Thomas Nagel's Review of Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies

Granted that it's logically possible that an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God is the creator and sustainer of this world, with all its pain, suffering, injustice and unfairness, but is it likely? The answer is surely no, and this is really all the atheists are saying. It seems far more likely that if there is a creator and sustainer of the universe, then it's something else entirely and doesn't deserve the name 'God'.

That's just your ego speaking .When you would let go of the false illusory ego/mind , a whole different beyond -thought universe with open up for you to see .That within.You have no idea ...

That said :
Most of the suffering in this world ,including evil, is man made (most of man's suffering comes from man's ego ) ,thanks to to man's free will .As for the rest , well, we are just humans , too human as Nietzsche used to say , with limited knowledge ,so we can't pretend to be able to know all the answers to your above raised issues or beyond .We can't pretend to be able to know all there is to know .

Unless you can show me that you already have full knowledge or full data of the whole ultimate nature of reality ( knowledge of everything ) , i can't take your words seriously . Have you ?

Furthermore, That God is all -knowing , all -powerful ... perfectly good sustainer of this universe and beyond is not inconsistent with the fact that God granted man a form of free will, in the sense that God created all possibilities , potentialities, probabilities .....,including evil thus for man to choose from freely and suffer the consequences accordingly ...I don't know . Who does ?

Imperfect man can't be polished unless rubbed , so to speak .The road or journey to perfection is full of suffering and pain : Try to be a body builder without pain then , or just try to do your work, study, learning , ....without pain or suffering then .

As for atheists , they are no argument ,so to speak , since they have no real reason to reject their creator : this option is also given to man to choose thus .

"Atheism " is mostly a psychological disorder , an ego thing , a form of intellectual optical illusions , a result of a low level of consciousness / awareness , or a form of emotional immaturity.

Better still, atheism does not really exist ,since each one of us does worship, so to speak, , one or another kind of "god " , consciously or unconsciously , in the form of ego, money , power, lust , greed ...
 
Last edited:
Sorry for riding you a bit hard with the punctuation ,Nassim . It's just that that stuff drives me bonkers , more than any content ,unfortunately .

Godspeed.

Don't worry about that , buddy .Punctuation is a trivial thing though .Cheers.
 
Don't worry about that , buddy .Punctuation is a trivial thing though .Cheers.
Though it does seem obtuse to do things differently to everyone else, when the aim is to communicate. The first requirement for communication is to follow a common set of agreed upon conventions. To do otherwise appears a demonstration of ego.
 
I think the question of suffering is a serious one for theists. One possible answer is that pain is just the "price of admission" for being incarnated in the physical. Sort of like, if you ride a roller coaster you run the risk of getting an upset stomach.

Pat

Indeed.But, suffering comes mainly from our separation from Home by identifying ourselves with our false and illusory egos.Home which is both within and without , beyond space and time.
Home = the divine within also.
A lots of man's suffering would vanish if only man would try to let go of his /her ...ego.
Man has to die before death to do the latter.

One does not become less by dying :

I died as a mineral and became a plant,

I died as plant and rose to animal,

I died as animal and I was Man.

Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?

Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar

With angels blest; but even from angelhood

I must pass on: all except God doth perish.

When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,

I shall become what no mind ever conceived.

Rumi
 
Though it does seem obtuse to do things differently to everyone else, when the aim is to communicate. The first requirement for communication is to follow a common set of agreed upon conventions. To do otherwise appears a demonstration of ego.

Not necessarily so .That can also be called ....non-conformism.
I have always been a rebel against authority , since i was a kid .
I don't like to conform .That's all .I don't like to follow the crowd.
I should let go of that "i" . lol . There is no separate "i" .Only the One does really exist.All the rest derive their 'existence ' from that source.
All consciousnesses come from that Ultimate Source of Consciousness.
 
Maybe. Do animals identify themselves with false and illusory egos?

