicts apparent fact I wouldn't consider an opinion. Like if I tried to convince you a boy was a girl, when it is clear it was a boy. In that case the opinion I wouldn't consider "valid." But if you decide God is "wrong" for doing this or that, whereas I consider him justified, I don't discount your view, that opinion is valid from your perspective and I would respect that.
SUFFERING AS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF GOD:
My position, to state in another way, is that the presence of our current level of suffering is incompatible with God as traditionally described (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Eternal, Unchanging, Omnibenevolent).
I understand this position. But I think it begs the question not whether there is a god or not but whether he is as described. You know? What if suffering proves there is an Evil God who loves seeing people in pain?
Finally, to put it another way given that it is very important to God, if he exists, that there not be a great amount of suffering, we can infer that because there is so much suffering we can rationally conclude God does not exist.
I understand this position. But my counter would be that deciding on whether God was benevolent or not would determine whether or not he had a "good excuse" for allowing the temporary suffering. My position is that he has a good cause; that he felt it was necessary and unavoidable for a greater cause; that of "dedeeming" Adam's children, which was "expensive" but a price God was willing to pay.
"FREE WILL"
I believe that by merely creating "free will" that it would serve the benevolent "big picture" of the omnipotent God.
By using the Free Will Defense (FWD hereafter), Jcannon needs to provide a clear definition of the term as he means it. Questions that come to my mind are as follows:
1. How is FW distinguished from ordinary will?
My use of "free will" is limited here to that sense of feeling whatever is chosen is our personal resolved choice, whether one debates the degree of coertion or not. My philosophical reference more specifically might be expressed with this scenario:
Say you love cherry lollipops. You've done your chores and gotten your allowance and now you happily run to the store to buy a cherry lollipop. When you get to the store you see all kinds of choices of different flavors of lollipops. You've tried some of the others but your favorite is cherry. So you buy your favorite. At this point your CHOICE and your reality are one, and on this point you are considered sublimely HAPPY. The next day, you do the same thing, only they are out of cherry. You're a bit disappointed, but choose another. You're content, but not really HAPPY. The next day you go back again and all the lollipops are gone, except for one. You're forced to buy the last one, but guess what? It's cherry. So you're HAPPY. Now in the latter scenario, you may not have considered that you had a CHOICE, but you're still HAPPY. Why? Because you know what you want. Now it's possible, that the candy store owner could tell just by observing you and your other choices that you'd love cherry lollipops the best. Thus he could have put out one cherry lollipop out for you from the beginning and given you no other choice. Or upon seeing you approach for the first time, could have taken out a cherry lolipop and rang it up before you came to the counter. But wait. You're not that pleased. You didn't have a chance to make a choice. You probably figure the cherry lollipop is okay, but how do you know you might like apple or grape more? You're frustrated. Disappointed. You take the cherry lollipop and discover it is great! Fantastic. But you're still wondering if grape or apple might not be just as good or even BETTER! So now you're dealing with dilemma.
CONCLUSION: So, you can give the same person the same thing, but the experience is enhanced if in addition to that, that person feels it was his personal choice. There is an extra degree of happiness and contentment when we feel we had a chance to decide.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I'll share this, against my better judgment, of something that happened to me when I was young that probably I never got over, and probably should talk to a psychiatrist about it, but it made a difference. My wonderful mother along with the local elementary school encouraged saving, so I think once a week I was given a quarter or 50 cents to save in my own savings account. I think at one point it amounted to about $18. I was in kindergarten. I guess I was happy about the money. But then one day my mother had taken that money, along with the savings of my older brother and bought a ping-pong table with it. I was completely devastated, I felt as though my mother robbed me. But I was also aware, that I would have gladly given the money to her had she asked first. So not only was I robbed but I didn't get the chance to be charitable. So it was like I got robbed twice.
This latter scenario I perceive to reflect the flip-side of the concept of choice. That is, when you don't ask permission for something that might be granted to you, it's like stealing, even though it might have been something given to you anyway.
So that's basically my angle here as far as God and happiness is concerned. The additional sense of happiness we get when we are given a chance to experience what we perceive to be the exercise of our free will, or when someone respects us enough to ask permission. That FEELING is totally independent of the actual things involved: money you would have gladly given had asked, or something that was chosen for you though you might have made that choice yourself.
2. What is FW free from? Please provide empirical evidence and textual support.
It is free of NON-CHOICE. Say God's choice for man: Obey and live. Disobey and Die. That's not the same as god forcing you to obey. You are FREE to choose. It's like a guard telling you: Get in the cell or I'll shoot you. You have a choice to get in the cell or get shot. But that's not the same as the guard calling over his buddy and them forcing you into the cell "against your WILL."
As an interim challenge I will insist on "happiness" as self reported happiness. In other words, an individual is always the final source of determining one's own happiness. I will not equivocate on the term happiness vs. true happiness. I will take the following to mean "greater or lesser" happiness unless Jcannon wishes to present an argument for happiness.
