God CAN be all powerful and all good, despite the existence of evil
Alternative title: the Bible in two paragraphs.
So the common argument is as follows: God can't be all powerful and all good. This is because evil exists. Either God can't or won't destroy evil; if he can't, he's not all powerful, if he won't, he is not all good.
The reason why I put this thread in the philosophy of religion, instead of general philosophy, is because the Answer, which I will provide in just a moment, has such strong correlations to Christianity.
Please, however, do not let that put you off. This is by no means intended as an evangelical piece; rather, this piece demistifies Christianity, separates the metaphors contained therein, and frees them from their theological context.
Without further ado:
Corruption requires Purity to have proceded it, a flaw implies flawlesness. This is duality, because each requires the other and implies it. However, when corruption exists, there uniquely exists the idea of perfection: when corruption overcomes itself(not escaped or freed of, which would be purity) it is corruption that is only by the most technical term, as it is good. Perfection is defined as acting against and/or in spite of imperfection. Which means it is attainable to us as imperfect beings, rather than purity which would require our destruction along with the rest of iniquity. Purification is deadly to corruption, and is in fact inferior to Perfection, because corruption is able to infect purity, but can only ever fall from perfection back into corruption.
This is what christianity is all about, the walk of imperfect beings into perfection. What sane human doesn't want to be able to be a good person? The religious aspect is not needed, because we know how easily it itself becomes corrupted. 'jesus' is the state of perfection, the force of progress, which is why he is the 'only begotten son' and why we all need Him. 'Satan' is the state of Corruption, which is apart from, and against purity, or 'The Father'. Which is why the OT Law is so harsh for requiring our eternal torment, but justified, and why the NT God is so drastically different. Jesus set the standard higher than purity and made it available to us.
So the common argument is as follows: God can't be all powerful and all good. This is because evil exists. Either God can't or won't destroy evil; if he can't, he's not all powerful, if he won't, he is not all good.
The reason why I put this thread in the philosophy of religion, instead of general philosophy, is because the Answer, which I will provide in just a moment, has such strong correlations to Christianity.
Please, however, do not let that put you off. This is by no means intended as an evangelical piece; rather, this piece demistifies Christianity, separates the metaphors contained therein, and frees them from their theological context.
Without further ado:
Corruption requires Purity to have proceded it, a flaw implies flawlesness. This is duality, because each requires the other and implies it. However, when corruption exists, there uniquely exists the idea of perfection: when corruption overcomes itself(not escaped or freed of, which would be purity) it is corruption that is only by the most technical term, as it is good. Perfection is defined as acting against and/or in spite of imperfection. Which means it is attainable to us as imperfect beings, rather than purity which would require our destruction along with the rest of iniquity. Purification is deadly to corruption, and is in fact inferior to Perfection, because corruption is able to infect purity, but can only ever fall from perfection back into corruption.
This is what christianity is all about, the walk of imperfect beings into perfection. What sane human doesn't want to be able to be a good person? The religious aspect is not needed, because we know how easily it itself becomes corrupted. 'jesus' is the state of perfection, the force of progress, which is why he is the 'only begotten son' and why we all need Him. 'Satan' is the state of Corruption, which is apart from, and against purity, or 'The Father'. Which is why the OT Law is so harsh for requiring our eternal torment, but justified, and why the NT God is so drastically different. Jesus set the standard higher than purity and made it available to us.
Comments (114)
They sure do disappear. The only way around that is to redefine good to mean something else than what it means for humans. But then, that means God isn't all-good. God is something else.
Well, andrewk. Firstly, I'm not a theologian. I'm a metaphysicist.
Secondly that's not "Evil", that's corrupted data. Which is an inevitability for beings who inhabit a temporal structure. That which allows us life and breath, also introduces decay and corruption. There is no avoiding the latter, without cessation of the former. Not saying it's not bad, or horrible. It's just not "evil"
Evil, is someone coming and raping then killing the baby. Evil, is slaughter of a thousand babies. Evil, is subjugation and indoctrination of a million more babies.
These things are, inarguably, evil. And yet, what if there was more than our limited, human, temporal consciousness could perceive? Consider the actions of Adolf Hitler. Can we say his actions were evil? Yes. But can we say that everything that follows as a result of his actions, is also evil? We cannot. What if, in fact, The consequences of Hitler's actions, teaches us humans such lessons that, a thousand years to the future, we have a peace and prosperity such as could have not occurred in any other timeline?
My point here is that all we see of evil is the action, we don't see the results of it. The reconciliation of an all powerful hod and an all good god is that evil serves a purpose, his purpose, to bring about a greater good than could have been achieved without it.
My op illustrates this principle in action, in the form of the human individual questioning and facing his own corruption. The reason evil exists in man is for it to be faced, fought, and conquered, such that ensures, quite literally, a greater good than the greatest possible amount of pure goodness.
I know that last sentence is confusing so I will reiterate: Purity is the greatest amount of good, such that it has no evil, no corruption. But, purity can become corrupted, by their very definitions, because corruption is what makes purity no longer pure. Once corrupted, a sample can be purified, resulting in the death of the corrupt sample. Now pure, the sample can become corrupted again.
God could strike all evil from our world, snap his fingers and give us heaven on earth. But you know what would happen if he did? It'd just get corrupted again, because without the knowledge of how heaven on earth was built, it cannot possibly be maintained.
The point of evil is to be overcome. When evil faces and conquers itself, a greater good than purity is achieved. As it is still corruption, it cannot be corrupted again. But as long as it resolves to fight itself, it won't act as corruption, but as purity.
Now imagine what corruption is to the human. Is it not of the mind? The actions follow from the mind. The metaphors contained in the Bible, which I separately discovered as logical truth, and only afterward discovered the correlations to the Bible, highlight the method by which an evil being overcomes itself.
I really don't know where premises like these come from.
Which bit? The phrase "corrupted data", or the inevitability of corruption thanks to time?
As to the latter have you never heard of entropy? It's not just the decay of physical matter, or information, it's negativity and corruption in all its forms.
As to why I claimed it's corrupted data. There's way to much scientific evidence on the correlation of reality to computers and holograms for me to even know where to start.
Yes, I have heard of entropy. But there is a difference in pointing out a law of thermodynamics, which is an observation of how the universe is, and looking at whether this is a necessity in a divinely designed universe. I am curious as to why you think that this is a necessity in a divinely designed universe. Because if it is not, then the creation of such a universe certainly places the responsibility on God for children dying of slow and painful diseases.
Oh, okay :) I will then elaborate.
First, the thesis statement.
For a creation to be temporal, that is, capable of change and therefore interaction and growth, it must also be subject to decay.
We can think of time in many ways. Motion being the simplest. But decay is the other. These two concepts, we find, our tied together. Unravelling them may be no easy task; I have the understanding, but transitioning it into words may be a little rough so bear with me.
Continued
So now imagine that from the state of change, suddenly there was motion. Now, too, is there time, for there is a measurable difference between then, and now, as reflected by the change in state of the object observed in motion.(never minding, for now, the fact that this first motion, would have been thought itself, for that's a whole nother topic)
Now, motion implies direction. If something is moving, there must be something it is moving away from, and/or something it is moving torwards, else wise we would never know motion from stillness.
Even here, so early in the definition, we find the concept of Progress. If time is the measurement of change, then progress would be the measurement of that change in relation to a particular object or state.
The common concept of Time can be adequately summed in the phrase "Time marches inexorably onward." The thought is that time is, itself, in motion. This is because time is motion. It is always moving, because if ever there was no motion, it would cease to exist.
Now where does decay enter the picture? Truthfully, it's already there. However at this point my logic must take a more conjectural basis.