Pat

Don't play the wise guy, please.Be serious.I really expected someone to say what you said , seriously.I wanted to specify that i was talking about human suffering in particular, but i was distracted by a phone call and forgot about it.
Nevertheless, i said : suffering comes mainly from our separation from Home...
I was not talking about animals thus , unless you do subscribe to the materialist conception of man as an alleged evolved animal.I was not talking about "non-human" animals thus.
 
Don't play the wise guy, please.Be serious.I really expected someone to say what you said , seriously.I wanted to specify that i was talking about human suffering in particular, but i was distracted by a phone call and forgot about it.

I wasn't being a wiseguy, it was a serious question.
Nevertheless, i said : suffering comes mainly from our separation from Home...
I was not talking about animals thus , unless you do subscribe to the materialist conception of man as an alleged evolved animal.I was not talking about "non-human" animals thus.

If the question of suffering is a problem for theism, I don't see how you can discount the suffering of animals. And if there is a residue of human suffering not attributable to ego identification, I don't think that suffering can be ignored either.

Pat
 
="wpb, post: 60003, member: 33"]I wasn't being a wiseguy, it was a serious question.

Ok, then.My mistake,sorry.


If the question of suffering is a problem for theism, I don't see how you can discount the suffering of animals. And if there is a residue of human suffering not attributable to ego identification, I don't think that suffering can be ignored either.

1-Why is suffering a problem for theism then ? , just because there is no theistic satisfactory explanation for that ?
Similarly, science can't explain a lots of things .Is that a problem for science ?

2-I did not discount the problem of suffering of animals.I was just narrowing the issue of suffering to that of humans , for the sake of discussion.

3- Most of man's suffering is man made and a result of ego.So, nobody is ignoring the rest of man's suffering that's beyond man's control , ego or free will.
 
Ok, then.My mistake,sorry.

No worries. :)
1-Why is suffering a problem for theism then ? , just because there is no theistic satisfactory explanation for that ?

Right. If there is no satisfactory explanation, we're left with not only an unresolved intellectual puzzle, but also a challenge to our sense of justice and fairness. The situation appears to be inconsistent with a deity who both cares about us and has the ability to prevent suffering. (If one's theism is about a different kind of deity, suffering may not present a problem.)
Similarly, science can't explain a lots of things .Is that a problem for science ?

No, because the incompleteness of scientific knowledge is not inconsistent with science.

Pat
 
I find a lot of this talk about suffering a little baffling.

When I was a small child, the playground had all sorts of equipment, swings, a slide, see-saws, things to climb on, even a zip-wire. The swings had wooden seats, and stood on a concrete or brick ground. Now all that is gone. Anything which has the slightest chance of causing injury has been taken away. What's left? A flat grassy area.

Let's suppose God had the power to prevent all harm. Anything dangerous such as mountains or rivers would have to go. The sea can be dangerous too, so that has to go. The earth would be a flat featureless sphere.

The real issue is not in what powers God does or does not possess, or chooses to use or not to use. It is in our ability to feel. The question then shifts to the one of why we have this ability. Why do we feel anything at all?
 
="wpb, post: 60024, member: 33"]No worries. :)

Reminds me of "Don't worry , be happy ..." song lol .


Right. If there is no satisfactory explanation, we're left with not only an unresolved intellectual puzzle, but also a challenge to our sense of justice and fairness. The situation appears to be inconsistent with a deity who both cares about us and has the ability to prevent suffering. (If one's theism is about a different kind of deity, suffering may not present a problem.)

No, it is rather a matter of our ignorance on the subject.We can't use the latter as an argument against theism thus or against anything else for that matter = ignorance is no argument.Our human knowledge is limited.

Our limited knowledge and its related ignorance should make us more humble.



No, because the incompleteness of scientific knowledge is not inconsistent with science.

Well, that's what i meant , in other words.
 
="Typoz, post: 60065, member: 68"]I find a lot of this talk about suffering a little baffling.

It is indeed, to some degree at least.

