How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[elguanteloko]

This thread is still going?

No

I lied, it is.

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[saemo]

Simple question. How would you know that God is moral or that his actions are moral in a different way that you would analyze whether my actions are moral or immoral?

From the Summa Theologica....

Whether God is good?

  Objection 1: It seems that to be good does not belong to God. For goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to God; since God is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

  Objection 2: Further, the good is what all things desire. But all things do not desire God, because all things do not know Him; and nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

  On the contrary, It is written (Lam. 3:25): "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."

  I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."

  Reply to Objection 1: To have mode, species and order belongs to the essence of caused good; but good is in God as in its cause, and hence it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others; wherefore these three things are in God as in their cause.

  Reply to Objection 2: All things, by desiring their own perfection, desire God Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said above (Question [4], Article [3]). And so of those things which desire God, some know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know some participation of His goodness, and this belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher intelligence.

[elguanteloko]

From the Summa Theologica....

LOL!!! Rep point, my brother!

Whether God is good?

Objection 1: It seems that to be good does not belong to God. For goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to God; since God is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

Objection 2: Further, the good is what all things desire. But all things do not desire God, because all things do not know Him; and nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.

On the contrary, It is written (Lam. 3:25): "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."

I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."

Reply to Objection 1: To have mode, species and order belongs to the essence of caused good; but good is in God as in its cause, and hence it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others; wherefore these three things are in God as in their cause.

Reply to Objection 2: All things, by desiring their own perfection, desire God Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said above (Question [4], Article [3]). And so of those things which desire God, some know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know some participation of His goodness, and this belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher intelligence.

Well, those aren't my objections (or my question), are they?

[bu11fr0g]

elguanteloko, this will keep spinning unless these are answered:

what definition of God do you use?

what constitutes an action from God?

what definition do you use to determine if an action is moral?

what are acceptable sources of truth?

i think that you will find that nearly all of your problems come from mutually incompatible answers to these questions and that you are creating straw men that can't stand

[Ares]

Answer the questions posted to you elguanteloko. We don't allow preaching or refusing to answer genuine questions.

Your game has gone on long enough.

[Loran Blood]

It's certainly possible that God could have some hidden reasons to let evil as we see it happening but that's something one could always say and have no relevance (unless you can demonstrate it).

There's nothing "hidden," from a gospel standpoint about it (though there is still much that is not, and cannot be comprehended at this time by the extremely limited human intellect). Without actually existing evil, there is no actually existing good. Good and evil cannot be nothing more than abstract theoretical concepts. They must be, for the plan of salvation to have any meaning or efficacy, both potentially applicable (to the individual) through will, and actually willed existing conditions which the individual must confront and negotiate in others, and the world around him.

I'm not assuming God never stops evil. I'm taking the Bible and BoM to be right at least in this respect for the sake of argument. I actually said already here that God does seem to stop people from getting harmed by evil people in the Bible and BoM (thus, making the excuse that it is against him to prevent evil silly).

But your argument appears to be that God should stop all evil from occurring, ever, and under all circumstances grounded in some higher principle that would trump the core purpose of the mortal "probation" as a phase of testing, learning, and experience. That argument ultimately resolves itself into an argument that God should never have allowed evil to manifest itself within the mortal condition at all, in which case, good could never have manifested itself either (having no conceptual basis for its definition), and the very idea of creation itself becomes questionable as to its point.

Stopping bullets, rapists, bombs, tyrants, etc doesn't interfere with free will and I've explained why. Why don't you address what I said and keep asking questions that ignore my explanations?

I assume you mean this:

This can't be true because police officers don't take any agency away from you. You already chose to kill X when you have your gun on X's head ready to pull the trigger. A police officer stopping you at that moment isn't taking "free will" from you. Same with God and angels. BTW, the scriptures are full of bad people being prevented from doing harm to the good ones. God could stop, as he did with Abraham, every single person from harming another one unjustly when they are just about to strike and that wouldn't be taking anyone's free will away.

