Is god real?

[Grave_n_idle]

But God lets bad things happen because it makes us stronger.

Like people that rape babies and then murder them.

Raping babies and then murdering them makes them stronger.



But only if you believe in zombies.

[Grave_n_idle]

The sole reason we are here on this earth is to experience mortality. Mortality would be a waste without pain, suffering and evil, because we would not no joy, happiness or good.

That's why there's a hot tap and a cold tap. You can't feel hot water unless there's a cold tap, too.

*nods*



Um... wait...

[Grave_n_idle]

A man went to his barber who was religious and said

"I dont know how you could believe in god, so many people are suffering which is why he cant exist" said the man to the Barber

"Barbers dont exist" said the barber

"Why?"

"Look at that scruffy man outside with the untrimmed beard and long hair, his hair is so messy which is why Barbers cant exist" said the Barber
.................................................................

I cant quite remember but the little story was roughly along those lines

Barbers, unlike God, aren't omnipotent, omniscient beings.

But they are people that can trim a beard, and cut hair... which is rather the point. No?

[Pawn and King]

But God lets bad things happen because it makes us stronger.

Like people that rape babies and then murder them.

Raping babies and then murdering them makes them stronger.



But only if you believe in zombies.

There are 2 types of evil, according to religious theodicies. Necessary evil, in which good actions shine through - for example, despite 9/11 being a tragedy, the bravery of the firemen who risked their lives prevailed - some good came of a terrible action.

The second type, of the raping-murdering baby variety, is unneccesary evil, where no good comes of the evil. In this scenario, there's a number of explanations for why it occurred, and usually free will is the one most religious believe.

Just because bad things happen though, still doesn't neccessarily (in the philosophical sense) mean God exists.

I'd also like to clarify, I'm not religious, I just think that a lot of athiests can be just as ignorant as the laity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan ... ll_defense

That's a pretty good theodicy, being a defense rather than a resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy

That's your bog-standard pre-20th century theodicy.

[Unchecked Expansion]

So yes, he exists... but why on earth worship him ? Are you a beetle ?

Any creator loves bacteria more than complex life. We're just elaborate bacterial transport and nutrition machines

[Grave_n_idle]

There are 2 types of evil, according to religious theodicies. Necessary evil, in which good actions shine through - for example, despite 9/11 being a tragedy, the bravery of the firemen who risked their lives prevailed - some good came of a terrible action.

The second type, of the raping-murdering baby variety, is unneccesary evil, where no good comes of the evil. In this scenario, there's a number of explanations for why it occurred, and usually free will is the one most religious believe.

I understand the thinking, but it's just making excuses, and I've not enough time in my life to accommodate it.

Anyone who tries to convince me 9/11 was a 'necessary evil' (I got lucky, my brother wasn't there that day, but had been shortly before) is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not buying it. It might have been politically or strategically 'necessary' for some people, but I find it hard to find a compelling rationale for how it was 'necessary' for the fallen.

Similarly, those who argue that adversity is there to make you stronger - bullshit. If you're one of the 3000 people who were killed on 9/11, it ain't making you stronger. The only thing it's making you, is dead.

(I appreciate these may not be your own arguments - I'm not holding you accountable for being the messenger).

[Drostie]

Anyone who tries to convince me 9/11 was a 'necessary evil' (I got lucky, my brother wasn't there that day, but had been shortly before) is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not buying it. It might have been politically or strategically 'necessary' for some people, but I find it hard to find a compelling rationale for how it was 'necessary' for the fallen.

Similarly, those who argue that adversity is there to make you stronger - bullshit. If you're one of the 3000 people who were killed on 9/11, it ain't making you stronger. The only thing it's making you, is dead.

(I appreciate these may not be your own arguments - I'm not holding you accountable for being the messenger).

Well, traditional theodicies have to do with saying that the world is in some sense essentially perfect, even in the face of things like suffering and failure and cosmic indifference. A theodicy of 9/11 doesn't try to say that it is 'necessary' for the people who died, but that it is 'necessary' for the world to have its essential perfection. (Also, somewhat importantly, the sort of people who believe in a God in the first place tend to also believe in an afterlife for people who die, so that the perfection might not just be in this world, but in the combined this-world+afterlife world.)