When I was a small child, the playground had all sorts of equipment, swings, a slide, see-saws, things to climb on, even a zip-wire. The swings had wooden seats, and stood on a concrete or brick ground. Now all that is gone. Anything which has the slightest chance of causing injury has been taken away. What's left? A flat grassy area.

The materialist modern civilization is almost all about alleviating physical suffering ,about luxury ,safety , comfort, and carnal satisfaction.That has been turning us into soft "pussies" whenever we do encounter some pain , scarcity or poverty , danger, discomfort....rejection....loneliness...

Let's suppose God had the power to prevent all harm. Anything dangerous such as mountains or rivers would have to go. The sea can be dangerous too, so that has to go. The earth would be a flat featureless sphere.

That would be boring, not much fun . lol
Pain is good and fun sometimes : think about the gratification and satisfaction you get from working out ...from solving problems....challenges...

Think of the joys of sex : heaven.

The real issue is not in what powers God does or does not possess, or chooses to use or not to use. It is in our ability to feel. The question then shifts to the one of why we have this ability. Why do we feel anything at all?

Because we are alive and conscious/aware beings , thank God , otherwise , our world ,both that within and without , would be total darkness, would be impersonal , cold , ...meaningless...and not worth experiencing or living.

I can't imagine being a ...zombie or a robot ,although many people are today . lol

This materialist civilization and its capitalist economic wing have been turning many people into soulless , cold , insensitive, greedy , selfish .... freaks . lol
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of "Don't worry , be happy ..." song lol .




No, it is rather a matter of our ignorance on the subject.We can't use the latter as an argument against theism thus or against anything else for that matter = ignorance is no argument.Our human knowledge is limited.

Our limited knowledge and its related ignorance should make us more humble.





Well, that's what i meant , in other words.

Given that we're so ignorant and so limited, and given all the pain and suffering around us, how can we be sure that God is kind, loving, compassionate and just, and that he cares about us and has a plan for our lives?
 
Given that we're so ignorant and so limited, and given all the pain and suffering around us, how can we be sure that God is kind, loving, compassionate and just, and that he cares about us and has a plan for our lives?
Well, first off, many philosophical theists believe (and have believed for millennia) that God's goodness is a logical certainty, not a question of empirical evidence. These thinkers define goodness as consisting in something's being complete/right/whole (as with an ideally good body, which has all of its appendages intact, all of its features well-formed, all of its systems in working order, etc.), while evil and degeneracy are seen as consisting in a lack of some good (as with a body which has a missing or crippled limb, a disfigurement, etc.)-- wrongness as a privation of some ideal rightness. Since God is understood to be the logically-necessary and self-sufficient ground of all being, underlying and preceding all other things, it follows that he lacks nothing, has no privations-- privation being inherently a trait of something which is secondary and contingent, rather than primary and supreme.

If one has disagreement with or doubt about the attempted logical proofs for God's goodness, then he/she (obviously) cannot be "sure" in the logical sense that God is good, but many are still certain of such a thing on experiential grounds, as with the multitude of near-death/mystical experiencers who report encountering God/"the Light" and knowing in their innermost being that he was ultimately and purely good and loving, and non-experiencers can look to things like this as individual and cumulative testimonial evidence-- someone might be able to scrounge up an account from somewhere of someone who had a Near-Death Experience of God as evil, but the "God/'the-Light'-as-pure-goodness" account is overwhelmingly pervasive across thousands of accounts spanning different cultures and religious backgrounds of all sorts.

Finally, in the case of one who disbelieves/doubts both the logical and the evidential arguments, a good argument can be made for simply choosing, in the absence of proof either way, to trust that an ultimately good being exists and is finally sovereign, as this provides an ideal to strive toward, a solace in grief, etc.. The spiritually-observant are on the whole healthier, better-adjusted, longer-lived, and more charitable than the general population. There are a great many cases in life in which we are presented with indeterminate evidence, but must operate as though something or its alternative is true, and for a mind not mired in scientism, choosing on non-evidential grounds may be perfectly defensible. For example, if I am engaged in a sporting contest, I am liable to choose to trust and operate as though I can and will win whether or not I have objective evidence to that effect, or even if the evidence tends against it, and I daresay I am justified in doing so, as it stands to maximize any existing chance of my winning, while entering with the conviction and operative presupposition that I cannot/will not win is prone to shrink or eliminate whatever chance may have hitherto existed. It is psychologically, spiritually, and even physiologically nourishing and beneficial to trust that ultimate goodness exists and is supreme.
 
