God, Suffering, Evil and Disease Revisited

[Royce]

Now I am going to throw away all of the assumptions of the original thread and make one other.

Let's assume that the physicalists are right. There is no God or Creator.
All that is is the natural result of the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and evolution.

Who or what now do we blame for all the evil, suffering, starvation, disease and killing in the world?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Now I am going to throw away all of the assumptions of the original thread and make one other.
Let's assume that the physicalists are right. There is no God or Creator.
All that is is the natural result of the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and evolution.
Who or what now do we blame for all the evil, suffering, starvation, disease and killing in the world?

Most of your list comes from the human species. No-one ever said they were Good, unlike god. Much of what cannot be blamed on mankind is just the way of the world, for example medicine enables us to live longer, but that gives various systemic weaknesses more time to show themselves.

In general if people don't keep trying to persuade us there's an All-Good big daddy responsible for the world then we don't have any puzzle about its more unpleasant features. What can be amended we should work to amend, and what can't be must be borne.

 

[Royce]

I agree completely with everything that you say.

Especially; "In general if people don't keep trying to persuade us there's an All-Good big daddy responsible for the world then we don't have any puzzle about its more unpleasant features. What can be amended we should work to amend, and what can't be must be borne."

It seems to be human nature to search for something or someone to blame rather than doing something about it. In this way religion becomes a crutch, an opiate and a way to absolve ourselves of guilt, blame and responsibility.

Given what you said above, for the sake of the discussion, assume that God, the creator and master of the universe does exist. Now tell me please, what changed here on this tiny spec of a world lost in the cosmos.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well if you assume some deity is "creator and master of the universe", then the way it is here and everywhere IS the responsibility of that being. And he either wills it to be this way or he doesn't will it and it is that way anyhow in spite of his will. This is not about fixing blame but just about the definition of "creator and master" As masters go he doesn't shape up really good or competent.

The blessed relief is not to make that assumption. No master, loving or otherwise, no creator, competent or otherwise. Just forces and practical mechanisms like evolution. And admitted ignorance about how it all started, but ignorance is better when it can't be avoided than unsupported fairy tales.

 

[Rade]

Except for your first concept "evil" the other four are the way of nature. Thus, animal prey suffer when not killed completely by predator, some starve, many die of bacteria-virus disease, and of course many more are killed for food (even some plants kill animals for food). So, no "blame" needed, by definition, none of these concepts are "bad". Only humans are "evil", but what does it mean to be "evil" ? I have suggested in another thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103519
that the root of all evil is when a person uses another person as a means to an end. Thus, let us blame such humans for evil.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If use of animals as things by other animals is the way of nature, not evil, and just to be accepted calmly, then your other thing, about humans doing the same being evil, loses a lot of its force. For we are animals too!

But if you assert that this whole setup is the deliberate work of some deity then I repeat that it shows, assuming he is competent, that he is not good by any human standard, and those are the only standards we have. Of course if he is incompetent then he may be good, but just ineffective!

 

[daveb]

It seems to be human nature to search for something or someone to blame rather than doing something about it. In this way religion becomes a crutch, an opiate and a way to absolve ourselves of guilt, blame and responsibility.

This couldn't be more true. I always hated the line, "The best trick ever played by the devil was convincing the world he didn't exist." I think it should be changed to, "The best trick ever played by the devil was convincing the world he does exist."
In this manner, people end up blaming something else for the bad things that happen to them or the bad things they do ("I gave into Satan") rather than take responsibility for their own action.

 

[daveb]

Well, assuming some kind of god does not exist, then evil is merely an extension of survival instincts to situations where survival is not necessarily an issue (ie., Enron, torture, etc.). In this manner, I don't think anything can be said to be truly evil (though by Rade's definition, it is evil) but rather weakness on the part of some members of the human species, biochemical imbalances, etc. Not that this absolves said members of responsibility for their actions. Human definition of good and evil in this manner are (frequently) relatively defined unless you assume a priori that there is some absolute good and humans are too ignorant to understand it fully or just ignore it.
However, if there is some kind of god, then either 1) it is not at the same time all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. Otherwise, it can at the same time see that some situation will cause evil (all knowing), have the moral authority to know how it should be fixed so that no evil (period) may arise from it (all-good), and the ability to fix it just that manner (all-powerful); or 2) It's definition of good is in partial opposition to human definition of good. In this manner, what we humans perceive as evil is not really evil but a means to an end (but by Rade's definition this would make this god evil.