The problem with this is, of course, that while stopping an evil action of this kind does not alter the will of the one who desires the evil act, it does curtail the actual taking and completion of that action. This means that the concept of "free will" encompasses more than just conceptualization of an evil act. It also encompasses the act itself and its consequences (I rob a bank and kill a security guard to obtain a large quantity of money. The desire, theory, and plan of how I will accomplish these actions involve willing, but not action itself until the actions are taken). This is to say that the action itself and its consequences are a factor in the plan of salvation and all of the potential consequences of such acts are taken into consideration by God's perfect mind and the "infinite and eternal" Atonement. Preventing actual evil actions, as a matter of general principle, then, does involve the repression of free will because it involves the direct repression of actual behavior.

In an LDS context then, God may intervene or not intervene in any given situation for reasons known to him from a vast, panoramic perspective that takes into account not only will, not only virtual action, but literal action taken in conformity to what one wills. Action, it should also be said, is a sea change from desire. We desire many things we do not actually do because on the internalized brakes, or controls within us that preclude us from taking certain actions we would, in fantasy, like to do to satiate some desire or passion. What we actually do, on the other hand, moves us beyond will and potential and into the actual altering of the conditions of our own lives and the lives of others through action. I think God is actually more interested in what actually flows from our willing than where willing ceases with mere ideation.

As I said before (why don't you read, darn it?!!), 'freedom to do evil' doesn't mean more than freedom to do immoral actions.

No, it doesn't mean more than that. So long as we are actually free to do them, our potential (will) is free to actualize itself (action).

There are a ton of immoral actions you can do and not all of those include getting to completion hurting others. That a cop stops me when I'm about to bomb a mall doesn't mean he took my freedom to do evil. "Attempted murder" is pretty darn bad. "Attempted rape" is also. "Attempted genocide", too. Etc. That you can't put a bullet through my leg doesn't mean you can't help me build my home.

Yes he did. He took your freedom to do the evil act (bomb the mall). He did not, and cannot take your freedom to conceive, plan, and desire the act, but no one sitting in a jail cell is capable of bombing malls. Their freedom to do such things has been taken from them. They may use the telephone to contract with others to do it in their stead, but they themselves are without such freedom. Certain freedoms still remain, of course. A prison inmate can kill his fellow prison inmates (due to the close proximity), but cannot kill me, bomb a mall, or burn down a house.

You could say, however, "what about actions like cheating on your wife? It seems that the only possible way to not hurt your wife - assuming she finds out - would be for God not to let you cheat on her, thereby restricting your freewill."

How is God preventing you from bombing a mall not restricting your free will, but him preventing you from cheating on your wife an imposition on it? I don't think you can eat your cake and have it too here. You seem to be equivocating between different types of evil actions on very unclear grounds.

That actually would be a good objection. However, again, we are speaking of none else than God. God could make your wife able to not suffer at all with a super-cool pill if she decided to take it.

This is the real problem with many atheistic/humanist arguments of this kind regarding God and his attributes. From an LDS perspective, blanket statements such that "God could" such and such (square circles, make two plus two equal 34) "if he wanted to" implies that God himself is not governed by law and that the universe itself is not really lawful and consistent but a purely artificial construction grounded in arbitrary rules. Why should God stop, or intervene in any evil acts at all when he just could have created us incapable of evil? He also could have avoided creating us at all, thereby avoiding the question of evil altogether.

Atheism cannot answer the problem of evil because for atheism, evil is nothing more than an epiphenomena of blind, random chance evolutionary developments among our hominid ancestors. Its a human psychological and social construction. Outside of the gospel (or serious religion in some form) is the dead end of relativism and nihilism. The gospel tells us why we are here and why it matters, but does not, and, for the sake of the mortal probation, cannot tells us exactly why x happens and n does not, in each and every case.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Loran Blood

[elguanteloko]

There's nothing "hidden," from a gospel standpoint about it (though there is still much that is not, and cannot be comprehended at this time by the extremely limited human intellect).

Then bring the reasons to the table. If they don't make sense or don't work, will you keep on saying "we just don't understand because of our limited human intellect"? If so, then why bring ANY reason at all? You're just going to irrationally accept anything God does with this excuse and it's hard to see how you would provide good evidence of why we should trust God in the first place without answering these very important questions. IOW, seems like a deadlock within your own position.