Given that we're so ignorant and so limited, and given all the pain and suffering around us, how can we be sure that God is kind, loving, compassionate and just, and that he cares about us and has a plan for our lives?

I am agnostic, but for something exists faith.
 
Well, first off, many philosophical theists believe (and have believed for millennia) that God's goodness is a logical certainty, not a question of empirical evidence. These thinkers define goodness as consisting in something's being complete/right/whole (as with an ideally good body, which has all of its appendages intact, all of its features well-formed, all of its systems in working order, etc.), while evil and degeneracy are seen as consisting in a lack of some good (as with a body which has a missing or crippled limb, a disfigurement, etc.)-- wrongness as a privation of some ideal rightness. Since God is understood to be the logically-necessary and self-sufficient ground of all being, underlying and preceding all other things, it follows that he lacks nothing, has no privations-- privation being inherently a trait of something which is secondary and contingent, rather than primary and supreme.

If one has disagreement with or doubt about the attempted logical proofs for God's goodness, then he/she (obviously) cannot be "sure" in the logical sense that God is good, but many are still certain of such a thing on experiential grounds, as with the multitude of near-death/mystical experiencers who report encountering God/"the Light" and knowing in their innermost being that he was ultimately and purely good and loving, and non-experiencers can look to things like this as individual and cumulative testimonial evidence-- someone might be able to scrounge up an account from somewhere of someone who had a Near-Death Experience of God as evil, but the "God/'the-Light'-as-pure-goodness" account is overwhelmingly pervasive across thousands of accounts spanning different cultures and religious backgrounds of all sorts.

Finally, in the case of one who disbelieves/doubts both the logical and the evidential arguments, a good argument can be made for simply choosing, in the absence of proof either way, to trust that an ultimately good being exists and is finally sovereign, as this provides an ideal to strive toward, a solace in grief, etc.. The spiritually-observant are on the whole healthier, better-adjusted, longer-lived, and more charitable than the general population. There are a great many cases in life in which we are presented with indeterminate evidence, but must operate as though something or its alternative is true, and for a mind not mired in scientism, choosing on non-evidential grounds may be perfectly defensible. For example, if I am engaged in a sporting contest, I am liable to choose to trust and operate as though I can and will win whether or not I have objective evidence to that effect, or even if the evidence tends against it, and I daresay I am justified in doing so, as it stands to maximize any existing chance of my winning, while entering with the conviction and operative presupposition that I cannot/will not win is prone to shrink or eliminate whatever chance may have hitherto existed. It is psychologically, spiritually, and even physiologically nourishing and beneficial to trust that ultimate goodness exists and is supreme.

Thanks for this wonderful reply.

To me, the idea that evil is just the privation of goodness doesn't seem to do justice to the horrors we see around us in the world. The metaphor sometimes given is that goodness is the cheese and evil is the holes in the cheese. I'm sorry but I can't take this very seriously.

Yes, people have experiences of overwhelming love, but that doesn't mean that the source of those experiences is anything like the omni God of traditional theism. It could be a trickster God, a sadistic God that's just giving us something good before taking it away, a God with a weird sense of humor, a loving God that isn't all-powerful, an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence that's screwing around with us, or any number of other things.

As long as the problem of evil remains unresolved, I think we should be agnostic about the nature of God and suspicious of people who claim to know that the omni God exists.

And even if we can somehow deal with the problem of evil, we still have that old problem of why the omni God would want to create anything in the first place. I remember C.S. Lewis in one of his books admitting that this is the hardest problem of all for theists.
 
Back
Top