Do you believe in god?

[Bebe 17,094]

4 hours ago, Trxstan said:

Woo! a debate! (by the way, I'm not a theologian, I'm just interpreting stuff I've been learning in my religion classes so here we gOOO) (again).

1. Ok so from what I know, Original Sin essentially states that man (the physical/bodily component) is inherently flawed. We often commit sins (whether intentional or unintentional) because that's just how we are. It's not one specific act, rather, it's just how we are. Baptism absolves this 'state of being' and allows us to be closer to God. Baptism is a sacrament in which the parent gives the child the gift of absolution of this state of being, but we are still susceptible to acts of sin. Original sin isn't so much about 'justice' and 'fairness' as it is about morality. It's about our previous (and continual) failure to choose what's best for us and others, and our decision to stray from goodness and God and turn to sin and evil (no matter how serious the act). Our Original Sin is just as prominent today as it was back then. 

2. This is a very interesting point. The thing is, we, as humans, are only capable of a certain level of comprehension that is below God. To God, things that may seem complex (like time travel) are simplified. To God, time is not linear. It's not cause effect. Time exists in its own plane. It is a realm beyond our understanding. God sees the entire picture (all of history and all of the future), but to Him, it is all in the present (or so we call it). It's all happening at once. Free will is a gift. It allows us to freely chose to love God. God does not want to directly alter our identities. He acts as a guide that helps us become the best version of ourselves - not a completely different people. Our actions are not 'predetermined' to God, they have already happened and will happen in the future. What exists now has already existed and will continue to exist to God. God does not feel the need to intervene in our lives and take those who deserve to be in heaven because each person is granted free will and dignity. It would deny one's dignity if they were to be sucked into hell out of nowhere. We each deserve a chance and to live our lives to the fullest, based on your definition of what that is. Pain and suffering make us stronger- they are deciding factors that weed out the strong from the weak. That doesn't mean God should make life hell. It just means that pain makes joy that much more enjoyable and deserving. If a story was one straight line with no ups or downs, life would be pointless. (hopefully I answered all the parts of your questions. I kinda jumped around lol sorry )

God is not a micromanager. He does not try to control every aspect of our lives. We chose whether or not we let Him be a part of us. God wants us to be good. But he won't stop us from robbing a bank if we are really set on it. God has the power to intervene, but he won't (until the end time, but that's another story). He will judge us based on our actions because he is the creator of our souls. God doesn't 'allow' or 'deny.' Free will is a gift that God promises he will not directly stop or force us to do anything. If God were still actively forcing people to do certain things, there would be no crime, everyone would be catholic, etc. God does not seek to directly change our actions, but instead, inspire us to think differently. He doesn't have to come to us in a dream and tell us 'sin is bad.' He can work differently. We as humans have imaginations and the power to interpret. Maybe you'll look at a sunset and be reminded '[God/life/nature] is amazing.' It's through those little things that God tries to reach out to us to help us turn to goodness. God doesn't seek the bad in people. He seeks to bring out the good. 

3. Not all natural disasters are intended as lessons. They are not also God's direct acts. We could view them from many different points of view. First of, the reasons those countries are poor are not because of God's wrath, but because of human failure. Just look at Haiti. Haiti is poor because of its history of European colonization and segregation. The earthquake was an unfortunate event. Look at the Northridge earthquake. California was rather affluent and bounced back. It wasn't a punishment, so much as it was simply a natural event. Look at the Mexico earthquake. The humanitarian response has been tremendous. This is not God yelling at everyone to help, but people being inspired to help. Things beyond our control make living that much more interesting. If we had sovereignty over everything, nothing would be noteworthy because we'd just say 'oh I can do that. that isn't interesting.' It is through the things we can't control like nature and space, that we search for personal betterment and inspiration. Another view is that the poor aren't punished, but delivered to heaven. Their suffering is ended and they are risen unto heaven. It's all about how we view the situation. The deaths that occurred are really tragic, but death is natural. It was not God striking down people with lightning or targeting specific neighborhoods. Some of it was just bad luck, but a lot of it was natural selection. Those who did not listen to the warnings and leave and did not fortify their houses enough were those who suffered. 