In other words, here is how theodicy looks at the problem of 9/11. We live in a world where people can feel anger, where actions have real consequences, and where people can choose to act upon their anger and fight for what they believe in, even if their beliefs are misguided. It comes from these that Osama bin Laden was able to feel angry at the US, and was able to act on that anger, masterminding a plot to attack the US -- and that plot had real consequences, including the deaths of several thousand people.

Theodicy then says, "well, what do you want me to take away, here? We can't take away anger because emotions are just such a core part of the human experience; they are what make us human -- and most emotions can be as destructive as anger was. On the other hand, we can't take away the fact that actions have real consequences without making the world into a sort of pathetic sandbox. And the ability to act on your convictions and to fight for your beliefs is again part of what makes us who we are, and it's good that we have that ability. In fact, we have the ability to fight for our own beliefs, to try to improve the world when terrorism attacks or when natural disasters hit or when love fails. But if we want everyone to have that ability to improve, then it must come with everyone having the ability to destroy, destruction is so much easier than improvement, and improvement often requires destruction of what came before."

My point is not to make the theodicy, but to say that you're trying to pigeonhole theodicy into a particular human story: "It is better for the dead people that they died." But theodicy has to be taken holistically, not particularly: it's not that it's good that they in particular died, but that the alternative sorts of worlds would be worse for everyone.

[Grave_n_idle]

Anyone who tries to convince me 9/11 was a 'necessary evil' (I got lucky, my brother wasn't there that day, but had been shortly before) is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not buying it. It might have been politically or strategically 'necessary' for some people, but I find it hard to find a compelling rationale for how it was 'necessary' for the fallen.

Similarly, those who argue that adversity is there to make you stronger - bullshit. If you're one of the 3000 people who were killed on 9/11, it ain't making you stronger. The only thing it's making you, is dead.

(I appreciate these may not be your own arguments - I'm not holding you accountable for being the messenger).

Well, traditional theodicies have to do with saying that the world is in some sense essentially perfect, even in the face of things like suffering and failure and cosmic indifference. A theodicy of 9/11 doesn't try to say that it is 'necessary' for the people who died, but that it is 'necessary' for the world to have its essential perfection. (Also, somewhat importantly, the sort of people who believe in a God in the first place tend to also believe in an afterlife for people who die, so that the perfection might not just be in this world, but in the combined this-world+afterlife world.)

In other words, here is how theodicy looks at the problem of 9/11. We live in a world where people can feel anger, where actions have real consequences, and where people can choose to act upon their anger and fight for what they believe in, even if their beliefs are misguided. It comes from these that Osama bin Laden was able to feel angry at the US, and was able to act on that anger, masterminding a plot to attack the US -- and that plot had real consequences, including the deaths of several thousand people.

Theodicy then says, "well, what do you want me to take away, here? We can't take away anger because emotions are just such a core part of the human experience; they are what make us human -- and most emotions can be as destructive as anger was. On the other hand, we can't take away the fact that actions have real consequences without making the world into a sort of pathetic sandbox. And the ability to act on your convictions and to fight for your beliefs is again part of what makes us who we are, and it's good that we have that ability. In fact, we have the ability to fight for our own beliefs, to try to improve the world when terrorism attacks or when natural disasters hit or when love fails. But if we want everyone to have that ability to improve, then it must come with everyone having the ability to destroy, destruction is so much easier than improvement, and improvement often requires destruction of what came before."

My point is not to make the theodicy, but to say that you're trying to pigeonhole theodicy into a particular human story: "It is better for the dead people that they died." But theodicy has to be taken holistically, not particularly: it's not that it's good that they in particular died, but that the alternative sorts of worlds would be worse for everyone.