If there is no time, no change, then what is will always be, unceasingly. If the entire universe were to suddenly cease... Forever it would remain, so long as it remained unchanging. Do you begin to see? I know my words are a bit rough. Let's go further.
Back to motion. With motion, we have change and time, as ive made mention of already. With these, progress. But he very idea of progress, as it relates to what can be termed a "goal" implies motion away from the same goal. You can move to, and away. But this isn't just true, for physical things. This is also true for metaphysical things, thoughts, feelings, and ideas.
And... Once the "wheel" of time starts... Change is constant. And what will happen to any thing, given enough change? Wear and tear. To not have wear and tear would mean no friction... And it's hard to imagine how anything would start or stop in such a world.
The very act of change incurs decay... The very face of existence itself, as we know it, aka "space-time" stands against the void... And cannot do so without effects. Newton's third law comes to mind. Existence can separate itself from nonexistence, bit in so doing, nonexistence always works to brink it back into the fold.
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Oka-ay, Thanks for giving the original question. Now, onto the subject matter? :P
I wouldn't say that, even in such a scenario, the creator would be completely blameless. He still gave the creatures that choice. I'm not arguing that God doesn't hold blame for evil. I'm arguing that it isn't senseless, and that it ultimately achieves a greater good. A phrase comes to mind. "No pain, no gain"
Will a man hate his personal trainer? Possibly. What if the man doesn't know he's being trained? Certainly. But if the man were to realize he was being trained, would he still hate?
This has been refuted a few times by different people.
My favorite refutation is Kant's.
His idea is that the ontological argument is based in the idea of existence never as a predicate. His idea is that the condition of a statement such as "God Exists," by whatever means, does not mean that by virtue of the fact that we can address the idea of a God, one must exist. In fact, this is not the case. Kant says that being is something rather displayed in the world, and as such, the being of something must be verifiable in the world. Otherwise, saying "God does not exist" would be both affirming and denying his existence at the same time.
I can't say that I am convinced by what I understand of this argument.
Time implies change from state to state - for the sake of this discussion, let us accept this as uncontroversial.
We can track these changes by their relation to other states - again, for the sake of this discussion, let us accept this as uncontroversial. Let us call these reference states.
'Entropy' or 'decay' is then change from a state more alike to a reference state of 'order' to a state more like the reference state of 'disorder'. We need not specially define these reference states to have a general idea of what we mean - hopefully we are following each other here. While some may have a negative connotation with the reference state of disorder, I believe that your argument is that there is no moral judgement made upon this reference state. It is the intentional striving, or lack thereof, away from this reference state that is important. Your argument, then, as I follow it, suggests that God cannot have an intentional striving away from this reference state without removing (for want of a better word) time.
I think that there are two problems here - one immediate problem and a general problem.
The immediate problem is that no one is truly asking of God that all decay be prevented, just certain types of decay. All human growth requires entropy, so there are innumerable examples of decay related to bringing order and growth to human life. It is not necessary, therefore, for any human to suffer a painful, terminal illness because time requires decay, because obviously there are humans who do not suffer this particular type of decay and time still marches on. Decay as a necessary outcome of time in general does not imply decay as suffering is necessary. (This is to say nothing of the argument that decay requires suffering, which is not a point you have established.)
The general problem is that a reference state of disorder as such need exist at all, or be a state that is progressed towards. In a divinely designed universe, why cannot there be a series of differently order referenced states that are progressed towards, not of which fit the general condition of 'disorder' or some similarly negatively conceived of state, so that the onwards marching of time does not require decay? That is, a progress from utopia to utopia. Or, alternatively, could not disorder be the ultimate starting state, so that the progress of time continually moved towards order and decay is a theoretical concept only?
My main point is that when imagining the universe, we are often stuck imagining that some of the conditions that exist are necessary. I think it is a failure of the imagination in regards to a divine being to imagine that some of these trappings are necessary, and I propose to you that the concept of decay being necessary for time is not a necessary constraint, but one that you have derived from the particulars of our universe, and not one that is required for any possible universe, of which God could presumably create any.
"You are also referring to the ontological argument, the idea that because the idea of perfection exists, the ideal or form of perfection must exist, and since humans are imperfect, God would be perfection and so God exists."
I would suggest you reread my op. I'm not making an argument for god, im only put this in the philosophy of religion because I used religious concepts to explain my metaphysical one.
And if you had read my op, you would know that I'm not claiming that gos is perfection. I claim he is purity, and explicitly make the distinction between the two. Maybe I wasn't clear enough?
As for the rest, I will make no comment. Simply because I don't know how you got hat out of my op. Never was i arguing for god, I related the concept of God to a metaphysical concept. I even explicitly stated the usage of religious terms as a tool.
Maybe if you could show me exactly why you feel like I'm referring to that? Because if I was, I'm unaware of it; and such was certainly not my intention. My intention to the op was to talk about the state of humans minds and the pah of redemption through corruotion itself.
However. Because I can't resist. You said "Otherwise, saying "God does not exist" would be both affirming and denying his existence at the same time."
In a purely linguistic sense, that is exactly what is happening. By referring to god, you are necessary referring to the existence of such a concept(but not the validity of that concept, I'm not sure how you've come to equate those two as one), and then you go on to state your belief that that concept is invalid. So it is, again, in a linguistic sense, both agfirming and denying God.
In any sense, "the path to redemption" seems to be bracketed within what designates the being of what would be it, namely the opposite of redemption, as if there is sin in the first place. All of this seems to be presupposition.
Maybe you can clarify this for me?
Anyway, I was simply remarking upon previous philosophical concepts that are similar.
But this is an interesting question.
I would not say that philosophy does anything for itself. I would, furthermore, say that philosophy is not in itself an entity that is apprehendable. Philosophy is in the act of philosophy. That is what I would say. But obviously you can object and perhaps I am wrong!
If, on the other hand you say, well, if philosophy is at base not for its own good wouldn't it be for your own good? And so since you are, in a sense, the condition of the philosophy, the basing of a philosophy, supposedly, beyond good and evil, would be inevitably basing yourself beyond good and evil... How would this be the case if philosophy is for one's own good?
If we concede that 'good' means the same thing as the 'good' opposed to evil, we seem to be at an end here, right?
But no! Whose good is philosophy for? What is this basing of yourself? What is for your own good? What constitutes this? These questions constitute philosophy, and therefore the whole question of this is beyond good and evil.
Ergo philosophy is beyond good and evil.
Jung said that around 35 people's souls die, or the anima dies, and with it goes their youth, and kindness. He thought this to be normal for everyone with the exception of artists that maintain the connection past this point of middle age. Jesus is the truth, the life and the way... a strange claim indeed... maybe we're all is missing something not only important, but the only truly satisfactory thing that exists. The value of it, and the possible lose of it, equating to much higher stakes than the evils of creation, rendering all else mere trifles.
The question is really not very answerable without knowing the mind of God himself. There are greater authorities, perhaps greatest authorities, this is why we are to be humble, to have faith.
The ontological argument has valid arguments against, but to my knowledge has not been refuted
I do agree the op is a restatement of the ontological argument. Still believe the only valid argument against the argument from evil is compensating goods, free will as the compensating good as the evil done by people, and skeptical theism for natural evils.
Too much presupposition for me in religion.
God is at base a transpersonal creation so to provide a condition for the things people wish to be not governed by the 'relativistic' human. People want to be subjugated to absolutes so they do not have to think deeper.
If the ontological argument is still in some fashion legitimate, how?