 

[Royce]

Well if you assume some deity is "creator and master of the universe", then the way it is here and everywhere IS the responsibility of that being. And he either wills it to be this way or he doesn't will it and it is that way anyhow in spite of his will. This is not about fixing blame but just about the definition of "creator and master" As masters go he doesn't shape up really good or competent.

Without free will and without hard determinism, I cannot agree. While the Master must take responsibility and is ultimately responsible as is the master, captain, of a ship for instance, we being agents of freewill must also take individual responsibility for our own actions or inactions. Just as any Master delegates power and responsibility, I believe that if there is a God who is the Creator and Master of the universe, he has done just that for whatever reason he may have.

The blessed relief is not to make that assumption. No master, loving or otherwise, no creator, competent or otherwise. Just forces and practical mechanisms like evolution. And admitted ignorance about how it all started, but ignorance is better when it can't be avoided than unsupported fairy tales.

I agree; but, I don't know.

 

[Royce]

Thus, let us blame such humans for evil.

I contend that only humans can be evil. We have a choice and knowingly making the wrong choice at the expence of others is evil, to put it as simply as I can.

 

[Royce]

This couldn't be more true. I always hated the line, "The best trick ever played by the devil was convincing the world he didn't exist." I think it should be changed to, "The best trick ever played by the devil was convincing the world he does exist."
In this manner, people end up blaming something else for the bad things that happen to them or the bad things they do ("I gave into Satan") rather than take responsibility for their own action.

The devil is an invention of Man and incorporated to absolve guilt and responsibility but mainly to add a stick to the carrot. Playing on people's fears and guilt by incorporating old myths is one of the main ways that Christian churches and preachers fill their coffers and control their sheep.

 

[Rade]

If use of animals as things by other animals is the way of nature, not evil, and just to be accepted calmly, then your other thing, about humans doing the same being evil, loses a lot of its force. For we are animals too!

Yes, a very good point. So, for my concept to hold, I must then assume that the human animal is the only animal that by volition can decide to use another member of its own species as a means to its own end. For all other members of the animal kingdom, the action derives from genetics, not free will choice. Consider for example a situation where a human uses another human to help them conduct an experiment (e.g., they get injected with some drug, take some new pill, etc)--would this be an evil act ? To be consistent with my argument, I would have to say yes, this is an evil act, even if the person being injected agreed. The only way to find a good action in this example would be for the person to inject themself, that is, to use self as a means to an end for their own experiment. Another example, a leader of a country decides to use members of his country to fight wars to protect the country--is this an evil act ?--again the answer is yes if my concept of the "root of all evil" holds. The only way to find a good action in this example would be for each individual of the country to fight for themself, to use self protection as a means to an end to protect all. Clearly my concept is not well developed, and perhaps as full of holes as swiss cheese, and it sure seems to go against common wisdom of what is good and evil.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

The subjugation of the self to ‘God’ or the ‘good of society’ to a large extent define the realm of evil. When the individual is not free to pursue their own rational self-interest the potential of that individual to achieve their highest potential suffers and their ultimate value as individuals to others through cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships suffers. This in effect contributes to suffering, starvation, disease, murder and all other forms of evil attributable to creatures of reason and choice. This is not to suggest that these can be eliminated entirely; only that people who benefit by doing their best are our greatest resource for the reduction of these things.

 

[DM]

Well, assuming some kind of god does not exist, then evil is merely an extension of survival instincts to situations where survival is not necessarily an issue (ie., Enron, torture, etc.). In this manner, I don't think anything can be said to be truly evil (though by Rade's definition, it is evil) but rather weakness on the part of some members of the human species, biochemical imbalances, etc.

Where these survival instincts are imprinted in our DNA. It has been proven that humans contain a gene which allows us to be conscious of a greater being (note that it doesn't imply a deity exists, but simply confirms that we possesses a surrounding awareness). Without a God, all the evil, suffering and other related properties is ultimately reduced to DNA, more specifically the "God gene" which is responsible for the culprits we very often place in God and Satan. Given that we deem human testing as an "evil" act, humanity will never be empowered to completely absolve God or Satan from our good or evil actions. Removing this gene would ostensibly cause us to commit more suicides and indeed further wars. I perceive the existence of this gene, assuming God doesn't exist, to be a simple mechanism of our body to relieve tension, depression and senses of being guilty.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It has been proven that humans contain a gene which allows us to be conscious of a greater being (note that it doesn't imply a deity exists, but simply confirms that we possesses a surrounding awareness)

What is your source for this?

