Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: GOD AND EVIL


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: GOD AND EVIL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 11:04:04 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Every creature understands its own reality. Lions understand that if they do not kill, they starve. Zebra understand that if they do not browse, they starve.
As for omniscient me: even though I understand more than most, I do not understand all - though I might eventually.

So you've redefined omniscience as the ability to know the line between what you do and do not know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
unless the deity expects nothing more of us than for us to live our our lives however we please, that would be the biggest "set up for failure", non-consensually sadistic process ever conceived.

The Divine expects nothing. It cannot expect anything without interfering with free will, which by definition is prohibited.
The process of evolution through natural selection, though, does provide for the opportunity to evolve an omniscient being - me - who may correctly understand its realities.


If "the Divine" is a sentient creative/destructive entity, then nothing is "prohibited" from its power. In such case, also, it's is the willing creator of, simultaneously, a roller-coaster world and inhabitants it created with weak stomachs.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees


NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 11:09:25 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
The only other option is to say that everyone does know but that those who claim otherwise are either in willful ignorance or willful denial.


If I were a 'religious' person... I would say bingo.

the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 12:02:57 PM   
TurboJugend


Posts: 481
Joined: 6/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Your god cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and allow the children to suffer. Perhaps there is no god that can be explained by this seeming contradition.


I am not religious..I am an engineer..so I would say do a rootcause analyzes. What causes the suffering....blame that..if there is no explanation...then pick god.
But don't pick god...because it is eassy.

Oh btw God doesn't do the bad..that is Satan..not?

_____________________________

Justme696 on the otherside
- D stands for Damian....not dude

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 12:23:45 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Hey, you too?

It's a bitch to explain it to anyone though.

lol
It's the lottery of the gene pool. Some people have black hair, some blond, some red.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 2:48:36 PM   
looking4princess


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Nature is indifferent to human suffering
Good and evil are value judgments
Nature does not give a shit
Man may be nothing more than a cosmic and insignificant burp in the eternal swirl of matter and energy

these are all very Taoist.


Thank you...works for me :)

_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 2:52:57 PM   
looking4princess


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
Both the OT and the NT have wrestled with this contradiction for 1000s of years. It is not originally mine. If you stay within the framework of Scripture you are confronted with what appears to be an irreconcilable problem.


And what problem is that?


Why the judeo-christian god permits the innocent to suffer if he is all powerful and benevolent. sorry, I thought I was clear about that.

_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 2:58:56 PM   
looking4princess


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

To find meaning for your life you shouldn't be looking up into the heavens or wondering what comes next. If your life has a meaning that was important to a entity capable of creating something like the universe then your life would last far longer perhaps than the age of the known universe? I know I'm guilty of sounding a bit like Confucius but the point of your life can only be found in your life therefore looking beyond it to find meaning in it probably isn't going to give that explanation you are looking for. To be on the edge of death and only then find the meaning of life is a bit sad.

Not everyone assumes a creative force.


We agree here.

quote:

Where is the fun in asking a question that can only be answered one way? If you put such limitations on your op you will only ever go as far as the last set of people that decided those limitations (i.e. benevolence and omnipotence) should be considered as properties of a god/creator.


So, can you offer expanded or alternate properties to consider?

_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 3:14:11 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
Why the judeo-christian god permits the innocent to suffer if he is all powerful and benevolent. sorry, I thought I was clear about that.


Well, first you would have to define what you mean by christian - in other words - which one?  Baptist?  JW?  etc... and then I am assuming that you are excluding the catholic god from this then?

It would help the discussion if you single out a specific belief.

the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to looking4princess)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 4:12:30 PM   
looking4princess


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Well, first you would have to define what you mean by christian - in other words - which one? Baptist? JW? etc... and then I am assuming that you are excluding the catholic god from this then?

It would help the discussion if you single out a specific belief.


Excuse me if I suspect you are playing a game of Defense Attorney with me now. I cannot imagine why you would assume to exclude any of the denominations. The paradox of omnipotent god vs human suffering has been a common thread throughout. The problem is well acknowledged from the Prophet Amos and Job to the Gospel of John and Revelations of John. "Why has thou abandoned me, oh Lord," etc. The problem is pretty consistently recognized. The answers vary, however. So, please spare me such nit-picking as demanding definitions of "christian." No, I fear you are just playing a distracting game with me. I would hope for better than that from you.

_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 4:40:57 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
I'll think about this more, also would be nice to know what the entry you responded to said to be able to judge how good the response was.


It was in response to:

Someone wrote me a message today asking me: "How can you believe in any kind of God in this world? Everything is so screwed up! Do you really believe in a God that authored this world?"

A surpising number of people have asked me this question. I'm not sure what it is about my profile that spurs the response, but I suppose it's time to put something up to head things off at the pass.

I will gloss over my conception of God, as that is a much larger topic, except to say that I am a panentheist that equates God with the labels "Tao", "Creator", and "Source".