Good and evil is about wisdom and ignorance. Also, it is about us, humans. Religion began as a way to understand life. However, due to human inadequacies, it reflected more of our bias than intelligence. I think it is why philosophy is steadily replacing religion, as more people choose to actively participate intelligently in their lives instead of blindly following others. If people questioned religion more often, it would be possible to discover the errors in those teachings (which are clearly human), correct them and participate more reasonably. Still, some people can filter out the madness and feed on the nectar therein; though, few indeed.
Quoting Lucid
You need an argument against that, in those same terms. If God won't destroy evil, then why isn't it the case that God is not all good? That's what's absent from your waffle. All of your talk of corruption, purity, perfection, and so on, is meaningless if you don't bring it back to this key point which you're supposed to be arguing against. You should be able to some it up in a few sentences.
There are very many people, completely in their right mind who find the skeptical theism argument for compensating goods quite reasonable. Your point above is opinion and not argument.
That's simply not true. You don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you go out, conduct a survey, and see what the results are? It's not mere opinion, the results are very predictable. If you give people examples of evil acts, like rape, murder, child abuse, and genocide, they'll respond in their droves that these acts are unjustifiable. And, of course, the small number of people who respond otherwise constitutes evidence of compromised moral judgement. The only people who would dispute this are religious nuts, and they have no credibility on account of being religious nuts. Maybe you're one of them.
If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.
Is God only the God of Humans?
If you're talking about the God of the Bible, then yes, there is a clear sense, supported by scripture, in which God is the God of humanity, over and above fish, felines, canines, birds, and all other animals. See here.
If you think that it's acceptable to interpret an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough in his or her loving mother's arms as a gift, then there's something wrong with you. Heaven is a fiction, a human invention, and a psychological coping mechanism.
The God I worship is the God of humans and Bordetella pertussis, and everything else too.
Your God is your problem. :roll:
Okay. Have fun worshiping an imaginary God.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I don't have a God. That's other people's problem.
You know it's true. (Or maybe you really don't, and are ignorant of what the typical reaction would be. Maybe you should crawl out from under that rock and actually talk to people).
Quoting Rank Amateur
No way, man. Who knew? Thanks for clearing that up.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Nice try. There's a burden on both, and it begins with the theist, who has the burden of attempting to resolve the problem of evil. If problems are found in the attempted resolution, then again, there's a burden on the theist to attempt to resolve it. It's a back and forth thing.
By your own choice. Damnation is a positive thing from the perspective of those that want it.
The co-existence of multiple unjustifiable moral actions is incoherent in utilitarianism, which is a fairly wide-spread philosophy especially amongst those without deep knowledge of philosophy. If the answers were as homogeneous as you claimed it'd be because an average person doesn't understand the word unjustifiable. Would rape be unjustified even if it prevented a genocide (or vice versa)?
If we are talking about the God of the Bible, which is the god that is almost always the one under discussion when this topic of theodicy comes up, then Yes, because the story of that god, and all the theories of its nature, is written by humans.
If we are talking about other concepts of God then No, but many, possibly most, other concepts of god don't have the same problem, because they do not assert omnipotence. So there is nothing that such concepts of god need to be defended against.
The god that forms part of my worldview from time to time is not the god of the bible. She is the god of all things, and she is not omnipotent. So the problem of evil does not arise.
What reality must you live in for this to bear true? It must require a substantial disassociation, a denial, a rationalisation, a religious fervour.
And what possible realistic scenario can you envision where, say, raping a baby prevents genocide? Let's keep it real. If your moral philosophy is far removed from reality and requires bending over backwards and mental gymnastics, then what value is it, really?
Why? The discussion has a bearded sky fairy judging your masturbation as a premise (not my phrasing btw).
My point is we're talking of evil and/or suffering having a meaning and being a tool for greater good on a metaphysical level, so I don't think completely valid thought experiments can be brushed off merely for not being realistic from the viewpoint of our everyday lives.
I guess what I'm saying is that you're arguing that those actions are unjustifiable but simultaneously assume that they can't have good consequences, which is circular reasoning.
A reality within which I can breathe fully. A reality within which I do not need to trust anyone, in order to be kind to them. A reality within which I cannot be bought, sold or intimidated. A reality within which I hold all the keys. A reality within which, I am justified, and can act freely without hesitation. I wonder what kind of reality you live in?
No. It is an argument by anybody that does not believe that there is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, that no being, created or uncreated, have all three of those properties. In no way does that require that the person making the argument is an atheist.
My choice is to drop the omnipotent bit, as it has enormous logical problems even before one gets to considering the problem of evil. A non-omnipotent god is far more lovable.
Sorry, I forgot where I was for moment there.
Quoting BlueBanana
In what sense is the thought experiment completely valid? It's possible, yet counterintuitive and unconvincing. That's all it has going for it, so on that basis, I do think that it can brushed off for being unrealistic, just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off.
Quoting BlueBanana
No, I'm not saying that they can't have good consequences.
The compensating good for all the evil caused by the acts of men is free will. If you consider free willed beings to be a good, then you must accept the evil that free willed beings can do. You can not have one, without the other.
The harder issue for theists to counter are natural evils. This requires the noseeum defense of the skeptical theist.
Yes, despite your word smithing and personal definition of God, The Argument From Evil, is, was, and has always been an atheistic argument against the existence of God.
Duality is an invention of the human mind, a very very small electro-chemical mechanical device which operates by a process of conceptual division. Declaring God to be good or evil, powerful or powerless, perfect or imperfect, existing or non-existing, small or large etc is an attempt to reduce God to human scale so that it would be comprehensible to us.
Assuming something the scale of a God exists, it seems quite unlikely it would be bound by the dualistic "this or that" paradigms created by the minds of a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. As example, consider the vast majority of reality, space. It can reasonably be said to both exist, and not exist. Our dualistic minds demand that it be one or the other, exist or not exist, but reality is not required to comply with our human limitations.
Any perceived division between perfection and imperfection, purity and corruption etc, are just illusions created by a device which operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts.
Point being, all such conversations are doomed from the start as they are incurably limited by the medium in which they are taking place. All we can hope to accomplish is entertainment.
So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? :wink:
Quoting andrewk
:up: :smile:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Quoting Sapientia
I do, and I will, thank you. :razz: But your unnecessary emotional outburst - "an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough" - ignores the needs and wants of another of God's creatures: Bordetella pertussis. Should vampire bats be exterminated because they feed off cows? Should bears be exterminated because humans have stolen their lands, and seek to prevent them from moving elsewhere? And so on, and on.... Humans are only one species; there are many other species who live here.
Reality. You live in your own little world, where there's a God, and only God can damn people. That's not reality.
You're just making things up. You could arbitrarily pick a number of good things we already possess and claim them to be the compensating good for evil. Why would an all good God put us in a world with evil to begin with? Why would an all good God need to compensate to begin with? That's either malice or incompetence.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's not hard to resolve. It's only hard for theists because they don't like the inconvenient truth and cling to their precious beliefs about God.
Hol' up.
It is a problem of any set of beliefs that asserts that its god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That includes the main branches of Christianity, but not all of them. I expect there are other religions that promote the same troublesome set of three beliefs, and they'll have the same problem.
It is often used by atheists. It is also used by theists that reject the notion of omnipotence, and I have witnessed such people making it. Are you saying that I misheard, or that they were lying when they said they were theists?
And further, if you do use this justification, the cost of innocents' suffering for this pretty pattern of dualism and redemption makes it even more evil.
This is where the karma idea has a bit of an advantage in theoretical terms: you can explain away the kid suffering sexual abuse as being punishment for crimes they committed in a past life. That makes the picture make a kind of sense over vast stretches of time. But of course it's horrendous in another way, and excuses current abuses, etc.
Q.E.D.