Without actually existing evil, there is no actually existing good. Good and evil cannot be nothing more than abstract theoretical concepts. They must be, for the plan of salvation to have any meaning or efficacy, both potentially applicable (to the individual) through will, and actually willed existing conditions which the individual must confront and negotiate in others, and the world around him.

You are making the very elementary mistake of confusing words and definitions with what they refer to. No one here thinks evil is a thing you measure under a lab and if that's your standard for "existence" then you are a very extreme (and naive) materialist. "Evil" and "good" being concepts doesn't mean they are less important or relevant or real. Mathematical formulas are quite important and they describe relationships in the world or between concepts that describe the world, and they are VERY important.

But your argument appears to be that God should stop all evil from occurring, ever, and under all circumstances grounded in some higher principle that would trump the core purpose of the mortal "probation" as a phase of testing, learning, and experience. That argument ultimately resolves itself into an argument that God should never have allowed evil to manifest itself within the mortal condition at all, in which case, good could never have manifested itself either (having no conceptual basis for its definition), and the very idea of creation itself becomes questionable as to its point.

wow, hold your horses. I never said God should stop all evil from occurring. If you want to do evil to yourself knowingly (for some strange reason) then you should be allowed to do so but this gives you no right to punish anyone else. If you already assume the necessity for evil then you must explain why it is a necessity (which you are not doing but you just keep repeating it is necessary). What is a child getting raped necessary for? What is people getting killed by an earthquake necessary for? Why can't God simply give us knowledge if we ask for it without allowing these horrible things? If my child wanted to know about what people go through when suffering of lung cancer, I'm not going to give him cigarettes so he'll get it. What's the point of evil if, at the end and for infinitely more time, we are supposed to not have it? Why couldn't have God created mini-Gods who had free will but just lived as he supposedly does from day 1?

Mormonism doesn't answer these things, LB, better than anyone else tries to. Actually, many times worst than everyone else does by saying "He couldn't have done otherwise because of the laws he was subject to" which means the whole system is messed up and seems to agree that things should be different.

The problem with this is, of course, that while stopping an evil action of this kind does not alter the will of the one who desires the evil act, it does curtail the actual taking and completion of that action. This means that the concept of "free will" encompasses more than just conceptualization of an evil act.

Ah, but you have to notice something interesting here. People think that what I suggest would make us mere 'robots' who went around just doing as they were programmed to and that's clearly not the case and you seem to agree with me there. Good.

It also encompasses the act itself and its consequences (I rob a bank and kill a security guard to obtain a large quantity of money. The desire, theory, and plan of how I will accomplish these actions involve willing, but not action itself until the actions are taken). This is to say that the action itself and its consequences are a factor in the plan of salvation and all of the potential consequences of such acts are taken into consideration by God's perfect mind and the "infinite and eternal" Atonement. Preventing actual evil actions, as a matter of general principle, then, does involve the repression of free will because it involves the direct repression of actual behavior.

If you take free will as involving getting crimes to completion, then you are giving me a firmer ground to stand on my own position since this means 'free will' is less important in practice than you are trying to make it sound. God stopped Abraham's free will when he stopped him from killing Isaac. We stop free will all the time why putting laws into place and giving police officers power to stop and regulate crime. Unless you want to take a police officer stopping a suicide bomber at a mall as something bad since it is "taking free will" from the bomber, then you don't have a case here. I'm saying it is GOOD that the bomber be stopped, that the rapist be stopped, that hunger be stopped, that lung cancer is stopped, that all kinds of sicknesses and natural disasters be stopped... you have to argue that it isn't in order to have a case here.

In an LDS context then, God may intervene or not intervene in any given situation for reasons known to him from a vast, panoramic perspective that takes into account not only will, not only virtual action, but literal action taken in conformity to what one wills. Action, it should also be said, is a sea change from desire. We desire many things we do not actually do because on the internalized brakes, or controls within us that preclude us from taking certain actions we would, in fantasy, like to do to satiate some desire or passion. What we actually do, on the other hand, moves us beyond will and potential and into the actual altering of the conditions of our own lives and the lives of others through action. I think God is actually more interested in what actually flows from our willing than where willing ceases with mere ideation.