Perfect. That is in line with my above argument. The self-sense of happiness.
Only one is happiest once they KNOW that is also their choice.
Exactly! I agree! Absolutely.
I understand this to mean "Only conscious decisions can produce happiness. Subconscious decisions and coerced decision can not produce happiness." Please clarify if this is not your position.
I agree except this is too limiting. I believe happiness occurs sometimes spontaneously apart for scenarios of choice scenarios. But where someone is forced to do something "against their will", usually this does not bring happiness. So I agree.
That brings us to God's choice: Obey or die. Some people might feel coerced to obey to avoid death, so they might not be that happy about that choice. That's a given. But what if someone was on death row, set to be killed a noon tomorrow? While in prison he discovered he loved to paint and his paintings were selling so he was given a choice to get executed, or live if he agreed to continue to paint. So his living is conditional on him being FORCED to paint, but that's okay because he knows that would have been his CHOICE anyway.
I would suggest you think and briefly clarify this position. You are proposing here that the ends justify the means for an all-knowing all-powerful being. Collateral damage is a contingency based on unknown or unalterable variables.
Right. I think in the most fundamental way God understood that giving freedom of choice some would not choose eternal life under the circumstances God was offering ETERNAL life. They would not be happy. But some would choose that scenario willingly of their own accord and for those, their happiness would be much greater. So he felt it was worth it.
Here's another scenario. Let's say God LOVES SURFING AND SURFERS!! He had this plan for this eternal surfer's resort. But he wanted the people who were going to be in this resort forever to be completely happy and content. So he created all other kinds of resorts as well as the surfer's resort and gave people a choice to choose. Well after a while it became apparent which ones were into surfing and thus who would be happy at the eternal, permanent surfing resort. So after a while, he just closed down and discontinued all the other temporary resorts, with everyone dying of old age. The surfers also died of old age. Then he resurrected the surfers to enjoy the sufer's paradise resort. They were quite happy, and everybody lived happily ever after.
I am a positive atheist with respect to the Christian God in that I can prove (1) All definitions of God are internally incoherant or logically contradictory and therefore it is impossible that God exists, AND (2) Given the purported qualities of God the situation we would expect to occur in the world is not the case we find.
Interesting, but this would not apply specfically to me. Acknowledging that everything is "subjective", in my personal case, you'd have to prove that my concept of God is completely internal. I think you might win that argument generally, but I have the issue of the "sign of the son of man" photographs, which match the Revelation Book imagery. That is, the Bible speaks of this "sign of the son of man" appearing in the clouds. My belief is that this sign was black cloud imagery of the face of a sleeping child, representing specific esoteric details of the second coming. Now I have a photograph of this "sign". I believe it was provided by God as a miracle. Further, I believe others must have seen the sign because it appears in the cryptic artwork of a publication put out in 1988. The sign appeared ten years later for me personally, per my belief, in 1998.
So YOUR CHALLENGE is to convince me that the photo is part of my imagination or can be explained more logically as a coincidence or natural occurrence having nothing to do with the Bible or God, and that the same imagery in the Revelation Book of the sleeping face of a black child is totally unrelated as well.
My situation is thus different because before this, indeed, I believe my belief in God was subjective, based upon religious beliefs from my childhood, etc. and for the most part could not be disproven as being completely subjective and internal. That is, that I bought into creating my own god without any "supernatural" proof of a specific existence. But I don't have that luxury with this "sign of the son of man" promise. In fact, I think that's probably why an external, physical miracle, even as simple as this, was provided. To protect myself from thinking everything was simply internalized.
Of course, it will be difficult to dissuade me that this was not a miracle because, the photo was taken on the anniversary of the first time I saw this sign, at the same time of the day, related to a skyscape photographer who lived in another state, who randomly took photos over a 3-hour period, expecting the sign to reappear on this 6th anniversary of the sign. The fact that this person who befriended me in public specialized in skyscapes makes it clear that was her purpose. To photograph as well as confirm/witness the specific date and time of this event, so I could have something that is "external" and not "internal."
You see, even my personal interview with God, could be considered internal by you. Certainly. I might even be convinced it was my imagination or delusion. But how do I explain the "sign of the son of man" photograph? I can't.
So for the purpose of our discussion, part of my belief in God is related to this appearance of the sign, the appearance of a skyscape photographer to take that appearance, and that appearance specifically in a separate location. Keeping in mind all the while, that this wasn't something indepedent of the Bible. That is, she could have seen a sign in her skies and photographed it and it could have been amazing and we both considered a miracle of God, with no mention in the Bible of any images in the clouds. However, the Bible prophesied about a sign in the heaven that would take place! So this photo is now connected with my Biblical reality as well.