I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. Can you fill in some more on that for me.
Yes, the notion of omnipotence is simplistic and anthropomorphic.
Michael Ossipoff
What do you want to know? I am by no means knowledgeable about all types of theism. I am just observing that omnipotence does not logically follow from creating the universe, or from omniscience or benevolence, and I have seen people who are devout theists talk about the limitations of their god. I even saw a Christian book about it a few years back. I'll look for it but I suspect it may have gone back to the second-hand book seller (It was not mine). The theme was that the incarnation and crucifixion was God's attempt to redress the harm from mistakes that She made.
Personally, I find such types of theism attractive. For me, being fallible is a prerequisite for being lovable.
The world is full of well-meaning creators that have not had full control of their creations. Just look at Frankenstein, or any parent.
For one thing, why the issue? The science of Theist-ology? There are plenty of Theists who'll be most glad to talk to you....like the promotional ones who knock on your door. So ask them. ...instead of speculating.
But why is it important to know if there are Theists who acknowledge omniscience and benevolence, but exclude omnipotence? Surely when they're trying to convert you, they'll tell you about beliefs, even if you don't ask....but especially if you do ask..
As for omnipotence, do you think that Theists should believe that it's possible to make there be statements that are both false and true, or, in general to make there be mutually-contradictory facts or mutually contradictory true propositions? ...to contravene logic?
...because, otherwise, what's the "omni-" in "omnipotence" supposed to mean?
Michael Ossipoff
God remains culpable.
I don't remember "omnibenevolence" being on the list of God's qualities, but I wonder if the main issue isn't the obvious and direct one: that what is 'good' for humans can be 'evil' for other living creatures. And vice versa. Only a God who promotes human domination and oppression in the world gives rise, eventually, to this 'problem' of 'evil'. It's due to humans screaming "Me! Me! Me!", as children are wont to do. :roll: :fear:
I assume this is a joke. :smile: :smile: :smile:
This isn't really the right place to discuss this - it's way off topic - but I just can't let this go. This is the main lesson that philosophy, via logic, passes to humans: that these theories can't be brushed off.
No theory which accounts for all the evidence - especially when there's little evidence, or none at all - can be dismissed. We can only chose between them on the basis of utility; of how useful they are. You could be a brain in a vat. There is no way you can tell. To dismiss this possibility leaves you in a state of (philosophical) sin. It means you only believe stuff that you like, and feel free to dismiss that which you don't. If you do that, philosophers will mock you, and call you names in the playground. :joke:
...because you firmly and unshakably believe that God is omnipotent.
By the way, your use of the word "creation" is unnecessarily and unrealistically anthropomorphic. Do you also believe that that creation was accomplished in 7 days?
Michael Ossipoff
It seems that discussions such as this one pretty much always assume without questioning that reason is relevant, and then proceed in earnest based on that assumption. That process might be compared to a theology convention where everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God, and then from that unquestioned assumption proceed to have a Bible verse interpretation debate.
If you're an atheist, imagine you are at that theology convention. You probably won't get sucked in to the Bible verse interpretation debate, because you will first ask for proof that the Bible is anything more than a pile of human opinions. That is, you will reasonably challenge the authority the entire debate is built upon before agreeing to engage the Bible verse interpretations.
That's what I'm asking for, before we dive in to logic dancing could someone please demonstrate that something as small as human reason would be at all relevant to something the scale of gods?
Here's a better answer:
Good--Admitting that you don't know what you're criticizing or disbelieving is the first step to some kind of progress. The next step might be realizing that it doesn't make any sense to build an argument for Atheism on something that you don't know about.
...to loudly assert disbelief in a belief that you don't know if anyone here believes in.
But yes, we get that you disbelieve in Biblical Literalism and Fundamentalism. But do you really think a philosophy forum is the place to find the Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists with whom you disagree? You need to take your disagreement to the people you disagree with.
For example, you could hand out leaflets in front of the church of the main door-to-door-nuisance denomination (...which I won;t name, but which you know).
(...unless you're afraid to talk to people who really disagree with you. )
Go for it!
Michael Ossipoff
:up: :up: :up:
Quoting Jake
I agree with you both, that our tools may well be inadequate to understand such a thing as God. And this point is at the heart of skeptical theism, which I believe to be true. But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence. So, what are we to do? Use the tools we have, as feeble as they might be? Or throw up our hands and ignore the drive?
Personally, my theism is a matter of faith. But it is important to me that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason, which would than make me a fool. I believe we have the tools, as weak as they are, to wrestle with the question that theism is or is not reasonable.
So what are we to do? This seems to be an excellent question.
The God debate has been going on in some form or another since the very beginning of theism (often the debate has been a private one) and we're at the same place we were when we started. In the very beginning some people believed, some people didn't, and others weren't sure. And this is just where we still are today, after at least centuries of discussion which has often been led by some of the best minds among us on all sides.
So what are we to do? Keep on doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results? Endlessly recycle the same arguments to no result? Pretend we're accomplishing something while the evidence argues strongly to the contrary?
Imagine that you are trying to fix your car. You think you know what the problem is, so you proceed to apply the suggested solution. And it doesn't work. So you try again. Still doesn't work. So you try yet again, this time with more cursing. :smile: Still doesn't work. At some point in this process you are going to stop what you're doing, stand back, and begin questioning your core assumption.
The core assumption of the God debate, a point of agreement between both theists and atheists, is that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing, an answer.
What if that assumption is wrong? Might that explain why the God debate has experienced a consistent pattern of failure?
Oops! Sorry if I misinterpreted you. ...and I evidently did. I thought that you were trying to shore-up the Atheist problem-of-evil argument, by arguing that Theists believe in omnipotence. It's such a familiar theme, that I just took it for granted that that was what you were doing.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes. I've been arguing that argument, logic, assertion, debate and proof are only applicable to the describable realm, the world of describable things. ...which doesn't cover or apply to Reality itself, or any issue or description about God.
Though I consider the use of the word "God" to unrealistically-anthropomorphically imply an individual or a being (...and thereby activate the Atheists), I designate myself a Theist, if people are divided into Theists, Atheists and Agnostics, because it's my impression that Reality is Benevolence itself. I don't assert that, I don't argue it, I can't prove it..
That's why I like metaphysics (by which I mean metaphysics of the describable). And I do assert about that.
Description, argument, assertion and debate are applicable to describable metaphysics, but not to matters relating to Reality itself, or God.
Contrary to many people here, I believe that definite things can be said with certainty about describable metaphysics, and I've been saying some of them, in other threads.
I claim that, just as all that happens in the physical world has a physical explanation in terms of other p physical things, then so all of describable metaphysics--the world of describable things--is explainable, noncontradictory, and consistent within metaphysics. In no way does that conflict with Theism.
Of course. It's a matter of impression. Logic, argument and proof have a range of applicability that's limited to the describable realm.
We can describe what influences our impressions., When that's done without assertion, it doesn't constitute argument. For example, in other threads, I've discussed metaphysical reasons that lead to my impression about Reality. I feel that metaphysics, philosophy-of-mind,and common-sense suggest, support and point to that impression. But that's an issue for a different thread.
Michael Ossipoff
No, that's a false narrative. I'm actually doing philosophy a service by encouraging waste removal. There seems to be a common misconception, especially amongst those who are relatively new to philosophy, that the wildest imaginings to have come out of philosophy should be given more credence than they are due, and that they should be treated as being on par with views of a much stronger grounding.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I play by my own rules of what can and cannot be dismissed. Your rules are clearly not up to scratch if they do not separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm not dismissing any possibilities [i]as[/I] possibilities, which would obviously be mistaken. That something is possible is the bare minimum required to gain entry before further consideration, and that much I accept. Nor am I picking and choosing based on what I like or dislike or what is more or less useful. What I am doing, and what I would encourage others to do, is to reject as serious contenders those possibilities which have so little going for them, and so much against them, in terms of plausibility and evidence and that sort of thing, that they fail to pose any real challenge.
