The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

[Royce]

Neither something eternal nor God are created? You are defining every scientific law that exists. Everything is created, everything.

I disagree but am willing to learn. Who or what created God? Is it not eternal also? If not, who or what created the creator? It that not eternal? If not, who or what created it?

This is an example of infinite regression and as the name implies it goes on forever without end or beginning. Going on without beginning and without end is the definition that I am using for eternal. If something is eternal it is not created for if it were created it would have a beginning.

It's tremendous how you say it in such a comfortable way. I could guarantee you that if you were unfortunate enough to be born in Africa with horrible conditions surrounding you, you would immediately take back what you've just said. How many more children have to die every three seconds in the third world for you to acknowledge that we'll never have the "opportunity" to do something about it? Humans are consumed with greed, opportunity never crosses their mind.

I am not at all comfortable about this. But, I don't blame God for it either. Nor do I deny that he could exist in any form because of the human condition of this earth.

This is how humans evolve from their young age. It does not involve God. It's pure nature.

Why do you think that it does not involve God? Why do you think that "pure nature" is not on aspect of pure God"

What if the wasp was collecting pollen for their young? Are you telling me that humans now have the right to prevail or favor over other living organisms?

Not the right to prevail but the ability to. It is part of evolution and ecology. Like a food chain. If the wasp doesn't bother me I won't bother it. Unfortunately the wasp does know this and just walking near by it is often considered threat enough to attack me. I do have the right to defend myself against a suicidal wasp.

Yes, indeed. My emotional responses, you know it hits me, being real. People once again choose not to accept reality as it is.

I will accept your version of reality, if you'll accept my version.

 

[DM]

I disagree but am willing to learn. Who or what created God? Is it not eternal also? If not, who or what created the creator? It that not eternal? If not, who or what created it?

It's ultimately reduced to nothing. I fail to comprehend and accept your ideology of creation. For something to become eternal, it must nonetheless be created.

This is an example of infinite regression and as the name implies it goes on forever without end or beginning.

You unequivocally believe that God is eternal. Do you believe the universe is eternal?

Going on without beginning and without end is the definition that I am using for eternal. If something is eternal it is not created for if it were created it would have a beginning.

This firm belief of yours is by far the most troublesome view that I have so far come across with you. The flaw in your statement in my personal opinion is that eternity is not created. Allow me to raise a question. Living in the spirit world after your death is eternal by apparently all religions. According to your entrenched ideology on this matter, it therefore means that the human spirit will last forever. Now, this clearly seems to match your beliefs on an everlasting life. However, your soul was CREATED in the process. For your soul to come to light, your death must occur - paradoxically to your views this also tells me that there's an end to everything - giving rise to a soul, in which must be created in order to live on a spirit world.

Why do you think that it does not involve God? Why do you think that "pure nature" is not on aspect of pure God"

Because God does not contribute or intervene in any phases of your walking. Indeed, this may be an opinion but even to all of those who are religious, would in my belief agree that your walking phases are purely down to you.

Not the right to prevail but the ability to. It is part of evolution and ecology.

I have just discovered a new belief about you. So you do believe in evolution and ecology. For you to say that we, human beings, should have the ability to prevail over other organisms, you are breaking every law, or at least one of the ten commandments in the bible. Even in self defence, you must not fight, hurt or otherwise kill anyone.

Like a food chain. If the wasp doesn't bother me I won't bother it. Unfortunately the wasp does know this and just walking near by it is often considered threat enough to attack me. I do have the right to defend myself against a suicidal wasp.

There's your tailored case scenarios and there's mine. The wasp like I previously wrote was collecting pollen for his youngsters. You accidently killed it, why didn't God intervene?

I will accept your version of reality, if you'll accept my version.

I'm not sure you're entirely prepared to accept my version of reality when you previously stated:

Come on, get real. You being compassionate and life loving don't step on and kill that wasp and because of you and your insipid emotional responses

But hey, I never stated I didn't accept your version of reality. I think it should be more than obvious that whilst we battle our stances in this issue, we shouldn't even contemplate on disrespecting each others views.

 

[DM]

Please notice that a few amendments were made. The majority were grammatical and vocabulary mistakes. Do please re-read my post and change your responses if appropriate.

My Apologies.

 

[Royce]

It's ultimately reduced to nothing. I fail to comprehend and accept your ideology of creation. For something to become eternal, it must nonetheless be created.

I think that you are reading too much into what I'm writing. It is not about religion at all. Get that out of your mind and address just the logic and reasoning.

Something cannot become eternal. If it is eternal it always was and always will be. If something is eternal it is not created because then it would have a beginning. Eternal is defined an without beginning and without end.

I maintain that logically something must be eternal. I do not claim to know what that something may be.

However since the definition that I use for universe is all that exist, if something exists, it exists within the universe (I am not limiting my thoughts to what we know as the physical universe.) and if something is eternal and exist within the universe then, by necessity, the universe is eternal.

Among my assumptions for this thread was:
The universe is eternal.
God exists.
God is eternal.
God created the physical universe (in such a way that it evolves just as we do.)

You unequivocally believe that God is eternal. Do you believe the universe is eternal?

Yes by logical necessity as said above.

This firm belief of yours is by far the most troublesome view that I have so far come across with you. The flaw in your statement in my personal opinion is that eternity is not created. Allow me to raise a question. Living in the spirit world after your death is eternal by apparently all religions. According to your entrenched ideology on this matter, it therefore means that the human spirit will last forever. Now, this clearly seems to match your beliefs on an everlasting life. However, your soul was CREATED in the process. For your soul to come to light, your death must occur - paradoxically to your views this also tells me that there's an end to everything - giving rise to a soul, in which must be created in order to live on a spirit world.