Adding to that reality is the same image in the Revelation Book of the sleeping black face, with no other explanation as to the significance of it. Since the sleeping black child's face is a "divine" concept to illustrate the second coming messiah, who is the sleeping black child (i.e. the black child messiah dies at one point), someone else must have seen it. The WTS leadership might have likewise seen it and understood it was the "sign of the son of man" though they doubted it, but it inspired them to include it in their cryptic artwork.
So I have PROOF that the "sign of the son of man" was fulfilled per the Bible. Only it's EXTERNAL. And even if you are convinced all this is a huge coincidence, it is still external. But there is absolutely now way God didn't do this. So, again, in MY CASE, I have some direct external issues inaddition to my internal direct contact with God to deal with. I realize that is exceptional, but it clearly falls outside your "proof" that God is a completely internalized experience.
I will not accept the personal anecdotal experience as evidence.
It is not entirely anecdotal. I have a photo of the prophesied "sign of the son of man", and proof others have seen it. I have a photo of the image, and the image appears in a book written 10 years earlier.
If you would like to debate this separately we can debate the Arguments From Religious Confusion and the Argument Against Indistinguishables. In brief, I accept as a fact that you believe you have had these experiences. This belief I will take as a fact. We have the condition of equifinality in life, however. In that one datum (fact) can have other explanations. I will not further this argument if you do not bring this up again. To cling on to this you are affirm the position of "presuppositionalisim." Then we must discuss the burden of proof first.
YOU have the advantage, as a skeptic to use the fact that generally, everything we experience that becomes memory can be supposed to be false memory, optical illusions or delusions and in the end just strong feelings. As you call it "religious confusion." I can't justify around that curve. But that all changes once the God you believe in and who has talked to you has gone out of his way to bring a skyscape photographer to you, make sure others know your connection publicly, just before arranging her to photograph the appearance of the "sign of son of man" that others have seen. So I'm very interested in your take on the subjectivity of my beliefs when I have these "external" evidences to deal with that are in direct line with my "internal stimuli."
At the same time, it becomes quite clear that is WHY the external confirmation is needed, just because our personal experiences do boil down to just memories, memories we might self-question or self-doubt with enough counter intelligence, right? So even God himself understands, with all the great faith, all the Biblical coordination and understanding, it is still not enough. Something miraculous and something "physical" was needed. And something that could be shared and preserved. Not just a vision lots of the same people see, but something seen with the literal eye and thus able to be photographed!
The genius of this is that subjectively, it works great. I don't have the luxury of having to admit that I'm crazy or delusional, since insanity and delusion don't produce photographs or cloud images. So my experience is both internal and external "stimuli" and in a form I can share with others. See my dilemma here? (Or is this YOUR dilemma?)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/facenhand.gif
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg
This is a logical error of False Dichotomy. It also implies determinism. Furthermore, given the qualities God is said to posess only events which match his highest purpose will occur.
I agree. The TEMPORARY suffering of mankind serves that higher purpose.
Finally, why indeed deprive the world of me? One of my greatest joys in life has been convincing people to self identify as atheists and convince them of the conclusions that Christianity is not true and also is not good.
Reason? LOVE. What would you do for someone you loved? Jump out of a plane? Enter a burning building? Maybe you truly are not worth saving. But maybe it was worth the pain and suffering to bring you here so you'd have a choice/chance for life. Then, again, maybe you're quite special.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Of course I believe God is man made, but you have the further burden of proving that this character Satan exists.
Interesting. I don't think I can prove he exists. He's part of my belief mechanism. I did see his heavenly image once; he resembles Brad Pitt in appearance, about 22 or 23 years of age. Short hair. Focussed but resigned. But other than that I can't PROVE he exists. I guess I can only prove God exists. So you won that one.
I insist upon these being distinguished. I can not credit the existance of one supernatural entity to prove the existance of a second supernatural entity any more that I can credit the existance of Body Thetans to prove the existance of Xenu to a scientologist.
This statement suggests to me that given the existence of this omnipotent God, if proven, then he might be dualistic and that no separate entity of evil, a "Satan" actually exists. Well, I can only present to you what the BIBLE says about it. That's all I have to offer. Maybe Satan is an invetion of our own moral compass of sorts? Not a real evil influence and entity? Perhaps. I don't think I can PROVE by any means that Satan really exists. But then again, you can't prove he doesn't, so. It's just a matter of "opinion"; of which yours, I respect.
I will not address the rest of your post for later since it was getting too far ahead of unadressed presuppositions and definition conflicts.
Okay. By the way, I can take this slow. I type over 120 wpm so it's rather easy but I'm sure we both have other things to do. Though I think we are getting to our main points of divergence quite quickly here. Thanks for this exercise. Ultimately discussion causes us to examine ourselves more closely and our beliefs, especially in the light of another's perspective, so I've already benefited from your challenges. Regards, JCanon