4. So essentially, because this is such a contentious debate, the church believes that there are inherent 'truths' and definite 'goods' (like genuine acts of kindness) and 'bads' (like rape). But, there are also many different circumstances that mean different things. The church believes that their are three components that determine the morality of an act: object, circumstance, intention. Based on these three factors, God determines the the morality of an act. God is good, therefore good acts inherently seek God (if there is good intention and proper circumstance). Actions are just based one these inherent truths. In God's eyes, this is all objective, and not subjective to interpretation. It's a spectrum, not black and white.

Morality is not arbitrary. Moral relativism is a phenomenon that has been spreading and convinced many to believe that as long as you can justify something to yourself, then it is okay. That is not how it works. Based on object, circumstance, and intention, you can almost definitely determine good or bad. God's nature is not malleable to good or bad. He is pure good. He would not revert the 10 commandments. The hypothetical situation simply cannot happen. It's as if one were to say: 'what if we all just turned into jello? then what?' Because it simply will not happen. God doesn't command good. God IS good. He is goodness itself. He is love. I know it's kind of hard to wrap your head around, but that's just what we believe. 

God and goodness are incapable of being separated. They are one and the same. Morality is a uniquely human responsibility. We do not chastise a lion for eating an antelope. Morality is our interpretation of what is good and what is bad. Because God is good, he only seeks to bring about good. God would not command bad because he is good. It's like saying I could become a window whenever I want, even though I'm human. It's completely contradictory to my nature and so it simply cannot happen.

I like the way you think! Very interesting! Things I've never even considered before!  Love!!

1. Yes but why is the human person inherently flawed? It's because of man's 'original sin'? Right? 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence""

So... Because of the consequences of the first man/men who sinned, we have inherited the consequences of this sin... This seems to be unjust and unfair to me. When I used the words justice and fairness, I wasn't trying to imply that's what the concept of original sin was about I was suggesting that any concept (including original sin) rooted in the idea of inherited guilt is unjust and unfair, regardless of what the concept is about.


2. Yes, I understand that God exists outside of time and it sort of able to see each event past, present and future as if they have already happened - but I that would still indicate to me that all of our actions are predetermined. 

"ur actions are not 'predetermined' to God, they have already happened and will happen in the future. What exists now has already existed and will continue to exist to God. God does not feel the need to intervene in our lives and take those who deserve to be in heaven because each person is granted free will and dignity. "

I just see this as contradictory, no matter how you spin it, even if there is some plane of existence God inhabits in which the future has already happened for him - for us the future hasn't happened, which must mean that our actions are predetermined... God knows what our choices are and what our future is before we have the opportunity to make our 'free choice'. Why can't God intervene and take those who deserve to be in heaven to heaven? We are clearly not granted free will, God knows all the choices we will make before we make them, and it doesn't seem dignified to allow all humans to suffer in this world and give us the illusion of free will when He already knows how the future is going to play out...

I understand that God isn't a micromanager, but it still remains that he has the power at any time to control us. To prevent us from acting in certain ways or to force us to act in other ways. As you say "God has the power to intervene, but he won't". By that alone, I don't see how we have free will. At best we have an illusion of free will. God might not choose to ever intervene, but the fact that he has the ability to intervene means that ultimately we can't be free.

3.
"Not all natural disasters are intended as lessons. They are not also God's direct acts. We could view them from many different points of view. First of, the reasons those countries are poor are not because of God's wrath, but because of human failure. Just look at Haiti. Haiti is poor because of its history of European colonization and segregation."

I agree with you that countries are poor because of human failure, but that has little to do with why God should pelt them with earthquakes or hurricanes.

"The humanitarian response has been tremendous. This is not God yelling at everyone to help, but people being inspired to help. Things beyond our control make living that much more interesting."

I think that's potentially a very privileged thing to say though - "How fantastic that God gave me the opportunity to donate to hurricane relief, by killing people, by destroying thousands of houses, by destroying entire countries!" Of course there needs to be humanitarian response to these events, but no doubt there needs to be humanitarian responses when it comes to world poverty, helping refugees, war/conflicts, drugs. Those things are out of my control personally, but they should still inspire us to help.

There are also many natural events out of our control that are not necessarily harmful, from eclipses to the bioluminescent waves on a beach in the Maldives, to light pillars, to auroras. There are the natural wonders of the world.

Not all the poor die in these events, many are rescued, many are left injured, many are forced to bury their dead loved ones (granted they are fortunate enough to locate them) and rebuild their lives from the ground up. These people are already among the most disadvantaged among us, yet God allows a natural disaster to wipe through their country and create more suffering and misery.