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

[Bottle]

Well, traditional theodicies have to do with saying that the world is in some sense essentially perfect, even in the face of things like suffering and failure and cosmic indifference. A theodicy of 9/11 doesn't try to say that it is 'necessary' for the people who died, but that it is 'necessary' for the world to have its essential perfection. (Also, somewhat importantly, the sort of people who believe in a God in the first place tend to also believe in an afterlife for people who die, so that the perfection might not just be in this world, but in the combined this-world+afterlife world.)

In other words, here is how theodicy looks at the problem of 9/11. We live in a world where people can feel anger, where actions have real consequences, and where people can choose to act upon their anger and fight for what they believe in, even if their beliefs are misguided. It comes from these that Osama bin Laden was able to feel angry at the US, and was able to act on that anger, masterminding a plot to attack the US -- and that plot had real consequences, including the deaths of several thousand people.

Theodicy then says, "well, what do you want me to take away, here? We can't take away anger because emotions are just such a core part of the human experience; they are what make us human -- and most emotions can be as destructive as anger was. On the other hand, we can't take away the fact that actions have real consequences without making the world into a sort of pathetic sandbox. And the ability to act on your convictions and to fight for your beliefs is again part of what makes us who we are, and it's good that we have that ability. In fact, we have the ability to fight for our own beliefs, to try to improve the world when terrorism attacks or when natural disasters hit or when love fails. But if we want everyone to have that ability to improve, then it must come with everyone having the ability to destroy, destruction is so much easier than improvement, and improvement often requires destruction of what came before."

My point is not to make the theodicy, but to say that you're trying to pigeonhole theodicy into a particular human story: "It is better for the dead people that they died." But theodicy has to be taken holistically, not particularly: it's not that it's good that they in particular died, but that the alternative sorts of worlds would be worse for everyone.

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

[Pawn and King]

Well, traditional theodicies have to do with saying that the world is in some sense essentially perfect, even in the face of things like suffering and failure and cosmic indifference. A theodicy of 9/11 doesn't try to say that it is 'necessary' for the people who died, but that it is 'necessary' for the world to have its essential perfection. (Also, somewhat importantly, the sort of people who believe in a God in the first place tend to also believe in an afterlife for people who die, so that the perfection might not just be in this world, but in the combined this-world+afterlife world.)

In other words, here is how theodicy looks at the problem of 9/11. We live in a world where people can feel anger, where actions have real consequences, and where people can choose to act upon their anger and fight for what they believe in, even if their beliefs are misguided. It comes from these that Osama bin Laden was able to feel angry at the US, and was able to act on that anger, masterminding a plot to attack the US -- and that plot had real consequences, including the deaths of several thousand people.

Theodicy then says, "well, what do you want me to take away, here? We can't take away anger because emotions are just such a core part of the human experience; they are what make us human -- and most emotions can be as destructive as anger was. On the other hand, we can't take away the fact that actions have real consequences without making the world into a sort of pathetic sandbox. And the ability to act on your convictions and to fight for your beliefs is again part of what makes us who we are, and it's good that we have that ability. In fact, we have the ability to fight for our own beliefs, to try to improve the world when terrorism attacks or when natural disasters hit or when love fails. But if we want everyone to have that ability to improve, then it must come with everyone having the ability to destroy, destruction is so much easier than improvement, and improvement often requires destruction of what came before."

My point is not to make the theodicy, but to say that you're trying to pigeonhole theodicy into a particular human story: "It is better for the dead people that they died." But theodicy has to be taken holistically, not particularly: it's not that it's good that they in particular died, but that the alternative sorts of worlds would be worse for everyone.

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Because person A, who does the killing, has the choice through free will - which God cannot interfere with (otherwise free will becomes redundant), can kill person B. It's through person A's free will. If God were to interfere in anyway, we would be no better than robots, without any true free will. (Plantinga's theodicy).

This raises the issue of whether the illusion of free will would be just as good as free will, to which philosophers are still debating today. Either way, to have true free will, we need more than just the illusion. So if the Bible is correct in saying humanity developed free will, then it must be more than just the illusion.