 

[DM]

What is your source for this?

This is an easy question to a very difficult answer since I saw it on a TV report. However I have managed to gather some evidence:

TIME
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/

Telegraph
After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
Source Reference

Although the "God gene" is pretty much anecdotal by a small number of scientists, other leading scientists are becoming more and more unanimous on this phenomena.

In the TV report I saw, it was also discussed how an ancient scientist predicted the human soul to measure 12 grams by recording the mass of various people prior and after their death. It's ironic how several centuries ago, performing such experiments were not conceived to be "evil".

 

[daveb]

First, I question the causal conclusion of a study that says those with the gene are more likely to be spiritual than others. There may be correlation, but not necessarily causation. Nowhere does it take into account if a person starts out non-spiritual, then becomes spiritual (nor vice-versa). If the reason a person might do either is because of the expression of the gene through biochemical processes, I would be a bit less skeptical if he then went on to do clinical trials by injecting participants who aren't spiritual with synthesized biochemicals and seeing how many became spiritual, etc. Additionally, I would like to see his data of those who don't have the gene but are nonetheless spiritual. Second, I see no evidence of peer review (in peer review journals) of his data and work, so saying that this is "proven" is a gross misstatement. Finally, if

...It has been proven that humans contain a gene which allows us to be conscious of a greater being...

then there should not be anyone who does not have the gene but is aware, as you say.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First, I question the causal conclusion of a study that says those with the gene are more likely to be spiritual than others. There may be correlation, but not necessarily causation.

Right. The "god gene" is a typical leap to a conclusion by a physicalist researcher who is already convinced consciousness is "caused" by the brain. All interpretation of data goes the way of the researcher's a priori belief. The truth is, correlation (rather than cause) between brain states and consciousness is a perfectly viable interpretation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

First, I question the causal conclusion of a study that says those with the gene are more likely to be spiritual than others. There may be correlation, but not necessarily causation.

On the correlation vs. causation issue, given a high correlation between gene and spirituality, then either the gene causes the spirtuality, or the spirituality causes the gene, or both the gene and the spirituality are caused by something else. Given the difficulty of changing your genome, the latter two possibilities are very unlikely, leaving the first one.

Nowhere does it take into account if a person starts out non-spiritual, then becomes spiritual (nor vice-versa).

Does this happen? A person might change the religion he practices or go from religious to non-religious, but being spiritual or not is something different. In fact such a history of religion change would perhaps argue a strong persistent spirituality which is not satisfied by the churches available.

added: Thinking it over, I think the spirituality they measured is actually the sociologists' "religiosity", which, derived from answers to a questionnaire, is based on propensity to pray and take part in religious services, in fact just the opposite of the spirituality I defined. Religiosity was long ago found by the Minnesota twin study to be highly heritable. And in this case the answer to the question about changing practices would be that in a sample as large as 2000 individuals, the number of those who had been religious and stopped would roughly balance the number of those who had not been religious and started, and in any case, situations like this would reduce the correlation, so if it was high, they would apparently be rare.

If the reason a person might do either is because of the expression of the gene through biochemical processes, I would be a bit less skeptical if he then went on to do clinical trials by injecting participants who aren't spiritual with synthesized biochemicals and seeing how many became spiritual, etc.

This is an argument of perfection. "I won't believe the evidence until you do such-and-such that I specify (and if you should do it I will surely think of something further you should do before I believe it)"

Additionally, I would like to see his data of those who don't have the gene but are nonetheless spiritual.

Or of those who have the gene and aren't spiritual. The correlation won't have been perfect of course.

Second, I see no evidence of peer review (in peer review journals) of his data and work, so saying that this is "proven" is a gross misstatement.

I am sure that the scientist will submit his research to a peer-reviewed journal. Those are what a scientist lives by however much publicity he may garner by the way.

added: I looked up Dean Hamer and he is a very respected scientist with a long history of publications in genetics. The articles were based on a book he published.

Finally, ifthen there should not be anyone who does not have the gene but is aware, as you say.[/QUOTE]

I can't parse this last statemwent at all. Could you clarify?

 

[DM]

then there should not be anyone who does not have the gene but is aware, as you say.