4.

I'm not sure that you have responded to me here... I agree that moral relativism is problematic, I'm not a moral relativist and I don't actually think morality is arbitrary - but your first statement was this "science is really great, but it cannot account for morality. We know that we have a soul and a conscience, and we believe that that exists in every person and THAT comes from God" Which seemed to imply that you need God in order to account for morality.

Yes, God is pure good - I remember that very clearly from my Catholic upbringing, but the question is - What is 'good'? Is God purely good because everything he commands is good? Or is God purely 'good' because he satisfies the criteria of some outside standard for goodness?

"God's nature is not malleable to good or bad. He is pure good. He would not revert the 10 commandments. The hypothetical situation simply cannot happen." Yes, yes, sure that means you reject the first idea - but means you must accept the second. Good things are not good BECAUSE God commands them, God cannot control what is 'good' or 'bad' - Good things are good because there is some sort of standard independent of God, that binds God, of 'goodness'.

That means God is basically irrelevant to the question of morality - humans are perfectly capable of figuring out what is morally right and wrong without God.

"God and goodness are incapable of being separated. They are one and the same.....  God would not command bad because he is good. It's like saying I could become a window whenever I want, even though I'm human. It's completely contradictory to my nature and so it simply cannot happen."

But once again, this must mean there are objective moral truths, not dictated by God. God doesn't decide what is wrong and right, He knows what is wrong and right because of an outside standard of 'goodness' and because His nature is good He always chooses to be good.

 

[Trxstan 1,619]

37 minutes ago, Bebe said:

1. Yes but why is the human person inherently flawed? It's because of man's 'original sin'? Right? 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence""

So... Because of the consequences of the first man/men who sinned, we have inherited the consequences of this sin... This seems to be unjust and unfair to me. When I used the words justice and fairness, I wasn't trying to imply that's what the concept of original sin was about I was suggesting that any concept (including original sin) rooted in the idea of inherited guilt is unjust and unfair, regardless of what the concept is about.


2. Yes, I understand that God exists outside of time and it sort of able to see each event past, present and future as if they have already happened - but I that would still indicate to me that all of our actions are predetermined. 

"ur actions are not 'predetermined' to God, they have already happened and will happen in the future. What exists now has already existed and will continue to exist to God. God does not feel the need to intervene in our lives and take those who deserve to be in heaven because each person is granted free will and dignity. "

I just see this as contradictory, no matter how you spin it, even if there is some plane of existence God inhabits in which the future has already happened for him - for us the future hasn't happened, which must mean that our actions are predetermined... God knows what our choices are and what our future is before we have the opportunity to make our 'free choice'. Why can't God intervene and take those who deserve to be in heaven to heaven? We are clearly not granted free will, God knows all the choices we will make before we make them, and it doesn't seem dignified to allow all humans to suffer in this world and give us the illusion of free will when He already knows how the future is going to play out...

I understand that God isn't a micromanager, but it still remains that he has the power at any time to control us. To prevent us from acting in certain ways or to force us to act in other ways. As you say "God has the power to intervene, but he won't". By that alone, I don't see how we have free will. At best we have an illusion of free will. God might not choose to ever intervene, but the fact that he has the ability to intervene means that ultimately we can't be free.

3.
"Not all natural disasters are intended as lessons. They are not also God's direct acts. We could view them from many different points of view. First of, the reasons those countries are poor are not because of God's wrath, but because of human failure. Just look at Haiti. Haiti is poor because of its history of European colonization and segregation."

I agree with you that countries are poor because of human failure, but that has little to do with why God should pelt them with earthquakes or hurricanes.

"The humanitarian response has been tremendous. This is not God yelling at everyone to help, but people being inspired to help. Things beyond our control make living that much more interesting."

I think that's potentially a very privileged thing to say though - "How fantastic that God gave me the opportunity to donate to hurricane relief, by killing people, by destroying thousands of houses, by destroying entire countries!" Of course there needs to be humanitarian response to these events, but no doubt there needs to be humanitarian responses when it comes to world poverty, helping refugees, war/conflicts, drugs. Those things are out of my control personally, but they should still inspire us to help.

There are also many natural events out of our control that are not necessarily harmful, from eclipses to the bioluminescent waves on a beach in the Maldives, to light pillars, to auroras. There are the natural wonders of the world.