Most of this is outside the topic of this thread and I have said nothing like any of this in this thread. I therefore assume that you have been reading some of my other posts and or threads. Even though off topic and smacking of religion I will address these items as best I can.

"The flaw in your statement in my personal opinion is that eternity is not created."]

First I am not talking about "eternity" at all. But, if "eternity" is created then it must have a beginning and thus eternity would not by definition be eternal. This is simple logic and semantics.

"According to your entrenched ideology on this matter, it therefore means that the human spirit will last forever. Now, this clearly seems to match your beliefs on an everlasting life. However, your soul was CREATED in the process."

I don't remember ever saying this anywhere. Is this an assumption or are you reading beyond what I have written? Yes, I believe that the soul is created and in the possibility or everlasting life however having said that then the soul is not as an individual soul eternal as it would have a beginning but no end. I have no definition for that circumstance.

"For your soul to come to light, your death must occur - paradoxically to your views this also tells me that there's an end to everything - giving rise to a soul, in which must be created in order to live on a spirit world."

The physical death of my physical body here on the physical world in the physical universe, yes, but, this does not include the death or end of my soul. Who mentioned anything about a spiritual world in this or any other thread of mine?

(I have just come to think that I am clouding the issues with all of my extraneous remarks. I will try to keep my answers as concise and precise as possible, one or two lines. This is not to be short or a smart ass nor am I growing impatient. I will do this for the sake of clarity and understanding only. I will do this as long as you want to continue, as long as the mentors will let us, regardless of on topic or not. Even if we are the only two reading this. Perhaps it will leads us both to a better understanding. - Royce)

Because God does not contribute or intervene in any phases of your walking. Indeed, this may be an opinion but even to all of those who are religious, would in my belief agree that your walking phases are purely down to you.

I do not believe that God does not contribute or intervene at all. Just the opposite as any father would. I just don't believe that God is responsible nor culpable for all the hardships, sins, suffering and disease on this world.
I think that most of this is brought on by our collective selves, all of Mankind and our situation and state at this time. It is possible that once evolution is set in motion that there is no other possibility for direct intervention in the conditions of life on this world. I don't know.

I have just discovered a new belief about you. So you do believe in evolution and ecology. For you to say that we, human beings, should have the ability to prevail over other organisms, you are breaking every law, or at least one of the ten commandments in the bible. Even in self defense, you must not fight, hurt or otherwise kill anyone.

Yes, I believe in evolution and ecology. I did not say that we should have but that we do the ability; its the law of the jungle.

I am breaking no laws or commandments as they address murder not killing. Killing in self defense is not murder nor is killing to eat, to stay alive.

There's your tailored case scenarios and there's mine. The wasp like I previously wrote was collecting pollen for his youngsters. You accidental killed it, why didn't God intervene?

Because it didn't, doesn't matter in the greater scheme of the Cosmos?

But hey, I never stated I didn't accept your version of reality. I think it should be more than obvious that whilst we battle our stances in this issue, we shouldn't even contemplate on disrespecting each others views.

Again, we agree! It is never my intention to be disrespectful even when arguing tooth and nail and going for the throat for a good clean kill.

 

[DM]

I think that you are reading too much into what I'm writing. It is not about religion at all. Get that out of your mind and address just the logic and reasoning.

I think it's about religion if you don't mind me insisting. Your views are firmly attached to religion because you keep on referring to God and its laws. I on the other hand insist that God does not exist in the way you think it does (if he at all exists) and thus challange your views. I'm not in any way or form critising you but in fact encouraging you to be open minded about your ideologies and indeed exchange them in our conversation.

In fact I would like to beg you not to derail away from your religious beliefs.

If something is eternal it is not created because then it would have a beginning. Eternal is defined an without beginning and without end.

Definition wise the word "eternal" means that something or someone lasts forever. In three dictionaries that I have personally looked at, nowhere does it mention "without a beginning" or other similar meaning words.

The universe is eternal.
God exists.
God is eternal.
God created the physical universe (in such a way that it evolves just as we do.)

I'd like to for now forget all about the rest that has been debated amongst us so far - for the sake of clarity as you very well put it - and would like to draw your attention to the following. How does all of the above assumptions fit with your belief about apocalypse? If the world ends, will the universe also end?

The logic that nothing created God is highly controversial, I just cannot contend with this belief. I'd like to know how this is possible in your opinion. How did God emerge? Stating that God has been ubiquitous forever is very ambiguous, how did his presence appeared in a vacuum?

 

[Royce]

I think it's about religion if you don't mind me insisting. Your views are firmly attached to religion because you keep on referring to God and its laws. I on the other hand insist that God does not exist in the way you think it does (if he at all exists) and thus challenge your views.

This thread is intended to be a philosophical discussion of one statement that shows up again and again. "God cannot exist as there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."

As in any such debate there are starting assumptions made and definitions of terms defined. I did this at the beginning of this thread.
Any ensuing discussion to be meaningful and in topic must be within those assumptions or meanings.

Again I say that this has nothing to do with religion or any religious view, beliefs or theology. It is a valid metaphysical topic. Despite what you may think or believe you are obligated to stay within the topic and within the assumptions and definitions of this thread if you are going to participate. Not only is this the accepted role of any debate or discussion it is the ruled of Physics Forums that there will be no religious discussions allowed.

Definition wise the word "eternal" means that something or someone lasts forever. In three dictionaries that I have personally looked at, nowhere does it mention "without a beginning" or other similar meaning words.