If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable, and if it's reasonable, then it's not a matter of faith. Your belief, given that it is held as a matter of faith, is in conflict with reason, which is a matter of intellect. That makes you a fool by your own standard.
For me the answer is to recognise that religious beliefs are predominantly formed by upbringing, peer group, culture and personal spiritual experience, not by logical argument. Logical arguments for or against religious beliefs only very rarely sway people. I think the exceptions are people that already feel an impulse towards or away from the belief. An attractive argument can form the catalyst for somebody that is already inclined towards a position to take the final step and adopt it. But such a person will usually not be one of the protagonists in the argument.
In most cases the arguments are between die-hard adherents of the opposing points of view, and the lack of resolution doesn't matter. The argument is had for the pure joy of intellectual sparring - like a jousting match but less lethal.
So, for those of us who enjoy a bit of jousting - and I confess I do from time to time - have at it and enjoy it, but try not to get personal. For those that don't, sit back and watch the entertainment, or else change the channel and read something more uplifting.
Incorrect. If it's not in conflict with established fact, or in conflict with reason, then it's reasonable.
The matter of God, or the matter of the nature or character of Reality as a whole isn't amenable to, or a topic for, proof, reason or logic.
And, regarding a matter that logic and reason don't apply to, the only way to be in conflict with reason would be to try apply reason to that matter. ...as you're attempting to do.
See above.
...or would be, if reason, logic, science, etc. were universally-applicable. But they aren't. ...except in the mind of a type of pseudoscientist known as a Science-Worshipper, who has unduly grandiose beliefs about the range of applicability.of reason, logic and science.
No, there's no chance of proving to you that your supposed "reason" doesn't cover all of Reality.
So let's just say that it's acknowledged that you think it does, and agree to disagree.
Michael Ossipoff
What a pointless "if". It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No, that's not true with regards to the matter of God. This very discussion, as well as others, attest to that. I suspect that your error here is treating the matter of God as if it is the matter of God as per your personal take on it, whereby you've made it such that God is a special exception. You don't get to have exclusive say on God.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No, you don't seem to understand that a matter of faith, by nature, conflicts with a matter of reason. They are chalk and cheese. If where I live were a matter of faith, which it clearly isn't, then there would be no conflict with my faith that I live on a boat in France, even though reason leads to the belief that I live in an apartment in England. Is a boat an apartment? Are England and France the same country? No, the two sets of beliefs, as well as how they were obtained, clash. They are in conflict.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
What are you going on about? I haven't said anything absurd. What I've said is no more absurd than noting that a dark room isn't well lit or that a wet towel isn't dry. You can't have it both ways
I don't see Michael's 'if' as pointless. Faith is usually considered to be believing something for which there is little or no evidence, not believing something against which there is strong evidence.
If I were to believe, as many do, that Goldbach's Conjecture is true (or the Four-Colour Hypothesis, or Fermat's Last Hypothesis, before they were proved), it would be a matter of faith, even though there is no evidence for its falsity.
Yes, agreed. If we declare the purpose of the God debate to be entertainment then the goal is achieved, at least in the context of Internet forums.
Also, such a definition suggests the participants aren't actually all that interested in the question itself, and thus it shouldn't be a surprise if the inquiry never really goes anywhere except to where it's already been a million times.
Yes, that's it. Until we prove that human reason is universally applicable, logic dancing is essentially meaningless (except as entertainment as agreed above). As example, there's little point to chanting Bible verses to prove a point about God until such time as there is proof the Bible is anything more than just a pile of human opinion.
Many or most vocal Internet atheists are actually heretics to their own chosen methodology. They're eager to apply reason to the other fellow's beliefs, but not to their own, which reveals they're not actually interested in reason at all, but have instead confused it with ideology.
Please dial down the volume of your ego. Thank you.
Sure, you won't see it as pointless if you alter the context, as you've just done. I haven't set it up so that faith [i]must be[/I] something against which there is strong evidence. I have said that a matter of faith, by nature, conflicts with a matter of reason, and I went on to explain what I meant by that, and I stand by my previous comment. My point is that a full understanding of what makes a matter of faith a matter of faith requires a contrast with what it clashes with, with its antithesis. Like I said, they are chalk and cheese. That's the sense in which it is true that the one is in conflict with the other. They are diametrically opposed. They fundamentally differ, even in your examples, in terms of process. That's what defines them, and that's what sets them apart.
No, I won't refrain from pointing out relevant logical consequences just because it offends your sensibilities. You're welcome.
I think such discussions can be more than entertainment. I do however prefer to state the proposition as therefore it is reasonable to believe God is vs God is. And that is the value of such discussions. For both the theist and the atheist to test their beliefs are reasonable, and acknowledge the other belief is reasonable as well.
Faith and reason are different, but not in conflict by definition.
You do many things by faith. Each time you ride an elevator or board a plane is an act of faith. You didn’t make a specific reasoned decision each time. You didn’t look up the records of the specific elevator inspector or the maintenance records of your specific plane.
When you were a little sapientia your parents took you on an elevator. Riding elevators was conditioned as an ok thing to do.
You may test your faith in elevators as being reasonable. You have ridden them a lot and it has worked out ok.
But none the less it is not a matter of fact that you will not get stuck between floors, and it is not a specific reasoned decision to get on a particular elevator. You have faith in elevators and that faith is reasonable.
Again, please prove that reason is relevant to the subject of gods. Until that's done, isn't the question of whether any opinion on the subject of God is reasonable basically meaningless?
As example, here's a hypothetical challenge:
Does your opinion about God comply with what my ouija board indicates?
Given that we likely agree that ouija boards have no authority or credibility in relation to the God issue, isn't my challenge pointless? If I wanted to make my ouija board challenge meaningful, wouldn't I first have to prove that ouija boards are somehow qualified to speak to the God issue?
The point here is that while reason is clearly very useful for very many things, that doesn't automatically make it relevant and useful to every subject, particularly those vastly beyond human scale, such as the God proposal. It wouldn't be good philosophy to simply assume such a thing on faith, right?
As you may know (I didn't until recently) time runs at different rates at different locations. This isn't a theory, it's been proven. I can provide more detail if requested.
The fact that time does not run at a fixed pace everywhere isn't especially relevant to normal human scale experience because we live in a very fixed location, the surface of the Earth, and the time rate differences between say, sea level and the top of a mountain, are so small (billionths of a second) that they have little practical impact.
However, this time rate fluctuation has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they wouldn't work. GPS satellites are far enough away from the surface of the Earth that the time rate fluctuation begins to matter.
The point here is that things that are simple, obvious and useful at human scale don't automatically apply to ANY scale. And the God idea is basically referencing the very largest of scales, it's a theory about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.
Hope this makes my challenge a bit more clear.
These arguments, among others, are tests of reason against what I may believe to be true by faith. If one could make me a reasoned argument that would make what I believe by faith to be in direct conflict with reason. I would be a fool to ignore the reason to support the faith.
Yes, they are, agreed. But that doesn't prove that reason is relevant to the God question, that it is a qualified methodology for this set of questions.
With respect, what you're experiencing is FAITH in the infinite scope of human reason. You are in very good company in doing so, but um, faith is still faith.
.
You’re confusing “different from” with “in conflict with”.
.
If you want to claim that faith that there’s God is in conflict with reason, then you’d need to prove, by reason, that there isn’t.