Not all the poor die in these events, many are rescued, many are left injured, many are forced to bury their dead loved ones (granted they are fortunate enough to locate them) and rebuild their lives from the ground up. These people are already among the most disadvantaged among us, yet God allows a natural disaster to wipe through their country and create more suffering and misery.

4.

I'm not sure that you have responded to me here... I agree that moral relativism is problematic, I'm not a moral relativist and I don't actually think morality is arbitrary - but your first statement was this "science is really great, but it cannot account for morality. We know that we have a soul and a conscience, and we believe that that exists in every person and THAT comes from God" Which seemed to imply that you need God in order to account for morality.

Yes, God is pure good - I remember that very clearly from my Catholic upbringing, but the question is - What is 'good'? Is God purely good because everything he commands is good? Or is God purely 'good' because he satisfies the criteria of some outside standard for goodness?

"God's nature is not malleable to good or bad. He is pure good. He would not revert the 10 commandments. The hypothetical situation simply cannot happen." Yes, yes, sure that means you reject the first idea - but means you must accept the second. Good things are not good BECAUSE God commands them, God cannot control what is 'good' or 'bad' - Good things are good because there is some sort of standard independent of God, that binds God, of 'goodness'.

That means God is basically irrelevant to the question of morality - humans are perfectly capable of figuring out what is morally right and wrong without God.

"God and goodness are incapable of being separated. They are one and the same.....  God would not command bad because he is good. It's like saying I could become a window whenever I want, even though I'm human. It's completely contradictory to my nature and so it simply cannot happen."

But once again, this must mean there are objective moral truths, not dictated by God. God doesn't decide what is wrong and right, He knows what is wrong and right because of an outside standard of 'goodness' and because His nature is good He always chooses to be good.

 

1. This 'passing down' or inheritance of sin is sort of like a metaphor to explain that sin originates with human actions, not because of God. God did not create sin. We created sin because of our failure to be as much like God as possible. All humans, no matter origin, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, etc are born with the stain of original sin (with the exception of Jesus and Mary). It's called inheritance to imply that it is not God-given. And keep in mind, justice and fairness are social constructs that are often subjective. You can justify whatever you want to yourself or to others, but that does not make it 'good' or 'bad.' 

2. Now here's where it gets a little spacey and theoretical. Imagine that there are an infinite number of universes, each one diverges at a point in which a decision is made differently. Say, in one universe, you are hungry and you eat a taco. For that one decision, there is another universe in which everything prior to that is the same, but you decide not to eat a taco. And the possibilities go on and on from there. What I'm trying to get at, is, that if God were to intervene at every point in which we did something wrong or something bad were to happen, things in the future would change. And because time, to God, is not linear, that would mess up the entirety of time. However, as it is, God works subtly to help guide us to be better in our thinking, which will translate over to our actions. This way, our actions are more consistent with our beliefs. If one knew that if they were to attempt to kill another person, and God would intervene, wouldn't they be interested to see what's that like? It just opens up a whole range of complexities and complications.

So for the free will, God's intervention ability does not 'lessen' the value of it. If anything, it enhances it because God knows that people will turn away from Him and cuss Him out and spread evil, yet He does not intervene. Doesn't that make free will more valuable, knowing that a greater power could seize control of you but won't because He is understanding and kind? Place yourself in the position of God (oops, not supposed to do that but for the sake of argument, here we are). Think of the amount of restraint it would take to withhold stopping someone you love from doing something stupid. You'd have to have a lot of love and respect for that person if you wanted to let them live their life as they wish, even though you know that they deserve better.

3. God does not pelt people with natural disasters. Natural disasters are a result of the laws of the universe. God does not attempt to bend these laws that he's created. He follows them. Weather is predictable and science follows its course. Very rarely are there phenomena that cannot be explained, and even when there are, there are numerous theories of why it happened, all based in logic.

I'm not advocating for natural disasters, but when people get excited about helping others, it's exciting to me. I really love people (I'm not a sociopath I promise XD), so when people come together to help other people, it's heartwarming and gives me hope for the future.

God does not 'allow' things. The nature of the universe isn't just rainbows and flowers. There are disasters, there are predators, etc. That's just how it works. And it is unfortunate that these disasters happen, but it is impractical to blame God for it. Yes, God created the laws of the universe so that something like a hurricane exists, but God also created the circumstances so that trees, waterfalls, and sunsets exist. There is an inherent balance in the universe.

