2. all that Yahweh wills is good, unlike humans — jorndoe

Who says Yahweh doesn't will the doctors...? And therefore their efforts are also good.

That is, the argument suffers internal logical shortcomings. Those resolved - and likely they cannot be - then content may be worth some attention, but not until.

Who says Yahweh doesn't will the doctors...? And therefore their efforts are also good. — tim wood

Doesn't that violate Yahweh supposedly insisting on "free will"?
After all, the "free will defense" is used for blaming humans, Hitler, Manson, rapists, murderers, ...
Personally at least, I'd like to credit those researchers, doctors, nurses, etc.

Also seems a bit like the children then are collateral damage. :confused:
(Their suffering is not purely "academic".)

Reductio ad absurdum ergo Manichaeism.

It is my opinion that the argument as presented is a good opportunity for an extended exercise of tail-chasing (and not the good kind). Example: "free will." Whenever I hear "free," I immediately ask what it will cost. And of course that's a half-joke, but only half. If the God gives free will, yet will send us to hell for the free exercise thereof, then by what measure was it free?

A problem with the Loch Ness monster is that it surfaces but rarely, and then very briefly indeed, and only in small parts, leaving witnesses and those who assess the testimony questioning the existence itself of the thing. Shall we say that about your thinking?

I appreciate the warm welcome.

, ugh, "free will" is a can of worms.
Wasn't there some parallel thread about that, at least peripherally, recently?
I'm guessing that researchers and such will say they chose what they do.

Let me just add, the opening post is not itself an alternate rendition of the Epicurean problem.
In a way, it's a response to "the greater good defense" of "the problem of suffering".
Yahweh supposedly has every warrant; what warrant do we (researchers, doctors) then have?

I find that the POE has already been made, just like Roe v Wade. No need for another.

what warrant do we (researchers, doctors) then have? — jorndoe

God's command to you to do the good, the right, the correct, the best, the just as God reveals them to you.

Epicurus reverses the logical relationship between practice and theory. If theory is normally the rationale of practice and this is an example of that in the field of facts, in epicurism the practice it is what artificially produces the psychological condition that will make the theory credible, and the theoretical discourse will be nothing more than the discursive element of practice, the verbal translation of the belief produced by the habit. Epicurean theory does not describe the perceived world, but its practice alters, through exercises, the perception of the world, so that it becomes similar to the theory. It is not a question of understanding the world, but of transforming it.

, "children suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer" is both good (Yahweh, 3) and bad (doctors, 4)? Seems contradictory.

, objection to/affirmation of the opening post...?

Seems contradictory. — jorndoe

If Walt Whitman could contain multitudes, I do not see why God cannot contain a contradiction or two. Do you?

Explosive, . :)

Lol. That's for people. For God you have to turn it inside out.. We go, "contradiction - oops, explosion." God goes, "explosions - I invented contradiction." Or something like that. Which would be his own way of proving himself - out of explosion. Have we exhausted this topic yet?

I don't think that makes much of a case for Yahweh, . :)

If Yahweh created self-identity, then Yahweh would also not be Yahweh. Say, both all-creator and not all-creator.
We would not be able to speak of "something" like that, since "it" would also not be "itself" (and even saying that would be going a step too far by merely using the term "something" in such a fashion). Not schizophrenia, not even chaos, just baby-talk, like a kind of "illogical" intellectual suicide.
There cannot be anything in particular prior self-identity. It's meaningless, since "meaning" presupposes identity.

Incidentally, that's also where the presuppositionalists go over the top. Or it's one of their troubles anyway.

greater good defense — jorndoe

My two cents:

The notion of the "greater good" taken to its logical conclusion would entail that nothing is good enough to be the greater good. To clarify, allow me to present a plausible but disturbing scenario: the greater good principle is essentially mathematical/quantitative as the word "greater" suggests. So, the good of 2 people is "greater" than the good of 1 person, the good of 3 people is "greater" than the good of 2 people, the good of 4 people is "greater" than the good of 3 people, the good of n+1 people is "greater" than the good of n people, so and so forth ad infinitum. In short, there will always be a greater good for any given number of people. Compared to an infinite number of people, any finite number of people would fall short of qualifying as a/the greater good. The greater good principle is deeply flawed for it implies there is no such thing.

So, Yahweh, being omniscient and all, can't be, shouldn't be, applying the principle of greater good for it's self-refuting. The children in St. Jude's Hospital are suffering and dying not because god wills it for the "greater" good but because of something else. What that something else is is anyone's guess but, for certain, it isn't for the "greater" good for the simple reason that there's no such thing as a/the "greater" good.

, "the greatest good" is where the halls of Hell are empty and Heaven is sprawling with infinite souls? :)

By and large, the universe doesn't care about us. Seems we're just dispersing energy entropically, made of stardust, riding on sunlight, like dinosaurs, covid-19, cancer and roses. Deities neither evident nor necessary.

Happy Thanksgiving. (y)

Incidentally, that's also where the presuppositionalists go over the top. Or it's one of their troubles anyway. — jorndoe

\

Deities neither evident nor necessary. — jorndoe

Amen and amen.

But. I'm among those who feel that entirely self-evidently infinities of any kind simply do not exist cannot exist, except as useful ideas. All notions of God the same, collectively a set of ideas with some utility. What if anything could or should replace them an open question. At best seeming a good idea, but whether necessary or the best?