.
Can you show objective proof that Theism isn’t true?
.
No, there’s no scientific evidence, registering on Geiger-counters or ammeters. Your problem is that, as a Science-Worshipper, you firmly, faithfully, and unshakably believe that matter is all of reality, and science covers all. To you, Theism must be wrong because it conflicts with that premise. Yes, that’s what it conflicts with.
.
John Searle said:
.
“Materialism is the religion of our time, and, like more traditional religions, is accepted without question, and provides the framework in which other questions can be posed, addressed, and answered. “
.
He also said:
.
“Materialists are concerned with a quasi-religious faith that their view must be right.”
.
William Lycam (Lycom?) admitted that his “own faith in Materialism is based on Science-Worship.
.
.
I would have dismissed all that discussion, but I’ve read a little about the cosmological argument, and it sounds like something that occurred to me too, but more ambitious than what I’ve been saying. I read a good defense of that argument. But I don’t know how it would work with my metaphysics.
.
But the cosmological argument, and the other similar arguments, take the matter a lot farther than what I say, It’s much more ambitious that what I’ve been saying, which has just been about impressions and feelings. I don’t know if it’s possible to rightly say as much as the cosmological argument, and similar arguments, say. But I can say that such arguments aren’t necessary to Theism or faith.
.
I’ve spoken about there being reasons, in philosophy and in common-sense, for those impressions. Those aren’t claimed to be, and needn’t be, proof. But I won’t go into those here, because they’re outside the scope of this thread.
.
I emphasize that belief isn’t the same as assertion.
.
But what about pure faith, aside from any reasons for belief?
.
That’s valid.
.
Some Definitions of Faith:
.
Simon & Schuster pocketbook:
.
“unquestioning belief “
.
or
.
“complete trust or confidence”.
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
“firm belief in something for which there is no proof “
.
(Notice that it doesn’t require that there be conflict with proof to the contrary.)
.
or
.
“complete trust”
.
Houghton-Mifflin:
.
“belief not based on logical proof or material evidence”
.
(Notice that it doesn’t require conflict with logic or material evidence.)
.
or
.
“confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing”
---------------------------
Nothing can be proved about the character or nature of Reality as a whole (unless one or more arguments like the cosmological argument are right—something that I don’t claim to know—or unless you can prove that there isn’t God.)
.
…so I’ll just say that, so far as I know, nothing can be proved about the character or nature of Reality as a whole.
.
Therefore, one person’s impression, opinion or trust is as valid as that of another.
.There’s nothing unreasonable or contrary to reason, about someone expressing trust that Reality is good. …unless you can prove otherwise.
.
Yes, I’ve heard the problem-of-evil argument. I’ve answered it in another thread. For one thing, it depends on an assumption of omnipotence. For another thing, it over-rates what happens in one life, in one physical world. You can disagree with that opinion, but you can’t prove that the worse things that happen in a life an in a world represent the whole character and nature of Reality as a whole.
.
It isn’t unreasonable for someone to trust something good about Reality, merely because it would be the good way for things to be. …and therefore arguably the natural way for things to be. Before you challenge that, remember I’m talking about something for which there isn’t proof either way.
.
So, trust, faith, isn’t unreasonable, even without any evidence. And anyway, in other threads I’ve spoken about reasons why things are pretty good overall. Let’s not get into it here. It’s off our topic, and I’d have to write another 10 or 20 pages.
.
.
When Atheists claim that there’s no God, or that any belief that there’s God is in conflict with reason, their statement isn’t about any one particular conception of God. It’s a blanket denial of all conceptions of God.
.
Further questioning reveals that the Atheist’s One-True-God to (loudly) disbelieve in is the God of the Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists.
.
.
You keep repeating that as a faithful chant of dogma. When “reason” doesn’t say anything about a matter, then, about that matter, it would be rather difficult to conflict with reason.
.
That has been explained to you several times, by several people.
.
.
In that instance, your faith that you live on a boat in France would indeed be in conflict with verifiable fact.
.
No one denied that faith can conflict with known fact. But it can’t conflict with reason on a matter on which reason has nothing to say.
.
Michael Ossipoff
What's interesting about this phenomena is that it illustrates how faith is a human issue, not a religious issue. We tend to feel more comfortable as humans if we feel we know what's going on. If we can't believe in one explanation, if we've lost confidence in one authority, we're likely to go running in to the arms of some other explanation, some other authority.
Those who argue vehemently for their own preferred authority, whether it be religious or secular, are folks with a strong need to have an answer from someone they trust. They usually don't want their chosen answer interrupted by competing answers. They usually don't want their chosen authority challenged, because upsets the apple cart of "knowing" that they've carefully assembled in their minds.
There's no fundamental difference between vehement theists and vehement atheists, it's the same process at work in both cases. It's just matter of waving different colored fantasy knowing flags.
Yes, and, in particular, a social issue and an image issue. There are a lot of people, some of them here, who need to perceive themselves as the scientific debunkers, champions of science.
As Searle pointed out, Materialism (or Science-Worship) is the prevailing religion of our time. In the minds of a lot of people here, proclaiming and championing science establishes one's credentials as one of the scientific, rational people. There's a perception of status in aligning oneself with the prevailing belief-system. .more scientific than thou.
Yes--aligning oneself with perceived authority.
Yes, I sometimes suspect that the people who are loud Atheists and Materialists now, would, in medieval days, have been loud and aggressive persecutors of accused nonbelievers in the official authoritative-perceived religion of that time.
Michael Ossipoff
I just started laughing when I got here. I mean come on I know all of you did too.
Yes, this is a very common position on philosophy forums. It's good that somebody is making that argument, but it's more interesting when they leave the emotional ego agendas out of it, to the degree that is possible for any of us.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes again, this is the mirror image of the "holier than thou" pose some religious people get wound up in.
If you'll forgive a shameless plug, in this thread I make the case that while science is clearly a very effective mechanism for generating new knowledge, out of control knowledge development is inevitably going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization. Thus, worshiping science as a "one true way" is not very rational. Understandable, but not full rational.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I've spent a lot of time on atheist forums over the years. You often find that the loudest atheists were once upon a time a loudest theist. It's not theism or atheism they are interested in so much as it is the experience of being adamant.
No I'm not. You're confusing line spacing with full stops.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
For the love of God, please don't. Your "Atheist Science-Worshipper!" over the top rhetoric is not something I'm in a hurry to see more of.
For now, a question. When a writer writes a book. Are they condemned as evil for the horrors in which the characters experience? Unless the book is merely just a cover for the author to live out some fantasies, no. Why is this? Because adversity makes the story interesting, in a most cases.
Yes it's possible to have stories without any conflict or adversity, and yes they can be enjoyable; but they're often short, and simple, and thus proclaimed as children's stories.
So when the author writes of this crazed psychopath who unleashes his killing rage and murders hundreds of people, what makes this acceptable? Not merely the fact of it being a story, because if it was clear that it was just the guise for murderous fantasy, and held nothing in the way of plot or resolution, we would be sickened.
Nay, it's because the violence sets up conflict, which in turn sets up resolution, which presents progress. Or motion of narrative. The killer gets hunted down, or experiences an epiphany and turns himself in, gets accidentally killed... It could manifest in a variety of ways. The point is that we accept evil when we know it Leads to something, and isn't just ultimately senseless.
Some writers even kill off the entire human race but do we decry that as tragedy? Certainly we sympathize but more often than not it's with the principle that's illustrated by the action. An alien race contacts humanity with the best of intentions... But inadvertently brings bacteria which ends up wiping out the human race.