4. Oo we are getting metaphysical! Here's how I see it and how I believe the church sees it: goodness does not have to be defined. Language is something that we have created to understand each other, but for God, language probably isn't necessary. Things aren't bound by strict parameters, but rather, they can be explained in many ways. Goodness could be a feeling, an idea, an emotion, a sense. It goes beyond our comprehension. We use the word 'good' but to God, it probably isn't even a word. God feels that 'good' is the best translation of the feeling, but that does not mean that the way we comprehend it is the same as how God sees it. Try this: ask yourself 'who am I?' There are so many levels to this question that you could look at it from the physical sense, the emotional sense, the spiritual sense, etc. It's why words will never be able to achieve perfect understanding between people. We internally understand and interpret things uniquely, whether we realize it or not. The church would say that one shouldn't be so worried about defining good and making it a physical thing as much as one should try seeking it out and trying to understand it. 

We have sort of created a vision of what morality means, but to God, it is not the same. We may be capable of understanding morality (something we have created to define good and bad), but that doesn't mean we will ever understand the essence of good, until death. God, however, understands it because it is what He is. This is a difficult debate because it expands beyond our comprehension, but an interesting one, nonetheless.

Love this back-and-forth!  I hope that you are arguing more to inquire than you are to assert - I understand where you are coming from, and I don't think either of us will back down from what we believe, but I hope this helps us to better understand each other and I hope you feel the same way!

[Bebe 17,094]

21 hours ago, Trxstan said:

1. This 'passing down' or inheritance of sin is sort of like a metaphor to explain that sin originates with human actions, not because of God. God did not create sin. We created sin because of our failure to be as much like God as possible. All humans, no matter origin, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, etc are born with the stain of original sin (with the exception of Jesus and Mary). It's called inheritance to imply that it is not God-given. And keep in mind, justice and fairness are social constructs that are often subjective. You can justify whatever you want to yourself or to others, but that does not make it 'good' or 'bad.' 

2. Now here's where it gets a little spacey and theoretical. Imagine that there are an infinite number of universes, each one diverges at a point in which a decision is made differently. Say, in one universe, you are hungry and you eat a taco. For that one decision, there is another universe in which everything prior to that is the same, but you decide not to eat a taco. And the possibilities go on and on from there. What I'm trying to get at, is, that if God were to intervene at every point in which we did something wrong or something bad were to happen, things in the future would change. And because time, to God, is not linear, that would mess up the entirety of time. However, as it is, God works subtly to help guide us to be better in our thinking, which will translate over to our actions. This way, our actions are more consistent with our beliefs. If one knew that if they were to attempt to kill another person, and God would intervene, wouldn't they be interested to see what's that like? It just opens up a whole range of complexities and complications.

So for the free will, God's intervention ability does not 'lessen' the value of it. If anything, it enhances it because God knows that people will turn away from Him and cuss Him out and spread evil, yet He does not intervene. Doesn't that make free will more valuable, knowing that a greater power could seize control of you but won't because He is understanding and kind? Place yourself in the position of God (oops, not supposed to do that but for the sake of argument, here we are). Think of the amount of restraint it would take to withhold stopping someone you love from doing something stupid. You'd have to have a lot of love and respect for that person if you wanted to let them live their life as they wish, even though you know that they deserve better.

3. God does not pelt people with natural disasters. Natural disasters are a result of the laws of the universe. God does not attempt to bend these laws that he's created. He follows them. Weather is predictable and science follows its course. Very rarely are there phenomena that cannot be explained, and even when there are, there are numerous theories of why it happened, all based in logic.

I'm not advocating for natural disasters, but when people get excited about helping others, it's exciting to me. I really love people (I'm not a sociopath I promise XD), so when people come together to help other people, it's heartwarming and gives me hope for the future.

God does not 'allow' things. The nature of the universe isn't just rainbows and flowers. There are disasters, there are predators, etc. That's just how it works. And it is unfortunate that these disasters happen, but it is impractical to blame God for it. Yes, God created the laws of the universe so that something like a hurricane exists, but God also created the circumstances so that trees, waterfalls, and sunsets exist. There is an inherent balance in the universe.