I guess if you're applying Epicurus to this he could say
1) there are multiple gods instead of 1 god
2) he could say that death is nothing to be feared of ... however ... we do moral things ... so that we later don't experience a guilty conscious ... so maybe in this sense Epicurus could say that while some children may die because nothing could be done for them (nothing to fear) ... those who maybe had the capability to help or had a calling to help may experience a guilty conscious, so they ought to help.
3) he may also say that while gods exist they don't partake in human activities , so the idea of Gods good will directed at everything may not be supported by Epicurus

This is my understanding and I had to review Epicurus ... and I could be way off

To paraphrase a bit, your original argument may have this form:

1, Yahweh is good and all Yahweh wants is good.
2, Children who suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer is permitted by Yahweh.
3, Children who suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer is good.
4. The will and sentiments of researchers who endeavor to save those children are contrary to 3.
5. Activities of these researchers are not good.
6. Therefore, there should be no more medication to be made for prevention/cure/relief.

Supposing that premise 1&2 are both true, premise 3 still seems to be a problematic conclusion because suffering of children is not something He(Yahweh) wants — I guess you can say that it’s permitted though, under His own purpose. But suffering and suffering alone in this sense, is NOT what He put to you so that you can be left to deal with it, this is not and will never be His purpose.
There are several ways to solve the Epicurean problem in this case:
(1)Evil(children’s suffering) is part of God’s purpose, where God uses it to achieve what's good. But here we’re discussing Yahweh, who’s all-good, so evil isn’t part of the plan.
(2)What we think to be evil doesn’t actually exist because it is just “evil as opposed to good”: in this case, children’s suffering is not evil, and Yahweh doesn’t see it as evil.
Many may find that (2) is hard to be agreed, but here's among what I can think of the best explanation: God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but He has His plan and purpose. According to the bible, God would wipe out all of the suffering and save humans when He thinks it’s the right time — when the salvation is achieved by the sacrifice of Christ, which therefore destroys the true evil. And finally, God promises the eternal life, where there’s no suffering or pain. So the pain/suffering anyone has experienced on earth is eliminated forever. So human suffering is not regarded as irrelevant by God, it is rather something He finds so heavy and He sacrifice his own son to end this, And it’s a misunderstanding that there is a “greater good”, or good in the big picture, because salvation is always about individuals, and God is not a pragmatic God.
for premise 4, they(the researchers who try to save the children and find the cure) do not fail to imitate Yahweh, in fact, they succeed in doing it. The reason is simply that Yahweh is good and all He wants is good, and being altruistic to help those who suffer is certainly good(thus premise 5 and 6 both fail), so it is not contradictory and unwanted(from your link page, imitating Yahweh is to represent His image, which image is omnibenevolent).

Thanks for the response, , and apologies for the late response.
Both wants and can, but doesn't?
FYI, here's an alternate layout of the opening post:


The Epicurean Problem

We observe children suffer terribly and die uselessly from cancer, while researchers work hard to prevent/relieve/cure as with "prior" (or historical) maladies.

Researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital want to but can't prevent/relieve/cure children suffering terribly and dying uselessly from cancer (4 below).

(want ⇐ benevolent)
(can't ⇐ not (yet) capable, not (yet) knowledgable)

If Yahweh wanted to and could have His creation free of the terrible suffering and useless death of those children from cancer, then what do you think would be the case?

(wanted ⇐ omnibenevolent)
(could ⇐ omnipotent, omniscient)

1. unlike humans, Yahweh (almighty all-creator) is and wills good
2. what Yahweh wills is good, unlike humans at large
3. the children that suffer and die from cancer is good, e.g. "the greater good"
4. the will and sentiments of researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital are contrary to 3 and unlike following Yahweh's example
5. activities of researchers at the Hospital are not good (and are without warrant)

Cease and desist? No more vaccines and whatever else medicine, prevention/relief/cure?

"The greater good" defense challenges the term "useless" above — the predicament is not useless but for an unknown greater good — to which the points 1-5 is a response.
By assertion, Yahweh has every warrant without exception; what warrant do researchers, doctors, etc then have (1-3 above)?

Premises 1 and 2 are fairly typical and figure more or less as definitions in divine command theory and theological voluntarism.

Cease and desist? No more vaccines and whatever else medicine, prevention/relief/cure? — jorndoe

It's all good to God. Disease, vaccines, suffering, stopping suffering, all of it's fine.

What an odd thing to write, .
Children suffering terribly and dying uselessly from cancer ain't good.
Should we worry about you getting your hands on some Ebola and...? :)
By deeming everything good, it has kind of lost its meaning.

Children suffering terribly and dying uselessly from cancer ain't good — jorndoe

I agree. Read it again.

jorndoe, what's wrong, if anything, with the response that from God's point of view, there is no evil? That preserves all the omnis and there is no contradiction.

"the greatest good" is where the halls of Hell are empty and Heaven is sprawling with infinite souls? :)

By and large, the universe doesn't care about us. Seems we're just dispersing energy entropically, made of stardust, riding on sunlight, like dinosaurs, covid-19, cancer and roses. Deities neither evident nor necessary.

Happy Thanksgiving. (y) — jorndoe

Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Sorry if this reply comes to late. I just saw it now.

I hope this doesn't bore you but I have issue with the part of your post I underlined.

When you say "the universe doesn't care about us" it gives the impression that the universe is indifferent to our interests, hopes and fears as if it were a neutral spectator at a soccer match who doesn't care which team takes the trophy. So far so good, I hope.

Then you mentioned entropy and this concept is precisely what doesn't square with an indifferent universe for the reason that entropy, if I haven't misunderstood it, means that for any given number of ways thing can go right for you there are more ways it can all go south for you. The universe, the way it works (entropy), is guaranteed to thwart your best plans of having a pleasurable experience. Put simply, the universe isn't indifferent, it's assuredly against us.

@180 Proof I wouldn't mind if you chimed in. Thanks