No, it doesn't mean more than that. So long as we are actually free to do them, our potential (will) is free to actualize itself (action).

Yes he did. He took your freedom to do the evil act (bomb the mall). He did not, and cannot take your freedom to conceive, plan, and desire the act, but no one sitting in a jail cell is capable of bombing malls. Their freedom to do such things has been taken from them. They may use the telephone to contract with others to do it in their stead, but they themselves are without such freedom. Certain freedoms still remain, of course. A prison inmate can kill his fellow prison inmates (due to the close proximity), but cannot kill me, bomb a mall, or burn down a house.

How is God preventing you from bombing a mall not restricting your free will, but him preventing you from cheating on your wife an imposition on it? I don't think you can eat your cake and have it too here. You seem to be equivocating between different types of evil actions on very unclear grounds.

This is the real problem with many atheistic/humanist arguments of this kind regarding God and his attributes. From an LDS perspective, blanket statements such that "God could" such and such (square circles, make two plus two equal 34) "if he wanted to" implies that God himself is not governed by law and that the universe itself is not really lawful and consistent but a purely artificial construction grounded in arbitrary rules. Why should God stop, or intervene in any evil acts at all when he just could have created us incapable of evil? He also could have avoided creating us at all, thereby avoiding the question of evil altogether.

Answered already through what I just wrote in this post.

Atheism cannot answer the problem of evil because for atheism, evil is nothing more than an epiphenomena of blind, random chance evolutionary developments among our hominid ancestors. Its a human psychological and social construction. Outside of the gospel (or serious religion in some form) is the dead end of relativism and nihilism.

Even if these things were true as you caricature them (and they are not), it doesn't follow that we aren't getting at something objective. Dogs and cats walk and eat objective things. We understand objective stuff (computers, electricity, formulas, etc). However we arrived at the minds we have, that doesn't mean we aren't looking behind the veil to the actual stuff. If you think otherwise you'll have to explain the enormous success of science... but please don't discuss this further. Open a thread on this if you want but let's not derail the thread further.

The gospel tells us why we are here and why it matters, but does not, and, for the sake of the mortal probation, cannot tells us exactly why x happens and n does not, in each and every case.

Sure, but those reasons don't work. Bad reasons exist, you know?

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[supersnail]

I'm flattered but I don't get what your problem is with the type of arguments I'm attacking here.... If anything, you should be saying to the people who believe these crappy arguments to read on them. Reminds me of objections (which I previously shared, btw) against the 'New Atheists' of not addressing the best theist arguments when, in reality, they are doing us all a favor by bothering to walk to the John and Jane Doe in the street and point to them the absurdity of their beliefs instead of writing to academics or attacking academic-level arguments (not that they could, btw - lol - but you get the drift).

To put it simply, how does what you are doing advance the debate. If you're interested in theodicy, there are essays and whole books on the topic. If an LDS came to an atheist message board and started a thread purportedly to convert atheists but was completely unoriginal and didn't address advanced arguments that could be anticipated, I'd ask the same question.

Do most people who believe in evolution understand it at the level of a Richard Dawkins or a Stephen Jay Gould? No, but if someone is going to refute evolution I would expect them to deal with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, not just the utterances of some followers.

When one is an atheist at a party, one might try to convince a prospective date of atheism by way of short-cuts or heuristics. That's one thing. Let's not confuse that kind of thing with an intellectual conversation.

On another level: It's not necessary to be able to readily draw from the most advanced arguments in order to have genuine faith. So unless you think there's something actually evil about monotheism apart from being "incoherent" as you allege in some John Doe-on-the-street type situation, I don't see your point.

That said, there could be all sorts of reasons for the shorter replies you've got from some (not all) respondents. Being new here and not having read many of the old threads on this exact same topic, I'll refrain from guessing. I would, however, not expect elaborate essay-length responses to your post, it being what it is, like other threads.

Edited December 6, 2011 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

Despite Eloko's attempts to justify avoiding addressing my questions to him I was on Minority Report on page 7 of this thread.