If you do not agree with nor accept the initial assumptions or definitions the an agreement must be made or no meaningful discussion can take place. I defined eternal as meaning without beginning and without end.
What it is defined as anywhere else has no bearing on this topic.

If you wish to discuss the topic on your terms,I suggest that you start your own thread. Just keep it off any religious topic as that is not allowed and I think rightfully so. There are plenty of religious forums available. This is the philosophy sub forum of Physics Forums.

I'd like to for now forget all about the rest that has been debated amongst us so far - for the sake of clarity as you very well put it - and would like to draw your attention to the following. How does all of the above assumptions fit with your belief about apocalypse? If the world ends, will the universe also end?{/QUOTE]

That is too far off topic to discuss here; but, just because the world ends doesn't mean that the universe does.

The logic that nothing created God is highly controversial, I just cannot contend with this belief. I'd like to know how this is possible in your opinion. How did God emerge? Stating that God has been ubiquitous forever is very ambiguous, how did his presence appeared in a vacuum?

Either something came from nothing or something is eternal.
The universe is defined and all that exists.
If something exists eternally, then the universe is by definition eternal.
The universe is thought to be atemporal, without time.
If there is consciousness in the universe it too must be eternal.
It is thought that this consciousness is eternal and is the Universal Consciousness.
It is possible that this eternal universal consciousness my be the universe itself. They are and identity.
I refer to this identity as God. This is my personal believe and preference.

 

[DM]

This thread is intended to be a philosophical discussion of one statement that shows up again and again. "God cannot exist as there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."

Which happens to be highly paradoxical with what you mostly state and underpin your statements with.

As in any such debate there are starting assumptions made and definitions of terms defined. I did this at the beginning of this thread.
Any ensuing discussion to be meaningful and in topic must be within those assumptions or meanings.

In which happens to be yours, nowhere does it state that interlocutors must accept your assumptions. I'm starting to see your impatience growing on this matter. Installing parameters on assumptions does not challenge anyones beliefs about life, whether you include or exclude God.

Again I say that this has nothing to do with religion or any religious view, beliefs or theology. It is a valid metaphysical topic. Despite what you may think or believe you are obligated to stay within the topic and within the assumptions and definitions of this thread if you are going to participate.

This was not the case in the past. There were members that challanged your views and you agreed with their participation. This response can only be construed by me as a means of anger and impatience. I choose to no longer participate in this thread.

Not only is this the accepted role of any debate or discussion it is the ruled of Physics Forums that there will be no religious discussions allowed.

Fair enough. Point taken.

There are plenty of religious forums available. This is the philosophy sub forum of Physics Forums.

Religion is completely intrinsic to philosophy. I thought you knew that.

Not to worry though, I shall leave this thread alone. I can only regret that you interpret this discussion as a violation of rules and do not wish to peacefully enjoy our discussion. I truly believed that this particular matter was evolving quite nicely and no where did I think that I would ever upset you or provoke this completely unpredictable response from you.

Finally I can only hope we continue to engage peacefully and respectfully in other discussions to come in the future. It was a true pleasure debating with you.

 

[Royce]

Which happens to be highly paradoxical with what you mostly state and underpin your statements with.

I agree that it is paradoxical and was attempting to reason through the paradox.

We could try another approach.
Throw away all of the assumptions that I started with as well as the definitions and start with new one.

Another line would be:

Assume that there is no God, no Creator and that the physicalist's are right that all that is is just the result of chance and inevitable due to the laws of physics and chemistry. I thought of this last night and thought about starting a new thread with the same question.

If there is no God No creator why is there so much evil, suffering and disease in the world? Whose fault is it? Who or what do we blame? Or is nothing to blame. This is just they way that it is.

In which happens to be yours, nowhere does it state that interlocutors must accept your assumptions. I'm starting to see your impatience growing on this matter. Installing parameters on assumptions does not challenge anyones beliefs about life, whether you include or exclude God.

This was not the case in the past. There were members that challenged your views and you agreed with their participation. This response can only be construed by me as a means of anger and impatience. I choose to no longer participate in this thread.

It is of course your prerogative to no longer participate. This was not my intention nor reason for my replies. I am trying to give you, us some guide lines of discussion to keep this thread open. In the past if threads wandered too far of topic or strayed too much into religion they would be locked down. I am not and was not growing impatient but I can see how that could be construed from my responses. For that I apologize.

Religion is completely intrinsic to philosophy. I thought you knew that.

I do and I agree with you. But I ain't in charge and in the past we had a religion sub-forum but it too often became reduced to name calling and preaching, which is not philosophy

Not to worry though, I shall leave this thread alone. I can only regret that you interpret this discussion as a violation of rules and do not wish to peacefully enjoy our discussion. I truly believed that this particular matter was evolving quite nicely and no where did I think that I would ever upset you or provoke this completely unpredictable response from you.

Finally I can only hope we continue to engage peacefully and respectfully in other discussions to come in the future. It was a true pleasure debating with you.

There is no need to stop. We can, if you want, continue our discussion.
If we get a warning we will have to comply or the thread will be locked.
It is entirely up to you.

 

[Paul Martin]

Yet another approach

We could try another approach.
Throw away all of the assumptions that I started with as well as the definitions and start with new one.

Less drastic, and I would think more fruitful, would be to throw away only that one assumption of God being omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, complete, immutable, and any other such "almighty" attribute.

This is an unwarranted assumption that people accept simply because it has been repeated so often since ancient times.