A theodicy doesn't make excuses, it's a logical attempt to understand how evil exists in this world when:

God is omnipotent (has the capability to stop evil)
God is omniscient (knows how to stop evil)
God is omnibenevolent (wants to stop evil)
Yet evil exists

It isn't an excuse, it's a logical excursion to refine God.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

I'm afraid that's because you're building the model from the bottom-up, rather than trying to construct an excuse for a fucked-up world as-it-already-is.

You really have an unfair advantage.

[Pawn and King]

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

[Unchecked Expansion]

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

If they still sin, then their free will has not been impaired while their ability to hurt others has. Perfect system

[Central Slavia]

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

Heh, there was an awesome Stanislaw Lem story where that happened on a planet.
Some of the consequences were a mass of people congregating around a couple trying to bang, or people with toothache being dragged to the dentist by an angry crowd.

Also, i raise you a solution: Have humans have a collective consciousness, like that of zerg from starcraft

[Grave_n_idle]

Because person A, who does the killing, has the choice through free will - which God cannot interfere with (otherwise free will becomes redundant),

First, rubbish - I'm assuming the capitalised G in God means we're discussing the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God character, who does an awful lot of direct (hardening pharaoh's heart, for example) and indirect (the Flood, for example) fucking with people's will.

Second, rubbish - the ability of an allegedly omnipotent god to interfere with free will is not going to make free will redundant - indeed, it would only be evidence of the 'miracle' of intervention. If you like that kind of thing.

...can kill person B. It's through person A's free will. If God were to interfere in anyway, we would be no better than robots, without any true free will. (Plantinga's theodicy).

Plantinga's theodicy is rubbish (and scripturally suspect).

Applying the sins of the sinner TO the sinner is no more of a confusion of the theology of 'will and consequence', than the idea of sins hidden under the blood of Christ is.

A theodicy doesn't make excuses...

Rubbish. That's exactly what it does.

[Pawn and King]

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

If they still sin, then their free will has not been impaired while their ability to hurt others has. Perfect system

The ability to feel pain from what harm they cause impairs on free will. If a guy punches a guy who verbally provoked him, he gets hurt too? Or what if someone is mentally damaged, and in his delusions tortures someone. Is it fair due to his mental condition to give him that? I may be moving more onto moral and ethical grounds, but it's similar; I'm sure God would have thought about such things before creating the world.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

How does it change free will? That's nonsensical. It doesn't affect 'will', at all - only 'consequence'.

If you're trying to argue that dealing with the consequences of one's actions is somehow an infringement on will, this is going to be an... interesting.. debate. Especially in light of the current main thrust of the thread referring to the Christian theology and afterlife beliefs.

[Unchecked Expansion]

If they still sin, then their free will has not been impaired while their ability to hurt others has. Perfect system

The ability to feel pain from what harm they cause impairs on free will. If a guy punches a guy who verbally provoked him, he gets hurt too? Or what if someone is mentally damaged, and in his delusions tortures someone. Is it fair due to his mental condition to give him that? I may be moving more onto moral and ethical grounds, but it's similar; I'm sure God would have thought about such things before creating the world.

In that case, all law, including divine law, impairs free will. The idea of divine judgement impairs free will. This is just changing the consequences to be immediate and fair
As for mental conditions, were I a creator I would have designed a race of playthings that weren't susceptible to such things.

[Bottle]

Yeah, I've said it before a hundred times, but I could solve the "problem" described above if I were given omnipotence for 10 seconds:

Give humans physiological empathy. Any harm you cause another person, you will feel yourself.

Boom. No problem with free will any more; you can still be angry, you can still hurt others, you still have to choose how you act. But now you feel whatever harm you cause.

I'm sure there would still be people who do wicked things, but I think we can all agree that the numbers would go down.

I can do a better job than Yahweh!

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

How does physiological empathy change free will in any way? As you said, people are just as free to think about evil, they are just as free to DO evil, they simply face a consequence if they opt to do evil.

It's like how, if you punch somebody in the face, your hand is going to hurt. Does this stop anybody from having free will?