Not entirely true. It's been concluded that this gene is dominant in certain people and recessive in others. In other words, despite all the people possessing this gene, some are more affected by it than others.

 

[Amp1]

Revisited

Curiously SA, I would say, IMO, that spirituality is different than religiosity. Religiosity is the subscription to certain doctrines, dogmas and traditions and spirituality is the conscious awareness of some otherness, a sense, perception, intuition, cognizance or discernment of another consciousness/volition not ordinary in nature.

Dmstifik8ion  … When the individual is not free to pursue their own rational self-interest the potential of that individual to achieve their highest potential suffers and their ultimate value as individuals to others through cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships suffers.

I believe I agree with you. As we seek to reach our potential, having the desire to provide service to our planetary brothers and sisters is among the highest value of morality. Sharing what we know and are able to do will with everyone mutually making the effort will be beneficial to all of us.

Royce … The devil is an invention of Man and incorporated to absolve guilt and responsibility but mainly to add a stick to the carrot.

The word Devil … yes but if there is a ‘God’ then there would likely be being(s) of an order of existence who having rebelled would probably cause any mayhem in the they would be able to get away with in the universe. My reply (#89) your first post on this topic has such a contention though not the assertion.

SA, Royce and whoever else, I consider it a responsibility that the ‘Master’ would have – referring to

… then the way it is here and everywhere IS the responsibility of that being. However,

And (1) he either wills it to be this way or (2) he doesn't will it and it is that way anyhow in spite of his will…

isn’t as cut and dry as the statement appears to be, IMO. I would say its that way (#2) despite the will of ‘God’ Because (1) see above statement to Royce and (2) as I mentioned and imply (#89) in the original topic, it would be cruel to not allow all created beings the opportunity to exist – at least once – and inefficient not to clean up or fix the problems by letting the same thing happen again, ie, bringing back personalities that chose disobedience. In this world in the past and in the present much the same thing happens in a war, soldiers are sacrificed or allowed to die to accomplish a goal leading to victory, the difference being there is no provision made or possible for mortals to bring back to life those valiant soldiers. If ‘God’ is truly what I believe and understand it to be then everyone who has died has that opportunity and promise to live again.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Soldiers die in battle when people have failed, through reason, to agree upon what constitutes a justifiable and worthwhile existence and how this is to be or can be peacefully achieved. Seeking guidance from nonexistant or undefined sources can only frustrate attempts to apply reason to this problem. When we accept that this life is the only known existence we have than employing reason to solve this problem exhibits great advantage to 'fighting over the solution'.

 

[kcballer21]

Right. The "god gene" is a typical leap to a conclusion by a physicalist researcher who is already convinced consciousness is "caused" by the brain. All interpretation of data goes the way of the researcher's a priori belief. The truth is, correlation (rather than cause) between brain states and consciousness is a perfectly viable interpretation.

I agree that such a thing as the 'god gene' is a leap, and unrealistic, but have you yourself ever proved (even to your own self) there is something beyond the physical? I'm tired of all this talk of the 'other'... the other is us, we are the other.. time to own up. If there is an existence of a belief, any belief, it is a result of the complexity and development of evolution. the belief doesn't have to perfectly adaptable, or adaptable at all to survive, there are too many variables that could otherwise allow a belief to survive. Just as an atheist somehow has the mechanism and inference system to convince himself that the universe is godless, a deist/theist has that other thing. It just so happens that reality favors but one of these mechanisms. and there is a "best" method so far to be applied by those that are conscious to determine the nature of this reality.. notice i don't say perfect, but best so far.

 

[Royce]

..., but have you yourself ever proved (even to your own self) there is something beyond the physical?

Both Les and I have proven to ourselves, or better, had proved to us, that there is something beyond the physical. Our "proof" of experience and observation has been validated, duplicated and supported by the experiences and observations of countless others for thousands of years. I'm talking about meditation or union.

It is a personal experience and cannot be empirically proven to someone else, but only experienced by one's self. Les' and my interpretation of our personal experiences differ but we both agree that there is a lot more to reality than just the physical.

Materialism/physicalism is based on the belief that the physical system is a closed system in that only a physical event, cause, can produce a physical change or effect. Yet the physical scientists and everyday observation have shown that there are uncaused events happening all the time in the physical world indicating that the physical system cannot be a closed system, and that, therefore, pure physicalism is untenable.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Royce I was with you until you said this:

Yet the physical scientists and everyday observation have shown that there are uncaused events happening all the time in the physical world indicating that the physical system cannot be a closed system, and that, therefore, pure physicalism is untenable.