What that person was asking me is called the question of evil. Basically, it is a classical conundrum about the existence of God. It asks how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can create a world that contains evil. (That's alot of assumptions about the nature of God, but we'll work with it.)

First, we must understand that there are two kinds of "evil". There's moral evil, or rather the evil that people choose. There's natural evil, which is "natural" causes of evil, such as disease and natural disasters. One can posit a variety of other evils, but all of them have their root in the actions of a sentient creatures (like humans, in theory) or of the natural world, or both.

Moral evil is considerably easier to answer. It comes down to free will. Evil of this sort exists because people are free to choose and some will inevitably choose evil. Some philosophers answer that God, being omnipotent, could create a world where people would only freely choose good. This is, at best, a very limited form of free will. Indeed, I reject any definition of free will that leaves the range of free choice so narrow. It's as though I offer you a choice between a food you love and a food you hate for a main dinner course. By the nature of the options given, I did not really give you much free choice. (I admit that analogy is a bit inaccurate, but it's a good illustration that conveys the sense of things well.)

Natural evil is considered more difficult to answer. However, I posit that the universe is extremely fine-tuned. Anyone with some grounding in physics can confirm that even extremely miniscule changes in the fundamental constants of our physical universe would result in quite a distinct existence. Small changes in one place means that stars and planets never form. A tiny change in another place makes it extremely unlikely for planets like Earth to take positions around stars and otherwise evolve in ways amenable to life (as we know it). When life occurs, it evolves in response to its environment. (However, popular to common conceptions this process does not always lead to more complex or more intelligent organisms.) Complex relationships and forms of life develop, including perhaps less pleasant varieties, such as parasites and predators. The very fundamental forces of the universe that formed our planet and caused our species to evolve, also lead naturally to viruses, earthquakes, and other "natural evils". All other potential universes are purely theoretical; they are little more than plausible imaginations. Even despite that, we know that our universe exists and that with even the tiniest changes in the rules of our reality that planets and life would not exist. So, it is reasonable to presume that in order to create a universe with life and sentience, that the universe and interaction of life must be dynamic.

As a short and cheekier response to the problem of natural evil, I find it interesting that it is almost always (called) evil when a bear kills man, but rarely (said to be) evil when a man kills a bear.

On a another note, no, I am not a creationist. I believe that science has a pretty good idea of how the universe and our planet came about. I'm quite inclined to defer to the physicists, chemists, and other scientists on the natural laws of our universe.

*meow*


< Message edited by ArtCatDom -- 9/30/2009 4:43:49 PM >

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 4:48:59 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
I believe that science has a pretty good idea of how the universe and our planet came about.

As far as our planet is concerned, yes.
As far as our universe is concerned, no.

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 9:27:27 PM   
looking4princess


Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Natural evil is considered more difficult to answer. However, I posit that the universe is extremely fine-tuned. Anyone with some grounding in physics can confirm that even extremely miniscule changes in the fundamental constants of our physical universe would result in quite a distinct existence.


Yes, this statement seems true on its own face and brooks no argument....or more likely maybe no existence at all.

quote:

All other potential universes are purely theoretical; they are little more than plausible imaginations. Even despite that, we know that our universe exists and that with even the tiniest changes in the rules of our reality that planets and life would not exist. So, it is reasonable to presume that in order to create a universe with life and sentience, that the universe and interaction of life must be dynamic.


In this we differ because I feel you are reasoning backwards much the same as is done with the clock maker analogy. See, here is the complex clock lying on the beach. Someone greater must have made it...and then this mechanical analogy is drawn to the creation of the Universe. (not by you in this case)

Here you are saying much the same, however, or your reasoning seems in the same backwards direction. See we have this complex Universe and we have discovered the six or seven Physical constants which make it what it is... and you take the leap that in order to create a universe etc. I see no justification for the concept of creation in your thinking. Just because we have a mechanism that would be different if its constants were different does not mean the constants were engineered. They may have been the successful set of many haphazardly experimental but failed constants whose Universes never developed.

The only one we are aware of is the one that was not stillborn.

You also say the universe and interaction of life must be dynamic Well yeah, sure but what of it? I see nothing in that to affirm a creation It is a description of the current state of things but without arguement about a beginning. You assume a beginning without justification methinks.

Certainly imo nothing you have said supports the concept of Natural Evil. I maintain that matter and energy are without conciousness, random within their physical Laws, and therefore incapable of Evil, which I take requires intent to harm. So, Natural Evil is non-existent. I think men have since prehistory invented gods and ancestor worship to justify or explain or ward off the suffering of innocents by the blind forces of Nature. But, that doesn't mean Nature was out to get them Willfully.

Please, assist me if I have completely missed your point. Thanks.


_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 9:46:45 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
I believe that science has a pretty good idea of how the universe and our planet came about.

As far as our planet is concerned, yes.
As far as our universe is concerned, no.