[Pawn and King]

Because person A, who does the killing, has the choice through free will - which God cannot interfere with (otherwise free will becomes redundant),

First, rubbish - I'm assuming the capitalised G in God means we're discussing the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God character, who does an awful lot of direct (hardening pharaoh's heart, for example) and indirect (the Flood, for example) fucking with people's will.

Second, rubbish - the ability of an allegedly omnipotent god to interfere with free will is not going to make free will redundant - indeed, it would only be evidence of the 'miracle' of intervention. If you like that kind of thing.

...can kill person B. It's through person A's free will. If God were to interfere in anyway, we would be no better than robots, without any true free will. (Plantinga's theodicy).

Plantinga's theodicy is rubbish (and scripturally suspect).

Applying the sins of the sinner TO the sinner is no more of a confusion of the theology of 'will and consequence', than the idea of sins hidden under the blood of Christ is.

A theodicy doesn't make excuses...

Rubbish. That's exactly what it does.

First, I suppose so.

Secondly, the Old Testament God is supposedly a different one to the New Testament God. Jesus' sacrifice meant God didn't need to dick around with people again; any miracles since 46AD are absolute bullshit, or scientifically explainable; before that, well no valid sources.

Have you read Plantinga's theodicy? It doesn't rely on scripture at all, and isn't really a theodicy, being more a defence. It merely asserts that God can be all omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and still be logically valid that evil exists. It doesn't rely on scripture at all.

A theodicy doesn't make excuses. It's a logical attempt to explain evil while maintaining Gods attributes. It's literally, a thought experiment with justifying God.

[Pawn and King]

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

How does it change free will? That's nonsensical. It doesn't affect 'will', at all - only 'consequence'.

If you're trying to argue that dealing with the consequences of one's actions is somehow an infringement on will, this is going to be an... interesting.. debate. Especially in light of the current main thrust of the thread referring to the Christian theology and afterlife beliefs.

Accordingly to scripture, thought crime is just as valid a crime as committing the crime itself. Thus, on reflection, giving physiological empathy would be pointless if people are still going to think about the crime.

[Pawn and King]

The ability to feel pain from what harm they cause impairs on free will. If a guy punches a guy who verbally provoked him, he gets hurt too? Or what if someone is mentally damaged, and in his delusions tortures someone. Is it fair due to his mental condition to give him that? I may be moving more onto moral and ethical grounds, but it's similar; I'm sure God would have thought about such things before creating the world.

In that case, all law, including divine law, impairs free will. The idea of divine judgement impairs free will. This is just changing the consequences to be immediate and fair
As for mental conditions, were I a creator I would have designed a race of playthings that weren't susceptible to such things.

I'm not saying it doesn't. It'd certainly explain why God has been somewhat quiet since Jesus' death.

[Pawn and King]

But then the physiological empathy changes free will, and the people who would do evil would still think about it; which according to scripture is a crime in itself.

How does physiological empathy change free will in any way? As you said, people are just as free to think about evil, they are just as free to DO evil, they simply face a consequence if they opt to do evil.

It's like how, if you punch somebody in the face, your hand is going to hurt. Does this stop anybody from having free will?

Shooting someone in the face isn't going to make your hand hurt, though. By the very nature of changing how the act works, by giving humans some kind of collective consciousness, you change the nature of free will itself. People can no longer truly act on an individual basis; it'd create a more egalitarian society, because people would care more for each-other, etc, but part of the challenge of religion is giving others what you yourself require, surpressing your individual neccesity which is already there.

[Drostie]

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Well, the most proximal causes of the angry actions -- the hijackers -- actually are themselves dead at the moment. They died with their victims. Did you want a universe where they survived only to suffer a fate worse than death? Perhaps an eternal torture at the hands of those who have betrayed Goodness before them? I know some theists who can hook you up, if that's what you need to complete your theodicy.

And even on the broad scale, Osama bin Laden is forced to live a life of poverty, stuck in the mountains at the borders of Pakistan, because the alternative is to be brought to trial and quite possibly killed. He's certainly suffering repercussions for his anger. They're just natural repercussions, while you apparently want supernatural repercussions for some reason. (I can't offer any; I'm a naturalist myself.)