Physicists agonize endlessly about preserving causality. What "uncaused events" are you referring to?

 

[Rader]

It seems what you are questioning is the nature of good.

What seems never to be considered in these types of discussions is, does the second law of thermodynamics allow for Gods? If it does then it would seem that It is an integral part of a closed system of mutable parts. Claiming that It is outside of the system is even more implausible since we know of nothing outside of this universe that exist or that has any influence on it.

Is it an illusion that it appears that good increases in the world? If it is why do we strive to do stupid things like help hurricane victims or feed the hungry or try to irradiate diseases? We never used to do this you know, it use to be survival of the fittest.

For some strange reason we have evolved thumbs cognitive brains and religions.

 

[Royce]

Physicists agonize endlessly about preserving causality. What "uncaused events" are you referring to?

Any and all purely random events such as radioactive decay, quantum uncertainty, virtual particle generation and decay, chance etc.

By uncaused I mean not physically caused or predictable. Also voluntary and purposeful movements of my body initiated by my mind and will. We have discussed all this before and I realize that some of these examples are controversial or not completely accepted; however I hold them to be ontologically physically uncaused and/or unpredictable.

Thus, the physical system cannot be a completely closed system.

Ergo, there must be and is "something else" in addition to the purely physical system.

(This is the same argument that I put forth to support my argument that determinism is not tenable. This makes sense since both are based on a closed system of physical cause and effect.)

 

[Royce]

It seems what you are questioning is the nature of good.

What seems never to be considered in these types of discussions is, does the second law of thermodynamics allow for Gods? If it does then it would seem that It is an integral part of a closed system of mutable parts. Claiming that It is outside of the system is even more implausible since we know of nothing outside of this universe that exist or that has any influence on it.

Or, does God(s) allow for all of the laws thermodynamics?

Yes, it follows that if we define the universe as all that exist, then it is a closed system and "Nothing" can exist outside of the universe.

If God exists He/She/It is part of the universe and therefore part of the closed system.

If this is the case and such things as consciousness, will, thought and ideas exist then they too are part of the closed system.

If this is the case then the observable physical universe must be a part of, a subset of, the entire universe.

Is it an illusion that it appears that good increases in the world? If it is why do we strive to do stupid things like help hurricane victims or feed the hungry or try to irradiate diseases? We never used to do this you know, it use to be survival of the fittest.

For some strange reason we have evolved thumbs cognitive brains and religions.

If this is true then there must be a cause the increases the good in the universe?

 

[newp175]

It seems what you are questioning is the nature of good.

What seems never to be considered in these types of discussions is, does the second law of thermodynamics allow for Gods? If it does then it would seem that It is an integral part of a closed system of mutable parts. Claiming that It is outside of the system is even more implausible since we know of nothing outside of this universe that exist or that has any influence on it.

Or, does God(s) allow for all of the laws thermodynamics?

Yes, it follows that if we define the universe as all that exist, then it is a closed system and "Nothing" can exist outside of the universe.

If God exists He/She/It is part of the universe and therefore part of the closed system.

If this is the case and such things as consciousness, will, thought and ideas exist then they too are part of the closed system.

If this is the case then the observable physical universe must be a part of, a subset of, the entire universe.




If this is true then there must be a cause the increases the good in the universe?

I think that many do not understand the notion of infinity. God is infinitely powerful by definition so everything must be infinitely insignificant and small compared to him. So, thinking that any physical law allows the existence of God is wrong, it is the other way around. As far as suffering and evil is concerned, it is not Gods doing but we on our own choose to create it, perpetuate it and not regret it when we see the results due to our selfishness and pride.

Concerning the God gene, I am very sceptical on all sorts of studies aiming to prove race IQ, the existence of god or other, since funding in science dictates they all have an agenda. Besides I haven't seen the study yet and I don't think it examined why people ended up believing in God or the function of that gene (existence of a gene with such an effect in psychology should win a Nobel prize).

 

[Royce]

As far as suffering and evil is concerned, it is not Gods doing but we on our own choose to create it, perpetuate it and not regret it when we see the results due to our selfishness and pride.

This is exactly my point! Thank you, newp175.