Does anyone even watch the videos I post? ;-)

The problem is that I can skim a reply in about 5 seconds. A video takes a minute or two, and then it really does not address the issue. All it is is a clip of minority report.

Just saying "This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report' is faster and says more. Just my opinion, for what its worth!

[mfbukowski]

Answer the questions posted to you elguanteloko. We don't allow preaching or refusing to answer genuine questions.

Your game has gone on long enough.

<coughing>.... hack hack hack robbowman hack hack......

[supersnail]

Life can be a wonderful thing but if you know your children will suffer too greatly in the particular conditions under which they will be born and raised, then by all means don't have them. This is human, talk, though, because we have no options and no knowledge like God does so, again, this is irrelevant to God.

Swaziland has a life expectancy of 30-40 years. Someone there doesn't have to be God to know that. Even within your own position, I don't see how the difference between 100% certainty and 95% certainty, as to the experience of a child whom one has chosen to bring into the world, is morally significant.

Infant mortality is 55 per 1,000 live births there versus 6.5 in the USA. Twenty couples could know with a degree of certainty that one of their children will die as an infant.

So in your opinion, which countries shouldn't have children?

Or what amount or kinds of suffering does God have to prevent to be moral in your view? If not all of it, then what categories of suffering, and how do you rationalize and legitimize excluding other categories.

It's interesting that your examples of evil that God allegedly doesn't prevent are crimes that could involve the police etc., whereas one might argue that deaths due to diarrhea or malaria are no less important than murders in the streets with possible observers. Your conception of God as an accessory to crimes literally comes from the legal system, which is evident in how you consider God complicit but not others.

If God prevented every murder, there would be no attempted murder because it would be unthinkable. It wouldn't be possible, and nobody would contemplate it. Since it wouldn't ever even be attempted, nobody could know God was preventing it. This is another issue for you to consider, in addition to the tiny matter of how a material world without murder, but with mortal bodies, could be designed.

I'm not here to definitively refute atheism. I'm just trying to get you to see the contradictions, dissonance, or unexamined assumptions, in your own thinking on a topic you raised, with an agenda and arguments presumably prepared.

[elguanteloko]

To put it simply, how does what you are doing advance the debate. If you're interested in theodicy, there are essays and whole books on the topic. If an LDS came to an atheist message board and started a thread purportedly to convert atheists but was completely unoriginal and didn't address advanced arguments that could be anticipated, I'd ask the same question.

Do most people who believe in evolution understand it at the level of a Richard Dawkins or a Stephen Jay Gould? No, but if someone is going to refute evolution I would expect them to deal with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, not just the utterances of some followers.

When one is an atheist at a party, one might try to convince a prospective date of atheism by way of short-cuts or heuristics. That's one thing. Let's not confuse that kind of thing with an intellectual conversation.

On another level: It's not necessary to be able to readily draw from the most advanced arguments in order to have genuine faith. So unless you think there's something actually evil about monotheism apart from being "incoherent" as you allege in some John Doe-on-the-street type situation, I don't see your point.

That said, there could be all sorts of reasons for the shorter replies you've got from some (not all) respondents. Being new here and not having read many of the old threads on this exact same topic, I'll refrain from guessing. I would, however, not expect elaborate essay-length responses to your post, it being what it is, like other threads.

OK, what I do here helps no one and I'm a horrible atheist guy.

Now, answer the questions and bring your reasons to the table. You don't have any? Then just go.

[TAO]

Elguanteloko, you aren't going to get an answer that you want from him until you define suffering. And then you must define what corresponds to 'great' suffering, and what corresponds to 'little' suffering. And furthermore you must say what is the fine line where suffering is 'okay' and 'not okay'. I guess, what I'm trying to say, is that not all people would say that because your children will suffer, you shouldn't have them. Some will say quite the contrary. =P

Edited December 6, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

Swaziland has a life expectancy of 30-40 years. Someone there doesn't have to be God to know that. Even within your own position, I don't see how the difference between 100% certainty and 95% certainty, as to the experience of a child whom one has chosen to bring into the world, is morally significant.