We feel the force of tragedy... But it's utilized in such a manner that we empathize with the alien races despair and subsequent vow never to wander the stars again.
If we lived in a perfect world... We'd die of boredom or lose our capacity for intellectual examination of life, much as the creatures in hg wells the time machine became simplistic and juvenile after completely dominating their environment.
Many people have brought up various diseases. But isn't it the point of a disease for us to overcome it? More than a few books have been written about just that, and we seem to enjoy those perfectly fine.
It's when we are in the story and unable to see the true scope of things that we find evil so tragic and intolerable.. and yet, isn't that another point of evil? Isn't one of the things essential to mankind our ability to yearn for more and rail against corruption?
So God created for instance good and evil ,and the argument can be made why did he create evil then if He is all good ,the answer Might lie in that good and evil are two extremes of a much more broad concept ,a larger continuum, so then for good to exist evil must exist aswell or at the very least a lesser good than the ultimate good and except for all the concepts I might not have thought of yet I want to draw a line through most emotions and concepts like the one of good and evil.
For example, on the surface on the Earth there is a clear obvious difference between up and down. The concepts of up and down are useful in that limited context.
But once you get far enough out in space, away from any clear reference point, every up is a down, and every down is an up. Up and down are united as one.
To us, standing on the surface of the Earth, up and down seem like universal truths, because for us they are. But in the vast overwhelming majority of reality, up and down are meaningless concepts.
What is the basis of believing the statement the underlying assumption in the argument from evil
- We have looked at what we can see, and with what we can understand we do not perceive any compensating good for the evil we observe.
IMO there is a touch of human hubris in the underlying believe that if there was a compensating good - we would see it and recognize it as such - with the tools we have. We human beings have a very long history of believing completely in the knowledge of the moment, right up until we prove it wrong.
If one considers infinite realm of abstraction as as the possible state of affairs where compensating goods could exist - I am skeptical that if there was a compensating good we would be aware of it and recognize it as such.
That doubt is enough for me to not be persuaded by the argument from evil.
Faith is believing something when there is insufficient evidence for a more formal conclusion. Sometimes when there is no evidence at all. Much of the time, this is reasonable. Faith that actually contradicts the evidence is, er, more difficult, though. :wink:
Yes, when there's also no proof or convincing evidence to the contrary.
Yes, that's what Sapientia doesn't seem to get at all, because Sapientia is using his own personal, unusual definition of "conflicts with", equating it to "is different from".
Michael Ossipoff
.
How’s that for a compelling and irrefutable argument !
.
Re-assertion of a criticized claim, used as a supposed answer to a refutation or criticism of that clam.
.
…a common trademark-tactic and identification-mark of Internet-abusers.
.
I refer you to my comments regarding that matter, in my most two recent posts to this thread.
.
If only you could just tentatively let go of your ideology for long enough to just listen to yourself.
.
Thank you for giving us an excellent verification, demonstration and example of what Jake was referring to when he said:
.
.
You said:
.
.
Often, jamming sentences end-to-end in a line or paragraph means that they distract from eachother, sometimes making them less noticed or less easily found, and sometimes losing some clarity.
.
Sometimes different sentences should get their own line or paragraph, for emphasis, better visibility, or clarity.
.
So I often like to separate them with a line-space, for that reason.
.
Another unconventional practice that I admit to:
.
A long sentence, or one with added clauses, can lose clarity. So I often use ellipsis (…) to separate an added clause from the main sentence.
.
A few other departures from standard “style”:
.
I capitalize names of religions, belief-systems, and philosophies, etc., or their adherents or advocates. In general, in fact, I capitalize categories in whatever topic I’m discussing. At sundial forums I capitalize the names of sundials. At map-projection forums I capitalize names of map projections. At calendar forums, I capitalize names of calendars.
.
I do that to clarify, distinguish and identify references to main categories in whatever topic the forum discusses.
.
I often hyphenate when standard style doesn’t, to clarify that some particular pair of words are part of a phrase that is used as a word. …most frequently, but not always, a noun-phrase. In fact, I sometimes even hyphenate-together two adverbs (but also words of whatever same or mixed part(s)-of-speech), one of which modifies the other, when it would help to clarify their relation, first to eachother, before their relation to the rest of the sentence. It’s akin to the use of parentheses in mathematics or logic notation.
.
But I also recognize that standard-style’s avoidance of those capitalizations and hyphenations could be justified on the grounds of writing-ease. But I usually prefer to put clarity first.
.
I was once accused of impersonating the Michael Ossipoff who’d written elsewhere. I answered that if I’m not Michael Ossipoff, then I’m doing a thorough job of imitating his unusual style.
.
.
First, are you sure that I’ve used the words “Atheist Science-Worshipper” together? .
.
Additionally, even if I’d used that word-combination), are you sure that I had an exclamation point after it?
.
Sapientia, we use quotes only for ]direct quotes. We don’t use quotation marks with combinations of words &/or punctuation-marks that the person quoted didn’t use.
.
Merriam-Webster’s definition for “rhetoric” that’s closest to the unfavorable meaning that you want to imply, is about insincere or dishonest implication or exaggeration, as opposed to accurate or reasonable factual statements or claims.
.
It’s meaningless, inappropriate and rhetorical (by the above unfavorable definition) to apply “rhetoric” to an accurate or reasonable factual statement.
.
In another thread, I quoted definitions from Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, for “Religion” and “Materialism”. …definitions by which (from both dictionaries) Materialism is a religion.
.
Additionally, in my post-before-last to this thread, I quoted John Searle regarding Materialism as religion and faith.
.
Additionally, next in that same post, I quoted the well-known Materialist philosopher William Lycan, a quote in which he admitted that his belief or faith in Materialism is a result of his “science-worship” (his term—When I use that term I capitalize it, because I capitalize names of religions).
.
Michael Ossipoff
If he freely, unnecessarily and wantonly writes such a story, in which the fate of everyone (except maybe a few brutal criminals) is bad, then it can't be said that he's benevolent with respect to his characters.
Of course if he does so because he's constrained by a plot-requirement of delayed justice and postponed good results, including a literary necessity for undeserved bad results for some, then it could be fairly-argued that he isn't omnipotent regarding how he write his story.
I asked in an earlier post to this thread, if Atheists claim that Theists should believe that it's possible to make there be statements that are both true and false, mutually-contradictory facts, mutually-contradictory true propositions, and, in general, impossible contraventions of logic.
And I asked, "Because otherwise, what is the "omni-" in "omnipotent" supposed to mean.
Do Atheists want God to be omnipotent in that regard?
Lives are hypothetical experience-stories, consisting of complex logical-systems, systems of abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. ...with configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions..
The life that you're in is because of you. --you being protagonist in one of those infinitely-many experience-stories.
So do you think it would be possible to make there be a system of mutually-contradictory facts, or mutually-inconsistent truth values for propositions?
Because, if not, then don't expect God to make there be such a physical world, a made-to-order physical world in which everything is fair, good and right.
Among the infinity of possibilities for life-exprerience stories, you have free rein to make yourself consistent with whatever kind of story you will. Evidently you've stumbled, or you wouldn't have been born in a societal world like this one. A stumble can result in behavior that temporarily compounds and worsens the stumble. You're in worse surroundings, leading you to even worse conduct, leading maybe to a temporary worsening multi-life sequence resembling a multi-car pile-up.
But don't hold God responsible for the infinity of possibilities or the particular ones that you (maybe unknowingly) choose.
Forgive me for asserting my metaphysics here--I feel that it's necessary, at some point, to get down to specifics a bit.
Quoting Lucid
So you couldn't be happy in a world in which people weren't suffering horrible fates? Does one person's enjoyment or happiness depend on someone else's horrible suffering?