If the creator is indeed limited, say on the order that we as humans are limited, nothing would prevent the creator from designing and building things just as humans design and build things. One of the natural consequences of this would be that there would no doubt be errors and imperfection in those designs and creations, just as there are errors and imperfections in our cars and space shuttles. The "Problem of Evil" thus becomes a non-problem and is explained simply as a set of unintended consequences that you would expect from a less-than-perfect designer.

Paul

 

[Royce]

I agree, Paul but, there is no paradox to solve nor reason to blame God or deny his existence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Religion is completely intrinsic to philosophy. I thought you knew that.

That is incorrect. The major categories of philosophy are logic, ethics, epistomology and metaphysics. Possibly you've misunderstood the difference between metaphysics and religion.

Less drastic, and I would think more fruitful, would be to throw away only that one assumption of God being omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, complete, immutable, and any other such "almighty" attribute. This is an unwarranted assumption that people accept simply because it has been repeated so often since ancient times.

I have to give you a hearty "bravo" for that statement. I can't tell you how many debates/dicussions have been rendered useless and silly here because of all the assumptions people feel they need to drag around with them. There is absolutely no logical or evidential reason to maintain the assumptions other than somebody a long time ago said it.

If the creator is indeed limited, say on the order that we as humans are limited, nothing would prevent the creator from designing and building things just as humans design and build things. One of the natural consequences of this would be that there would no doubt be errors and imperfection in those designs and creations, just as there are errors and imperfections in our cars and space shuttles.

On the other hand, we can't assume such a creationary consciousness has the same limitations as humans do for no other reason than how long it may have evolved. Starting about 5 billion years ago with the development of our solar system, the quality of changes from that point to now on Earth has been astonishing. No human can produce a solar system with the built in features ours has to protect and encourage a blue planet, no human can produce a living cell, no human can evolve a brain and have consciousness emerge that is intelligent enough to contemplate its own existence.

I am not suggesting anything supernatural, but rather that if some sort of participating, guiding consciousness is/has been part of our development, it has had at least 5 billion years of learning/evolution under its belt by now, though probably a lot more in order to have guided so expertly from the very beginning. The one way I would agree with your statement "If the creator is indeed limited, say on the order that we as humans are limited" is in terms of being subject to basic laws. This creation follows laws every single step of the way, so there is no reason to believe the creator hasn't had to obey underlying laws to create.

One of the natural consequences of this would be that there would no doubt be errors and imperfection in those designs and creations, just as there are errors and imperfections in our cars and space shuttles.

It's interesting how smart we are becoming. Will there be a day when we understand living systems well enough to rid ourselves of disease? Might the creationary consciousness forseen that happening?

"Problem of Evil" thus becomes a non-problem and is explained simply as a set of unintended consequences that you would expect from a less-than-perfect designer.
Paul

Something I think is funny is two ways science believers (athiestic) may talk about creation depending on what is cited as the creator. To someone saying God is the creator they may say, "What kind of God would create all this misery, all this disease, war, rape, children tortured and killed. This God must be a monster indeed."

But if a God believer happens to say that the universe seems meaningless without God, then the science believer (athiestic) might say, "What? Are you kidding? Have you noticed what nature has achieved in this universe? It is a wonder, an absolutely incredible place with . . ." (and then follows the list of great stuff we find here).

So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[Rade]

So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm.

Yes, because nature maintains the the right to create both good and evil, and since nature created God, all makes perfect sense.

 

[Rade]

.. The major categories of philosophy are logic, ethics, epistomology and metaphysics. Possibly you've misunderstood the difference between metaphysics and religion.

I find it instructive that you place religion outside philosophy. By definition (Webster) to "philosophize" is to "investigate phenomena and assign rational causes for their existence". Thus we note that those that study religion, while they clearly investigate phenomena, must then by definition do so outside "reason" (e.g., outside rational causes), and hence we see clearly why religion is also outside "science". The causes for ultimate existence obtained via religion are thus by definiton obtained by a mental process that functions outside of reason, outside of logic, and are thus part of the irrational mental images of humans. Thank you for clarifying this issue.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm.

Yes, because nature maintains the right to create both good and evil, and since nature created God, all makes perfect sense.

I'm sure you think your answer somehow makes your case, but I don't see it. Nature has "rights"?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I find it instructive that you place religion outside philosophy. By definition (Webster) to "philosophize" is to "investigate phenomena and assign rational causes for their existence".

There you go using a dictionary again in a philosophy discussion. Where a dictionary is appropriate is for language questions, not for philosophical meanings. It is never relied on in serious philosophy, which isn't primarily about language but about the nature of reality.

Thus we note that those that study religion, while they clearly investigate phenomena, must then by definition do so outside "reason" (e.g., outside rational causes), and hence we see clearly why religion is also outside "science". The causes for ultimate existence obtained via religion are thus by definiton obtained by a mental process that functions outside of reason, outside of logic, and are thus part of the irrational mental images of humans. Thank you for clarifying this issue.

I've only repeated a bushel of times that I don't like religion, and that much of it can't be made sense of.

What's funny is that you automatically associate the belief in God with religion, so it is clear you don't know much about why some people who are non-religious suspect and feel there is "something more." If you judge others by what you are capable of or value, you are going to have a pretty narrow view.

In my experience, it's the most sensitive people who are able to pick up on the sublety that can be felt behind all the apparent stuff that goes on. The person feeling it can't prove it, they can only suggest to you how to become quiet enough inside to feel it yourself. You'll call them "irrational" because you've already decided that rationality is the only avenue to truth. They might call you deadened.

 

[DM]

That is incorrect. The major categories of philosophy are logic, ethics, epistomology and metaphysics. Possibly you've misunderstood the difference between metaphysics and religion.