4. Oo we are getting metaphysical! Here's how I see it and how I believe the church sees it: goodness does not have to be defined. Language is something that we have created to understand each other, but for God, language probably isn't necessary. Things aren't bound by strict parameters, but rather, they can be explained in many ways. Goodness could be a feeling, an idea, an emotion, a sense. It goes beyond our comprehension. We use the word 'good' but to God, it probably isn't even a word. God feels that 'good' is the best translation of the feeling, but that does not mean that the way we comprehend it is the same as how God sees it. Try this: ask yourself 'who am I?' There are so many levels to this question that you could look at it from the physical sense, the emotional sense, the spiritual sense, etc. It's why words will never be able to achieve perfect understanding between people. We internally understand and interpret things uniquely, whether we realize it or not. The church would say that one shouldn't be so worried about defining good and making it a physical thing as much as one should try seeking it out and trying to understand it. 

We have sort of created a vision of what morality means, but to God, it is not the same. We may be capable of understanding morality (something we have created to define good and bad), but that doesn't mean we will ever understand the essence of good, until death. God, however, understands it because it is what He is. This is a difficult debate because it expands beyond our comprehension, but an interesting one, nonetheless.

Love this back-and-forth!  I hope that you are arguing more to inquire than you are to assert - I understand where you are coming from, and I don't think either of us will back down from what we believe, but I hope this helps us to better understand each other and I hope you feel the same way!

1. You say "And keep in mind, justice and fairness are social constructs that are often subjective. You can justify whatever you want to yourself or to others, but that does not make it 'good' or 'bad.'" but only a couple of paragraphs down you rallied against moral relativism. Sure you believe God didn't create sin, but you believe we inherited the consequences of this sin - through no fault of our own. That seems very unfair and unjust.

2. My point isn't really that God should intervene, my point is that regardless we can't have free will and that this current world is unnecessary... We can't have a God that knows everything, yet doesn't know our future actions. The universe you describe is still one in which our actions are predetermined, it's still a universe in which God knows all our actions.

3. Yes, but God made the conditions of the universe that makes these natural disasters possible... Surely in His omnipotence he could have created a world without such suffering, but He didn't.

4. I'm not sure what you really mean, can you clarify further? We need moral rules, we need some 'definition' of good in order to differentiate between right and wrong. In your first point you seemed to suggest that while science is great, it can't tell us what is right and wrong, for that we need God. I took it as you suggesting a grounding problem, that without God there was nothing to ground our morality - it became subjective. But it still seems to me that morality still faces a grounding problem even with God in the picture. Either good simply equals whatever God commands - be it that he commands murder or commands that we refrain from murder OR There is some objective 'goodness' that is separate from God, that God abides by.

My question to you would be: Do you think we need God to give some grounding to morality? To stop us from falling into moral relativism, or moral nihilism? 

Because that's the point I've essentially been arguing against. As somebody who studies moral philosophy, I'm overtly aware of the challenges in grounding morality and I'm also very aware of the theological argument that morality cannot truly find grounding without God. The problem I see, is that theists still seem to face the same problem that we do, unless they accept that 'good' = 'whatever God commands' something that seems counter-intuitive and problematic when you consider what that would actually entail. 


As somebody who studies Philosophy, I'm very interested in concepts regarding free will and ethics, It's always good to give my brain some exercise and try to hash out these concepts with someone else!  
I don't think that either of us will back down either, but you're right, hopefully it gives us the opportunity not only to understand each other but also better understand our own perspective and why we believe the things we do  

[Trxstan 1,619]

1 hour ago, Bebe said:

1. You say "And keep in mind, justice and fairness are social constructs that are often subjective. You can justify whatever you want to yourself or to others, but that does not make it 'good' or 'bad.'" but only a couple of paragraphs down you rallied against moral relativism. Sure you believe God didn't create sin, but you believe we inherited the consequences of this sin - through no fault of our own. That seems very unfair and unjust.

2. My point isn't really that God should intervene, my point is that regardless we can't have free will and that this current world is unnecessary... We can't have a God that knows everything, yet doesn't know our future actions. The universe you describe is still one in which our actions are predetermined, it's still a universe in which God knows all our actions.

3. Yes, but God made the conditions of the universe that makes these natural disasters possible... Surely in His omnipotence he could have created a world without such suffering, but He didn't.

4. I'm not sure what you really mean, can you clarify further? We need moral rules, we need some 'definition' of good in order to differentiate between right and wrong. In your first point you seemed to suggest that while science is great, it can't tell us what is right and wrong, for that we need God. I took it as you suggesting a grounding problem, that without God there was nothing to ground our morality - it became subjective. But it still seems to me that morality still faces a grounding problem even with God in the picture. Either good simply equals whatever God commands - be it that he commands murder or commands that we refrain from murder OR There is some objective 'goodness' that is separate from God, that God abides by.