I could give numerous examples of irreversible things that can happen to someone, and ask, "How would you overcome that?" You get the idea.
That's a bit more like what I'd said: This life and this physical world are only one life and one world, among infinitely-many.
These experience-stories are really insubstantial in their nature. ...implying an open-ness, ethereal-ness, and lightness to them.
But, even for the Materialist, things aren't really so bad. By their account, as animals, we're just purposesfully-responsive devices.
Since when does a Roomba care if you turn it off, or accidentally spill water into it, or if it falls downstairs?
Have the wisdom of a Roomba.
Sure we care about what happens to us--enough to do our best to achieve what we like, want or prefer, and, to that end, to last as long as we can.
But we're about our likes and preferences--as we act on them, when it's time to act on them. We're not about the outcome when it happens.
Kentucky Buddhist Ken Keys pointed out that we don't have needs, or even wants. ...only likes and preferences.
By the material account, then, if we're fulfilling our evolutionary design-purpose as best we can, what more is needed? We aren't here for things to happen to. We're just here to act optimally, for our built-in purposes as purposefully-responsive devices. So what's the big deal?
Don't worry about it. Just do your best. Buddhist have written that when you've acted on, or chosen how to act on a situation, then you've dealt with it.
And, still in the Materialist account, your supposed "free will" is mythical. Your choices are determined for you by your (built-in or acquired) preferences, and the circumstances around you.
So you're relieved of the burden of those "choices".
So: Where's the problem about your "choices" and the outcomes?
And additionally, this life, and even this entire sequence of lives, is temporary. And the sleep at the end-of-lives is final and timeless. ...and therefore is the natural, normal, usual and right state of affairs.
This life, or these lives, is the exception. Barbara Erenreich said something to the effect that death doesn't interrupt life--Rather, life interrupt sleep, the natural, normal, rightful and usual state of affairs.
So: Two answers to the Atheists' Argument from Evil:
1. There isn't a possible "omnipotence" like the Atheists posit.
2. Things aren't as bad as Argument-from-Evil advocates think.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
At the end of my post before the most recent one, I mean to say that there isn't a possible omnipotence like the advocates of the Argument from Evil seem to want to attribute to Theism.
Michael Ossipoff
You said "So you couldn't be happy in a world in which people weren't suffering horrible fates? Does one person's enjoyment or happiness depend on someone else's horrible suffering?"
And I find it interesting that your take on " a perfect world would be boring" is to immediately assume that I meant it in the sense of Entertainment...
To answer you directly, no, my enjoyment does not depend on someone else's suffering, nor is that what I meant to imply. What I meant, was that my enjoyment depends upon MY suffering. Which brings more satisfaction: doing the job or hiring someone else to do it for you? Often, enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount of effort invested to reap the rewards.
Same reason why they say "no pain, no gain": it's a fundamental truth of our reality that satisfaction and enjoyment come through overcoming adversity.
Same reason why it's also said, that you could never be happy without having tasted sadness. In a more simplistic sense, you can think of it as how a rollercoaster has ups and downs. The ups are only ups because you come down, then go up again, etc.
Imagine a world where there was NO adversity. No problems of any kind. No bad weather, no conflict, no natural disasters, no famine or death... You know what would inevitably occur? The analytical centers in your brain would essentially begin to atrophy, having Nothing To Process. Meanwhile, more and more of your brain would be used to process enjoyment and creativity. Eventually all rationality would be lost until all that was left was a brain that could only operate on instinctual satisfaction of desire.
Think about humanity. Since our birth what has been the single constant? Adversity. Since he times of cavemen when hey discovered fire and the rudiments of toolmaking. Proceedijg to hunter gatherer states which were a strict improvement. Then on to agricultural and animal husbandry. Then, industry. Now it's information. Next, I strongly suspect, will be culture.
The point is that adversity, struggle, and conflict are an essential part in what has given us the intelligence and awareness we so appreciate, and without which, we would be little more than animals with a sense of wonder.
Of course there's something to what you say. There was a Twilight-Zone episode in which a criminal died, and found himself in a place where he could have whatever he wanted, for the asking. Always surrounded by adoring women, jewels, cash,, liquor, and he never lost at the roulette table.
Eventually it was all so easy that he was bored of it, and told he proprietor that he wanted to go to the other place. The proprietor said, "This is the other place."
And of course having robots, or well-meaning people, do everything for us wouldn't be any fun.
But you're ignoring the really horrible things that can happen to someone. You can't tell me that those things would make you happier, or that the fact that some of them might happen to you makes you happier.
As do I, you feel that what-is, is good. ...that things are really alright. They are. But not for the reason you're saying. Those horrible fates really are undesirable. The risk and possibility of those horrible things really is undesirable.
Is it good that unarmed Black people are being killed by police on a continual regular basis? Explain that to their mothers.
Likewise all the many other intentional massacres, torture and other atrocities that we all hear about, which, likewise, are being done regularly, continually and routinely. You and I, where we live, aren't subject to that risk. It's easy for someone who is safe from it to say that it's a good thing, but try explaining that to a family that has lost someone in that way.
Quoting Lucid
Quoting Lucid
No, those things wouldn't happen if the weather were always good, and no one were perpetrating massacres or torture. There are plenty of other sources of happiness, plenty of other things to like.
I grew up where there are no tornadoes or hurricanes, Just the occasional earthquake. We heard about tsunamis, but never encountered one. But I doubt that anyone's happiness depended on the risk of a fatal earthquake or tsunami. I grew up during the Cold War, and yes of course anything dangerous is of interest, but there's no evidence for saying that a reasonable person couldn't have been happy without that danger.
When I was a kid, I liked to be told, read &/or ask about everything dangerous. Volcanoes, earthquakes, quicksand, the various kinds of really dangerous weather events, venomous snakes and spiders, crocodiles, large carnivore mammals that sometimes eat people. I suggest that it's natural and adaptive for us to be interested in things that could threaten us. That information could be helpful for survival. One reason why you and I were even born is because some ancestor of ours wanted to find out about things that could threaten his safety, and thereby survived something that he otherwise wouldn't have survived. The ones who didn't, many or most of them don't have any descendants now. We inherited that attribute.
Of course I liked those subjects. But there were also plenty of other things to like, and I don't think that we'd all have been miserable and bored without those dangerous things.
And the horrors of all the human-perpetrated atrocities and horrible diseases, etc. don't contribute to anyone's happiness.
Oh, one curious thing. One day in '64, they said that there was some small chance that a tsunami might arrive near or at our town. So my mom's guest, and my sister and I all drove down to the beach, and joined the crowd of people there who didn't want to miss the tsunami. :D
People sometimes seem to seek danger. Evel Kenieval is an example. But that's usually the exception.
Michael Ossipoff
two of my favorite quotes on this issue, taken together they about say it all.
Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” Thomas merton
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas
I'd like to correct some wording that didn't say what I meant:
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Of course, I assume, a Roomba is designed to avoid going over the edge of a stair-step at the top of a staircase. So of course that means that it does care if it falls downstairs.
...but only when it's time to avoid that. It's like us in that regard. We too are designed, by natural selection, to protect ourselves from harm.
Acting on a preference when it's time to act on it doesn't mean having an attitude about the outcome after it happens. Like the Roomba, we, as purposefully-responsive devices, are about the actions toward our design purposes. Period. That's why I say that we aren't here for things to happen to. We're just the one who acts for our purposes and preferences when called for. That's why I said that we're about our likes and preferences.
Hinduism speaks of life being primarily for play ("Lila").
Michael Ossipoff
Exactly.
Michael Ossipoff