Perhaps in your own mind and indeed in this forum (and in philosophy for that matter), religion is not regarded as part of the categories. That is your prerogative and I respect it entirely.

However may I please draw your attention to the following:

Something I think is funny is two ways science believers (athiestic) may talk about creation depending on what is cited as the creator. To someone saying God is the creator they may say, "What kind of God would create all this misery, all this disease, war, rape, children tortured and killed. This God must be a monster indeed."

But if a God believer happens to say that the universe seems meaningless without God, then the science believer (athiestic) might say, "What? Are you kidding? Have you noticed what nature has achieved in this universe? It is a wonder, an absolutely incredible place with . . ." (and then follows the list of great stuff we find here).

So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm.

Your vocabulary is very religious. For you to speak so many times of God, creators, atheists, etc... surely you would have to agree that philosophy revolves around religion. Perhaps that's what it is, philosophy is not religion but you can't ever state that philosophy does not revolve around religion as you unwittingly utter words concerning religion.

What's funny is that you automatically associate the belief in God with religion, so it is clear you don't know much about why some people who are non-religious suspect and feel there is "something more." If you judge others by what you are capable of or value, you are going to have a pretty narrow view.

You completely lost me here. So God is not religion? Are these coined terms? I truly do not understand it, God has for a hundred/thousand years been associated with religion, since when has it been dissociated from it?

There you go using a dictionary again in a philosophy discussion. Where a dictionary is appropriate is for language questions, not for philosophical meanings.

Are you implying philosophy is another language? Just who exacly writes these definitions? I'm sorry but this is beyond confusing. Perhaps if you were to direct me to a particular shop where a dictionary of English Philosophy is sold, I would indeed contemplate on purchasing it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps in your own mind and indeed in this forum (and in philosophy for that matter), religion is not regarded as part of the categories. That is your prerogative and I respect it entirely.

It isn't my perrogative; the four categories of philosophy have been recognized for some time now. All universities recognize this and teach accordingly. No one is making up new rules here, we are following well-established scholarly guidelines.

There you go using a dictionary again in a philosophy discussion. Where a dictionary is appropriate is for language questions, not for philosophical meanings.

Are you implying philosophy is another language? Just who exacly writes these definitions? I'm sorry but this is beyond confusing. Perhaps if you were to direct me to a particular shop where a dictionary of English Philosophy is sold, I would indeed contemplate on purchasing it.

A dictionary is designed to help a person use language; it's purpose is to assist everyday speaking and writing, not philosophical inquiry. A simple example is "truth." The dictionary will provide a variety of definitions based on the different ways it is used in language, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of truth.

I don't know of any philosophy professor who would allow students to, say, write a paper on some subject by leaping from a dictionary definition. It's blasphemy!

Your vocabulary is very religious. For you to speak so many times of God, creators, atheists, etc... surely you would have to agree that philosophy revolves around religion. Perhaps that's what it is, philosophy is not religion but you can't ever state that philosophy does not revolve around religion as you unwittingly utter words concerning religion.

There is a difference in wondering about, believing in, and being skeptical of God . . . and religion. I am a bit over educated on the subject of religion, so not only can I state my comments were non-religious, I absolutely insist they were not.

You completely lost me here. So God is not religion? Are these coined terms? I truly do not understand it, God has for a hundred/thousand years been associated with religion, since when has it been dissociated from it?

God is not religion, correct. Has the God concept been associated with religion? Yep. So what? The Mafia has been associated with Italians, so is Italian a criminal organization? People in the past have worshipped the sun. Is the sun a religion, or is the sun a star which some people decided to incorporate into their religion? It is no reflection on the sun what stupid stuff people come to believe about it.

So God is one thing, and then there's all the crap that people come up with to be involved with God.

I am not saying God exists, I am saying that IF God exists, religion may or may not know the slightest thing about that being or force or whatever it is. You can't assume just because someone claims they are experts on a subject they really are. In fact, my studies have indicated to me that religion is packed with practices and beliefs that make little sense. If you believe things simply because they are in a book or because some authority states it as fact, and never question whether they make sense or are supported by evidence, that is hardly the spirit of philosophical inquiry.

In philosophy we might consider if the universe is conscious somehow and if having the universe conscious helps explain certain things. There is a philosophical way to contemplate the possibility of some sort of creative consciousness, and there is a religious way. BIG difference.

 

[sameandnot]

A dictionary is designed to help a person use language; it's purpose is to assist speaking and writing, not philosophical inquiry. A simple example is "truth." The dictionary will provide a variety of definitions base on the different ways it is used in language, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of truth.

do we not use language in philosophy? how can we communicate, in philosophy or otherwise, without using language? how could we engage in philosophical inquiry without well-defined terms of speaking? if the nature of a word/concept is not to be found in a dictionary, how, then, is it that we can speak about the nature of things? how could we speak, intelligibly, in any dialogue, or attempt at any communication?

In philosophy we might consider if the universe is conscious somehow and if having the universe conscious helps explain certain things.

what do you mean by "philosophy", "universe", "conscious", "having", "explain", "things"?

if basic conceptual meaning is not provided by linguistics, how could we even imagine that we might communicate more abstractly?

 

[Royce]

DM, I have repeatedly tried to tell you that the philosophical topic of God has nothing to do with religion. I am not at all religious and I despise most if not all organized religions; however, I am very spiritual and I do believe in God and Jesus Christ. I consider myself a christian not a Christian.