Infant mortality is 55 per 1,000 live births there versus 6.5 in the USA. Twenty couples could know with a degree of certainty that one of their children will die as an infant.

So in your opinion, which countries shouldn't have children?

If life seems worthwhile to you after careful examination then I would have a hard time seeing why you shouldn't have children. If a life expectancy of 20 years seems worthwhile to you to live (and I do, for example), then I don't see why you shouldn't have children at least in that respect. If those 20 years are of constant pain and suffering to such a degree that life isn't worthwhile then by all means don't have children.

Or what amount or kinds of suffering does God have to prevent to be moral in your view? If not all of it, then what categories of suffering, and how do you rationalize and legitimize excluding other categories.

God, being all powerful, should stop all suffering we don't choose in a fair game. The rules (according to Mormonism and Christianity) are all messed up since the beginning so within that game, saying we 'chose' to suffer doesn't excuse God of anything.

It's interesting that your examples of evil that God allegedly doesn't prevent are crimes that could involve the police etc., whereas one might argue that deaths due to diarrhea or malaria are no less important than murders in the streets with possible observers. Your conception of God as an accessory to crimes literally comes from the legal system, which is evident in how you consider God complicit but not others.

I'm having a hard time seeing how you are connecting the dots. Taking risks to get the good things out of life and to offer these good things to future generations is NOT something that applies to God, again. We take risks to live (and suffer) and offer these things to other generations because life is worth living and some sufferings are pretty much inevitable to us... that wouldn't be the case if God existed and did his job. What aren't you getting from this?

If God prevented every murder, there would be no attempted murder because it would be unthinkable.

No, because you can think and choose freely. There would be no reason to attempt to kill anyone because you would know you wouldn't be able to do it... but that's a win! You wouldn't want to bully a 7 feet, 280 pound guy because he would probably handle you like if you were a child. Is that a bad thing?

It wouldn't be possible, and nobody would contemplate it. Since it wouldn't ever even be attempted, nobody could know God was preventing it. This is another issue for you to consider, in addition to the tiny matter of how a material world without murder, but with mortal bodies, could be designed.

lol Your objections are pretty bad. Who cares if nobody knew God was preventing stuff? That's on him (he could tell everyone unambiguously and clearly that he was doing it). Who cares if people don't know that I stopped a crime? Did I not do good by stopping it? Should I have let it happen? Come on, man, where in the world are your priorities?

I'm not here to definitively refute atheism. I'm just trying to get you to see the contradictions, dissonance, or unexamined assumptions, in your own thinking on a topic you raised, with an agenda and arguments presumably prepared.

Try harder.

Edited December 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Elguanteloko, you aren't going to get an answer that you want from him until you define suffering. And then you must define what corresponds to 'great' suffering, and what corresponds to 'little' suffering.

Whatever you people honestly understand by these terms is fine with me. I'm confident you people don't think rape and bombs and destruction of lives doesn't cause suffering.

And furthermore you must say what is the fine line where suffering is 'okay' and 'not okay'. I guess, what I'm trying to say, is that not all people would say that because your children will suffer, you shouldn't have them. Some will say quite the contrary. =P

Read what I responded to supersnail and why this 'having children' issue has zero relevance here. You are contributing nothing, TAO.

Edited December 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I am surprised this has been allowed to go on so long. Elguanteloko, your frequent statements of "just go" "try harder", etc smacks of the utmost arrogance and impatience. It is arrogance. Are there not better ways to ask someone to get on track? In fact, you can ask the moderators to close the thread to commenting from certain people. But insulting them and telling them to go away is not acceptable.

Additionally, I have studied philosophy extensively. Your arguments are fatally flawed for numerous reasons, of which several posters have eloquently addressed. You continue to run around in circles chasing your own tail when you don't like an answer, but have yourself frequently failed to provide rational responses. In many of your responses the very premise you use if wanting, and yet you only recognize that which is wanting in others.

I believe this thread has run its course and should be closed. The insulting of our members from one such as yourself who, despite claims of having a rational conversation, is in fact using it to stand upon a high and rickety horse of pride and self-adulation, is not acceptable.

[Skylla]

Thread done.

Skylla