Pre-Big Bang, or pre-time/space as we know it if you prefer an alternative formulation, I'll certainly agree. Post-Bang, scientific cosmology is incomplete but we have a very solid idea of how matter distributed, clumped, formed galaxies, and so forth.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 10:09:23 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
You also say the universe and interaction of life must be dynamic Well yeah, sure but what of it? I see nothing in that to affirm a creation It is a description of the current state of things but without arguement about a beginning. You assume a beginning without justification methinks.


I was only addressing the problem of evil, not of the broader argument of creation and a creator, which is quite another topic of its own. My point was simply that even ridiculously miniscule changes in the physical laws of the universe would result in an existence devoid of life and in most cases even devoid of matter or existence as we know it. The same laws of physics and biology that permit the creation of life also necessarily include the existence of disease and natural disasters. The dynamism is both constructive and destructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
Certainly imo nothing you have said supports the concept of Natural Evil. I maintain that matter and energy are without conciousness, random within their physical Laws, and therefore incapable of Evil, which I take requires intent to harm. So, Natural Evil is non-existent. I think men have since prehistory invented gods and ancestor worship to justify or explain or ward off the suffering of innocents by the blind forces of Nature. But, that doesn't mean Nature was out to get themWillfully.

Please, assist me if I have completely missed your point. Thanks.



While certainly a fine colliquial meaning of "evil", your interpretation of the term has little to nothing to do with good and evil in terms of the philosophical question. Even in a common speech sense, your definition is shaky. There's the old trope of good intentions and the road to hell illustrating this shortcoming. There are additionally many varieties of negligence that most people would call evil even in the absence of intentions to do wrong.

More to the point, since ancient Greece, evil is generally equated with suffering. Epicurius even went so far as to assert that the greatest good is the complete absence of suffering. There are some variations, but they almost all focus on defining good as a positive assertion instead of as a negation of evil, such as stating that good is "that which produces happiness". Very few philosophers deviate from the baseline of equating evil with suffering or similar measures. Those that do deviate from this model of evil almost always rely on purely religious grounds (such as a theologian asserting that failing to honor the Sabbat is evil) or appeals to purely intellectual abstracts (such as asserting that ignorance is the measure of evil).

< Message edited by ArtCatDom -- 9/30/2009 10:10:33 PM >

(in reply to looking4princess)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 10:19:22 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
Pre-Big Bang, or pre-time/space as we know it if you prefer an alternative formulation, I'll certainly agree. Post-Bang, scientific cosmology is incomplete but we have a very solid idea of how matter distributed, clumped, formed galaxies, and so forth.

There never was a Big Bang. Muwhahahaha!

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 9/30/2009 10:38:37 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
There never was a Big Bang. Muwhahahaha!


In that case, I have a megawatt home cold fusion kit to sell you for only $4999. Order now and receive a free orgone generator!

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 10/1/2009 12:02:03 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

quote:

Well, first you would have to define what you mean by christian - in other words - which one? Baptist? JW? etc... and then I am assuming that you are excluding the catholic god from this then?

It would help the discussion if you single out a specific belief.


Excuse me if I suspect you are playing a game of Defense Attorney with me now. I cannot imagine why you would assume to exclude any of the denominations. The paradox of omnipotent god vs human suffering has been a common thread throughout. The problem is well acknowledged from the Prophet Amos and Job to the Gospel of John and Revelations of John. "Why has thou abandoned me, oh Lord," etc. The problem is pretty consistently recognized. The answers vary, however. So, please spare me such nit-picking as demanding definitions of "christian." No, I fear you are just playing a distracting game with me. I would hope for better than that from you.


Ah.... hope in something you do not know.  So it's not just the religious that use that practice.

The problem with your premise is that you are assuming that all christians think the same.  That would be an incorrect assumption and it shows that you are making your case (that is the attorney in me showing) against a group of people instead of a single section with information that has nothing to do with some of those people.

Making generalised assessments like you have only means you are no different to all the people you are rallying against that makes a blanket statement.  Like - all snow is white.  Or the sky is blue.  You are working only on what you think you see, not on what you know.  Isn't that part of your complaint about christians?

the.dark.

< Message edited by Darcyandthedark -- 10/1/2009 12:04:13 AM >


_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to looking4princess)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 10/1/2009 5:19:06 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
There never was a Big Bang. Muwhahahaha!

In that case, I have a megawatt home cold fusion kit to sell you for only $4999. Order now and receive a free orgone generator!

Do you know the difference between a fact and an interpretation? I guess not. Big Bang delusionists bore me as much as phrenologists. Your comment is weird.

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 10/1/2009 6:46:08 AM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Do you know the difference between a fact and an interpretation? I guess not. Big Bang delusionists bore me as much as phrenologists. Your comment is weird.


I thought your comment was cheeky, not serious. (The "Muwhahahaha!" did it.)

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: GOD AND EVIL - 10/1/2009 7:05:01 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
The Big Bang delusion is based on two facts and one hypothesis: on the red-shift of far galaxies, on the cosmic background radiation and on the hypothesis of general relativity. The Big Bang is not a fact itself, but an erroneous interpretation of said facts and said wrong hypothesis.

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: GOD AND EVIL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.168