The main reason for this separation is because religion comes so loaded with bias, beliefs, emotions and dogma that it is almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

The existence of a god, God or a Creator and his possible powers, attributes and intentions are valid metaphysical subjects. If religion is a valid philosophy subject it is in the branch of metaphysics.

As Les said, the belief in God and/or a creator is not religious. It is philosophical. Religion is what comes after that belief and how people worship and what they believe about God.

Buddhism is not a religion but a way of life, of living life but people have made it a religion and worship Buddha, who near the end of his life said let the spirits take care of themselves. We are concerned about living life. (or words to that effect.)

This thread and so many others like it here are not about preaching religious dogma or beliefs, but is about philosophical issues dealing with God and the belief in God.

PS: I'm glad to see you still participating in this thread.

 

[Les Sleeth]

do we not use language in philosophy? how can we communicate, in philosophy or otherwise, without using language? how could we engage in philosophical inquiry without well-defined terms of speaking? if the nature of a word/concept is not to be found in a dictionary, how, then, is it that we can speak about the nature of things? how could we speak, intelligibly, in any dialogue, or attempt at any communication?

Give me a break please! Philosophy exists because there are lots of unanswered questions, all of which now have "words" attached to them. If the issues the words represent aren't yet understood by humanity, then how the heck are you going to rely on a dictionary in a discussion meant to explore what is unknown?

what do you mean by "philosophy", "universe", "conscious", "having", "explain", "things"?

if basic conceptual meaning is not provided by linguistics, how could we even imagine that we might communicate more abstractly?

Are you really unable to distinguish between the mechanics of language, and the fact that there are things we try to understand because they seem key to the nature of reality? Just because we attach a word to such an aspect, like truth or love, doesn't mean we understand truth or love. Once we are being philosophical it is understood that we are moving beyond what's required for simple day to day conversation/writing and delving into the deeper meaning of things.

 

[Rade]

There you go using a dictionary again in a philosophy discussion. Where a dictionary is appropriate is for language questions, not for philosophical meanings. It is never relied on in serious philosophy, which isn't primarily about language but about the nature of reality.

I reject this statement, it is neither logical nor true. What you state here is itself open to philosophic debate--it is the debate of the internalist that views everything as esssential (thus definitions are useless) vs the externalist that views nothing as essential (thus definitions are useless). But both views may be incorrect, and it is a well developed philosophic thought that definitions are critical to proper philosophic discussion of concepts. Thus your comments about "professional" philosophers not using definitions are incorrect.

 

[Rade]

...Religion is (=) what comes after that belief and how people worship and what they believe about God.

But, this sure sounds like a "definition", and did not Les just scold us not to use "definitions" in this philosophy forum But then, since you have broken the "Les rule of philosophy" and used a definition to make a logical argument, how about we investigate the definition of religion most recognized in the English speaking world (Webster, unabridged), and we find that "Religion is (=) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe". Now, since a rose by any other name still smells as sweet as a rose, RELIGION is all about (=) belief in GOD, and not at all as you conclude "what comes after belief". What comes after belief in God (e.g., Religion) is called "philosophy" (using reason to investigate your belief in God).

 

[Rade]

I'm sure you think your answer somehow makes your case, but I don't see it. Nature has "rights"?

Of course nature has rights. How do you define the concept "rights", seems obvious to me ?

 

[Math Is Hard]

It is my sincere hope that at some point this thread will return to the original subject. The problem of evil is a rich topic and it is worthy of discussion, even if we only address historical viewpoints. This thread degraded exactly as I expected it would, by first swinging to the argument from contingency, and then into disagreements on the definition of philosophy itself.

In hopes of returning to the discussion, let me ask this: is it possible that evil is allowed to exist because without it there could be no definitive or recognizable good? To draw a parallel, if we lived in a world where the only color we perceived was red, would we have a concept of "red"? Or a concept of color?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Also... Royce, you gave me an analogue of "God as parent" who let's us fumble and struggle through life in order to learn, and to let us have some self-satisfaction through this. In some cases, this works very well for me. In others, it doesn't. Mostly because of the senseless suffering I see in the world. A loving parent will stand back and let a child fall off a bicycle if it helps the child learn, but (if he could prevent it) would never allow his child to get cancer or to be abused or tortured. To me, it seems to view a creator as a parent is overly anthropomorphizing such a being. This leads me back to thinking that the creator's "good" is something completely unlike our understanding of "good". Or maybe what's good for the creator and creation is just more experience, in any form- good or bad. Tell me your thoughts.
With respect (as always),
mih

 

[DM]

DM, I have repeatedly tried to tell you that the philosophical topic of God has nothing to do with religion.

Yes indeed you have, Royce. What I cannot understand is why philosophers utter words concerning religion (in my eyes it is religion) and refuse to admit that philosophy does not revolve around religion. You have previously admitted that you agreed with my view that religion is intrinsic to philosophy, have you not?

I am not at all religious and I despise most if not all organized religions; however, I am very spiritual and I do believe in God and Jesus Christ. I consider myself a christian not a Christian.

I have a serious problem with this statement. What is the difference between a christian and a Christian? It is these terms that I fail to understand from you, philosophers in this forum.

As Les said, the belief in God and/or a creator is not religious. It is philosophical. Religion is what comes after that belief and how people worship and what they believe about God.

I completely disagree but I'm willling to respect that view. What you've just stated is beyond ludicrous in the eyes of religious people. You may believe in such thing amongst philosophers, but certainly not amongst pure religious people. Thus why is best to avoid such statements because of course there are many who participate in the philosophy sub-forums and are bound to conflict those views.

This thread and so many others like it here are not about preaching religious dogma or beliefs, but is about philosophical issues dealing with God and the belief in God.