This "the killers are dead" problem is probably the biggest problem, too, with the idea of "you will feel any pain that you cause" -- pain can be escaped, transcended, and sometimes even relished. (Actually, no. There is a worse problem, which is the vagueness of the notion of cause. Could someone say ""you will cause me lots of emotional pain if you don't marry me" in order to coerce someone to marry you? If you kill someone, do you yourself die? What if I manage to arrange so that person X can either save person Y at the cost of their own life or else must cause person Z's death -- then I have engineered a case where person X dies either way as a result of their own choice, and it's not clear that one can assign me as a causal agent in the circumstance. And so forth. Perhaps we as a community would just develop a slave class of underlings who do our dirty work for us, thus feeling pain for the decisions that we make.)

The point that a theodicy wants to make is that the system is fair in a different way -- everyone has the same opportunities to act on their beliefs. The system does not judge your beliefs when it comes to situations of cause and effect, but instead is entirely secular in those regards -- you push that trigger, a bullet flies out, no matter whether you're shooting at historical villains like Hitler, historical icons like JFK, innocent creatures like deer, or impending threats like a rabid dog.

It always strikes me as paradoxical that other atheists fail to acknowledge this sort of thing. It's as if they appreciate secularism in government but somehow are indignant about secularism in the laws of physics. Then again, I'm also baffled by the religious people who say that it's best that God stays out of our affairs, but then seek to insert their religions in everyone's affairs.

[Pawn and King]

Except that, in your little story, the person who should feel the repercussions of the actions - if it were 'fair' and 'good'... should be the person who is carrying out the angry action. An allegedly benevolent god allowing one person's anger to end the entire pursuit for another person just doesn't add up. I just don't see how a world in which one person acting like a dick, ends the ability of another person to exert their free will - can be the better alternative.

Well, the most proximal causes of the angry actions -- the hijackers -- actually are themselves dead at the moment. They died with their victims. Did you want a universe where they survived only to suffer a fate worse than death? Perhaps an eternal torture at the hands of those who have betrayed Goodness before them? I know some theists who can hook you up, if that's what you need to complete your theodicy.

And even on the broad scale, Osama bin Laden is forced to live a life of poverty, stuck in the mountains at the borders of Pakistan, because the alternative is to be brought to trial and quite possibly killed. He's certainly suffering repercussions for his anger. They're just natural repercussions, while you apparently want supernatural repercussions for some reason. (I can't offer any; I'm a naturalist myself.)

This "the killers are dead" problem is probably the biggest problem, too, with the idea of "you will feel any pain that you cause" -- pain can be escaped, transcended, and sometimes even relished. (Actually, no. There is a worse problem, which is the vagueness of the notion of cause. Could someone say ""you will cause me lots of emotional pain if you don't marry me" in order to coerce someone to marry you? If you kill someone, do you yourself die? What if I manage to arrange so that person X can either save person Y at the cost of their own life or else must cause person Z's death -- then I have engineered a case where person X dies either way as a result of their own choice, and it's not clear that one can assign me as a causal agent in the circumstance. And so forth. Perhaps we as a community would just develop a slave class of underlings who do our dirty work for us, thus feeling pain for the decisions that we make.)

The point that a theodicy wants to make is that the system is fair in a different way -- everyone has the same opportunities to act on their beliefs. The system does not judge your beliefs when it comes to situations of cause and effect, but instead is entirely secular in those regards -- you push that trigger, a bullet flies out, no matter whether you're shooting at historical villains like Hitler, historical icons like JFK, innocent creatures like deer, or impending threats like a rabid dog.

It always strikes me as paradoxical that other atheists fail to acknowledge this sort of thing. It's as if they appreciate secularism in government but somehow are indignant about secularism in the laws of physics. Then again, I'm also baffled by the religious people who say that it's best that God stays out of our affairs, but then seek to insert their religions in everyone's affairs.

I like you. Can I ask what your religious beliefs are (if any?)

You're certainly a very educated fellow/woman.