My question to you would be: Do you think we need God to give some grounding to morality? To stop us from falling into moral relativism, or moral nihilism? 

Because that's the point I've essentially been arguing against. As somebody who studies moral philosophy, I'm overtly aware of the challenges in grounding morality and I'm also very aware of the theological argument that morality cannot truly find grounding without God. The problem I see, is that theists still seem to face the same problem that we do, unless they accept that 'good' = 'whatever God commands' something that seems counter-intuitive and problematic when you consider what that would actually entail. 


As somebody who studies Philosophy, I'm very interested in concepts regarding free will and ethics, It's always good to give my brain some exercise and try to hash out these concepts with someone else!  
I don't think that either of us will back down either, but you're right, hopefully it gives us the opportunity not only to understand each other but also better understand our own perspective and why we believe the things we do  

1. I'm not advocating for moral relativism, I was actually trying to do the opposite. I was trying to show that because we as humans have created our own rules for what is considered 'justified,' that our idea of what justice is, is already influenced by an individual perspective. Sin is inseparable from the body. It is our fault because we own our actions. Although we absolve ourselves from Original sin through baptism, we are susceptible to its actions. And those actions are either venial (not mortal) or mortal (1. action is a grave act 2. we have full consciousness 3. we consent to the bad act). We actively chose wrong. Not a single human (besides Mary and Jesus) has ever resisted that temptation. So it is our own bodily fault. 

2. God DOES know our future actions. And isn't really about 'predetermination.' It's ongoing and infinite. Even though God knows our actions, we have free will in each moment that we make a decision and that influences the future. Even if you decide not to make a decision, that's still a decision that God acknowledges. Free will is practically inescapable.

3. Suffering exists because man willed it upon him/herself. We abuse free will to choose what we know isn't the best for us. And suffering exists in the form of natural disaster because God willed a world in which things are in constant relation with each other. That's why food chains exist: there is a harmony in the way that although certain creatures can eat others, they can be eaten too. And yet, extinction is nonexistent unless an environmental factor interrupts it. And even here, the environment is connected to something else. If each property were to exist uniquely by itself, nothing of significance would occur, and God's love for creation and the relationships within creation would have no purpose. And because God loved us so much that he gave us intellect, soul, and free will, we are at the top of the food chain. But everything must have its balance. There are animals that can kill us. There are even the smallest particles, like bacteria, that can harm and kill us. And the environment can harm us. But we can adapt to react to these circumstances. If each individual person existed on his/her own plane, it would be like God was putting us in prison cells. It would not make sense.

4. As unique individuals, we interpret what is moral and what is immoral differently. A great example of this is the debate on abortion. We each have our own criteria for good and bad. But God knows the order of things. God does command good, but only because He is goodness himself. He understands who He is, and He chooses to share that with us so that we may be more like him, because He is the ultimate form of purity. In your experiment of 'either God commands good and chooses what that is or God and good are separable,' you cannot separate God and good, and you also cannot alter God's identity, so neither would be theologically consistent. God commands his self to us, and we are to follow that. This sounds a bit unrealistic, but keep in mind, this is God we are talking about. God is complex to us, but that is because it is hard for us to connect Him with physical things on Earth, and that is how we are taught to understand and interpret. He is not confined by an interpretation, yet His essence will never change (He will never be 'bad').

We are able to understand morality because God gave us 3 important gifts so that we may be closer to Him: soul, intellect, and free will. These gifts are given to everyone, Catholic or not. God has given us our grounding in morality because understanding good from bad can help us better understand God. To Catholics, God and goodness are inseparable, but for people who are secular, these three gifts are bound to the human identity because of their consistency in relationship. Understand that we are the only beings on Earth to have all 3 of these gifts to our extent, and they simply cannot be a result of evolution. Animals don't evolve to have souls. That's simply not how biology works. And that is a core belief of Catholicism.

Hope I'm helping you to better understand Catholics and why we believe what we believe! Some people think that all religious people are ignorant and holding back the human race (some are tho ), but they can be so convoluted by what they think is right and wrong and forget that some of us know what we're talking about. Glad to see you're not one of those people! Great discourse!