I totally agree but you must realize that I've never preached no one, I only challanged people, including you, to exchange their views on the bible and thus discuss how it fits with the philosophy of today. Perhaps I may have admittedly gone off topic but I reassure you that it occurred so with the interest of the original topic.

It is my sincere hope that at some point this thread will return to the original subject. The problem of evil is a rich topic and it is worthy of discussion, even if we only address historical viewpoints.

I most certainly agree. From now on I'm only prepared to participate in this thread with clear arguments concerning the original topic.

 

[DM]

I don't know of any philosophy professor who would allow students to, say, write a paper on some subject by leaping from a dictionary definition. It's blasphemy!

Fair enough, Les Sleeth. I agree with discussing topics of philosophy according to your own or otherwise other people's coined terms. Perhaps reminding interlocutors to agree with that prior to any posts would be wise as it seems most arguments arise from misinterpretations.

What I of course predict is that participators will always challange those terms, and quite inevitably cause conflicts. Others will find it very difficult to accord with those terms and consequently loose their interest in posting in this sub-forum.

 

[Royce]

But, this sure sounds like a "definition", and did not Les just scold us not to use "definitions" in this philosophy forum But then, since you have broken the "Les rule of philosophy" and used a definition to make a logical argument, how about we investigate the definition of religion most recognized in the English speaking world (Webster, unabridged), and we find that "Religion is (=) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe".

This is exactly what Les was talking about. Dictionary definitions do not take precedence over the terms defined in philosophy nor those by the author (in this case of the thread or post).

If you do a google search you will find several on line philosophy dictionaries and the definitions do not always correspond with those of normal dictionaries.

I often use dictionary definitions when the question of meaning comes up but not as an authority but as a way to come to an agreement on the meaning of a term. It doesn't always work because people often refuse to except the meaning given.

Essentially once the author of a thread defines a term no matter how absurd that you may think it. You are obligated to discuss the topic within those terms and definition unless you both agree to a different definition.

Now, since a rose by any other name still smells as sweet as a rose, RELIGION is all about (=) belief in GOD, and not at all as you conclude "what comes after belief". What comes after belief in God (e.g., Religion) is called "philosophy" (using reason to investigate your belief in God).

Religion is all about worship and dogma. Religion connotes organized religion as in The Church. What in Gods name does The Church have to do with Philosophy, Reasoning or Logic?

The existence of God and/or the aspects or properties of a god are valid philosophical topics. Religion is not.

This is one reason such threads are not allowed here and why if they pop up are locked down. It is also one of the reason that it is almost impossible to discuss any facets of the god question without Religion getting into and confusing the topic.

This is THE REASON, as the author of this thread, that I refuse to discuss this topic on a religious level. It ain't about religion, its about human nature and behavior and the strong tendency for us to blame God or deny God's existence because of our failings and shortcomings as well as our present situation.

 

[Royce]

It is my sincere hope that at some point this thread will return to the original subject. The problem of evil is a rich topic and it is worthy of discussion, even if we only address historical viewpoints. This thread degraded exactly as I expected it would, by first swinging to the argument from contingency, and then into disagreements on the definition of philosophy itself.

AMEN, BROTHER!

In hopes of returning to the discussion, let me ask this: is it possible that evil is allowed to exist because without it there could be no definitive or recognizable good? To draw a parallel, if we lived in a world where the only color we perceived was red, would we have a concept of "red"? Or a concept of color?

The most accepted reason that evil is allowed to exist is because of freewill. If only good exists then we would not have any choices. As the perfect God cannot reasonable created evil or imperfection we ,Mankind, must have fallen from grace and perfection and therefore have a propensity to choose evil rather than good.

I maintain that we have not fallen but are in the process of rising up from the primal mud and evolving toward perfection. Your point is however well taken without evil there can be no good just as without other colors there can be no red.

 

[Royce]

Also... Royce, you gave me an analogue of "God as parent" who let's us fumble and struggle through life in order to learn, and to let us have some self-satisfaction through this. In some cases, this works very well for me. In others, it doesn't. Mostly because of the senseless suffering I see in the world. A loving parent will stand back and let a child fall off a bicycle if it helps the child learn, but (if he could prevent it) would never allow his child to get cancer or to be abused or tortured. To me, it seems to view a creator as a parent is overly anthropomorphizing such a being.

It is only a mild metaphor and not exact. God, as the Holy Father is but one simple aspect of God that we mere humans can relate to.

This leads me back to thinking that the creator's "good" is something completely unlike our understanding of "good". Or maybe what's good for the creator and creation is just more experience, in any form- good or bad. Tell me your thoughts.
With respect (as always),
mih

The reasons that there is disease, such as cancer, and so much of what we perceive of as evil are subjects for many books well beyond this forum. The simplest answer that I have come across is that it doesn't matter. Our lives here on Earth are so short and temporary that whatever we don't get here we will get latter and any suffering that befalls us is fleeting in comparison and will make us stronger. Yeah, I know, tell this to some poor child suffering horribly with cancer.

The is also the thought that we are the reason we get sick. If we ate right and thought right we would not get sick. Some people get sick and stay sick because they want to be sick.

 

[Royce]

Yes indeed you have, Royce. What I cannot understand is why philosophers utter words concerning religion (in my eyes it is religion) and refuse to admit that philosophy does not revolve around religion. You have previously admitted that you agreed with my view that religion is intrinsic to philosophy, have you not?

I know that it is very difficult for most of us to separate in our minds God and Religion. God, the philosophical God question is about God and Only God and his possible existence and possible properties, characteristics or purposes in general terms. Religion, as I said is about worship, the way we worship and religious dogma in specific terms. Philosophical they are not the same.

I did say the religion is a topic of one branch of philosophy, metaphysics.
In that way religion is intrinsic, as I understand the term, to metaphysics.

I have a serious problem with this statement. What is the difference between a christian and a Christian? It is these terms that I fail to understand from you, philosophers in this forum.

A Christian is one of, and one who practices the Christian Religion.

A christian in one who believes in the existence of Jesus but is not of, nor practices Christianity as determined by THE CHURCH or any other sect of Christianity. This distinction is my own and every time I do a spell check it wants to correct and capitalize christian.

I completely disagree but I'm willing to respect that view. What you've just stated is beyond ludicrous in the eyes of religious people. You may believe in such thing amongst philosophers, but certainly not amongst pure religious people. Thus why is best to avoid such statements because of course there are many who participate in the philosophy sub-forums and are bound to conflict those views.

Which is exactly why I make the distinction and separation and insist that this topic has nothing to do with religion. I ain't dumb and I ain't just being hard headed. There is a valid reason for insisting of this approach.

I totally agree but you must realize that I've never preached no one, I only challenged people, including you, to exchange their views on the bible and thus discuss how it fits with the philosophy of today. Perhaps I may have admittedly gone off topic but I reassure you that it occurred so with the interest of the original topic.
I most certainly agree. From now on I'm only prepared to participate in this thread with clear arguments concerning the original topic.

I wish that I could say that I have never preached to anyone; but, only if they specifically asked me a question concerning my spiritual views.

As far as going off topic, I have no problem with it as long as its not too far of and we eventually get back on topic. Just the last page or so shows how easily this can and does happen. I have tried to answer your questions regardless of topic as best I can. I know I have not always been successful.

 

[Rade]

In hopes of returning to the discussion, let me ask this: is it possible that evil is allowed to exist because without it there could be no definitive or recognizable good? To draw a parallel, if we lived in a world where the only color we perceived was red, would we have a concept of "red"? Or a concept of color?

No, I do not agree. The concept of good does not "require" a concept of "evil", it is possible to create a situation where there are only shades of good--this is where philosophy has failed humans to this time in history--it has failed to point the logical way to pure good. I hold that pure good for humans will be obtained when they use self as a means to an end, and never use others as a means to an end. Pure good thus derives from a neutral monism of self and other.

 

[Math Is Hard]

No, I do not agree. The concept of good does not "require" a concept of "evil", it is possible to create a situation where there are only shades of good--this is where philosophy has failed humans to this time in history--it has failed to point the logical way to pure good. I hold that pure good for humans will be obtained when they use self as a means to an end, and never use others as a means to an end. Pure good thus derives from a neutral monism of self and other.

When you say "shades of good" it seems to imply that there is some sort of base unit of goodness that can be measured and compared, some kinds of good being a little bit good, other goods being very, very good. But it seems to me that this loses it's overall meaning in a world where there is nothing to contrast good with. In the world of "all red" we might be able to measure shades, but we still would not be able to understand the greater concept which is red itself.
Maybe you have a better way to illustrate this so I could see what you are getting at?

 

[Rade]

Maybe you have a better way to illustrate this so I could see what you are getting at?

I have posted elsewhere my thought that the "root of all good" is when a human uses self as a means to an end. Thus, we can conceive many different shades of such actions, take a walk, read a book, watch a sunset, meditate, etc.--all shades of good actions that have different shades of value given by the conscious and rational mind--thus, no need for evil in the life of the pure of mind. Thus I hold that the root of all evil is when humans use others as a means to an end. And what is the "root" of this evil root ?--"groupism"--humans are taught from birth to use others as a means to an end because they are not of the family, the tribe, the county, the religion, etc.--they are the other, to be used for personal benefit, to spit on, to enslave, to convert, to control, to kill. And, the intellectual overlay of this root of groupism are those that over history have taught a philosophy that the other does not exist, that all outside self is image, ideal forms in the mystical mist Or those that teach that evil must be present else no free will choice --what nonsense--numerous actions are available for free will where the other is never used as a means for an end--make a personal list, share it with trends, write a book, it will serve as a road map for the live of the moral human being.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thanks for the insight. That’s an interesting example, and it does seem to present a logically possible world where humans exhibit only goodness by nature. What this made me think about was that it is possible to have a world where no “evil” or human-inflicted suffering exists, but there is still pain and suffering all the same. For instance, natural disasters, disease, accidents, and attacks from predatory animals – all of this would still be allowable under the rules. And all of these events would create opportunities for charity, compassion, and other good acts.

The problem of pain and suffering remains, in that utopia, even with the problem of evil removed. The religious man living in that world might ask why his creator would place him in such a fragile body and in such a hostile environment. And he might even reason that everything in the world has been fashioned in such a way to allow the acts and experiences of goodness- the charity, the compassion, etc. So, here I find myself working on a very similar problem, even with “evil” removed.

What I’m looking for, I think, is how good could exist and how it would be perceived in a world without any evil, pain, or suffering. I think that here I still have a weak argument. If I construct that hypothetical world, it is truly all good in every way, but it seems that the people inhabiting the world may not be able to conceptualize it. It’s just the way things are. But there’s a problem: the “good” doesn’t go away in that situation. It’s still there, and it is omnipresent; it’s just not recognized. There has to be some benefit to recognizing “good”. There must be something valuable that comes from appreciating it and aspiring to it, rather than just purely existing in it. And I think this is probably where the real burden lies in making a case for this particular greater good argument – but it’s still fun to explore the idea.