Concerning the God gene, I am very skeptical on all sorts of studies aiming to prove race IQ, the existence of god or other, since funding in science dictates they all have an agenda. Besides I haven't seen the study yet and I don't think it examined why people ended up believing in God or the function of that gene (existence of a gene with such an effect in psychology should win a Nobel prize).

Science, including medical science is always trying to show some physical cause for non-physical phenomena. I don't think that they will be happy until they have reduced life and humanity to nothing more than chemicals.
Of course I'm biased toward the non-physical phenomena. At my age that's about all I got left. In my teens and twenties I was all for the more physical aspects of life and humanity. You may take that any way that you please.

 

[Rader]

Or, does God(s) allow for all of the laws thermodynamics?

It seems that the only logical interpretation is It is the laws and its mutable parts. There is no need to invent what is not in your head already. I get the impression from you that you feel that you know something that you seem to know that you do not know.

If this is true then there must be a cause the increases the good in the universe?

The cause is the observation by the observer, and then what it chooses to do in there (mind) reflects out there (physical world) if good increases. When you take a frogs eye view of change it is quite different from an eagles eye view of change. If you consider single cell organisms evolving to cognitive brains an increase of good towards natural perfection, then you would ultimately understand that what has been made good is capable of knowing why good increases in the world.

 

[Rader]

I think that many do not understand the notion of infinity. God is infinitely powerful by definition so everything must be infinitely insignificant and small compared to him.

What is your premise that you come to that conclusion? How could you know this?


[/QUOTE] So, thinking that any physical law allows the existence of God is wrong, it is the other way around. [/QUOTE]


Did you ever consider that your brain would not work if this law did not govern physical systems? So you would not even be able to think that you knew a God exists.

Consider what these two laws tell us about the world:

The second law of thermodynamics states:
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.

The first law of thermodynamics states:
You can't create or destroy energy.

(First law) Nothing was ever created. The world as we know it is in a constant mutable state between energy and matter.

(Second law) cognitive brains give off heat, if they did not, whatever is doing the thinking would not know anything.

These laws seem to be very necessary for whatever knows to know anything at all.

 

[Royce]

The cause is the observation by the observer, and then what it chooses to do in there (mind) reflects out there (physical world) if good increases. When you take a frogs eye view of change it is quite different from an eagles eye view of change. If you consider single cell organisms evolving to cognitive brains an increase of good towards natural perfection, then you would ultimately understand that what has been made good is capable of knowing why good increases in the world.

I'm having a hard time trying to determine what you position is and what you are trying to say.

In a purely physical world there is no good or bad. Those value judgments are made and set by we humans and is only our judgment. It has no real direct effect on the world or the universe nor do they change anything. Good cannot increase or decrease as it is only our mental evaluation and bias.

In a world with God(s) and/or a universal consciousness then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds can only reflect that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then locally good would increase but only a related to humans and our conditions.

Once again, does, can, good actually increase and if so is it because we are changing or is it because we are being changed? Are we doing it or is God doing it?

If there is no God or universal consciousness there is no good or bad there is only the physical state that is and is ever changing.

 

[Paul Martin]

In a world with God(s) and/or a universal consciousness then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds can only reflect that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then locally good would increase but only a related to humans and our conditions.

I think we shouldn't be too hasty in lumping these two premises together. I think they are very different.

I agree that "In a world with God(s)... then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds can only reflect that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then locally good would increase but only a related to humans and our conditions."

But, I think it is logical to say that "In a world with...a universal consciousness then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds [are actually that consciousness and are ultimately determining] that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then [not only would local good related to humans and our conditions increase, but we would be actively contributing to the overall good of the entire universe. We have an awesome responsibility which we each should take very seriously.]"

Paul

 

[Rader]

I'm having a hard time trying to determine what you position is and what you are trying to say.

My working definition of good is an increase in natural perfection.

In a purely physical world there is no good or bad. Those value judgments are made and set by we humans and is only our judgment. It has no real direct effect on the world or the universe nor do they change anything. Good cannot increase or decrease as it is only our mental evaluation and bias.

Long before there was spiritual animals cognitive brains and thinking creature there was good in the world. These things have come to be, upon a long evolutionary chain of events. The singularity from which the forces unfolded one by one were good and the constants of nature of which there parameters allow for evolution of stars and galaxies was good. There might have been a set of parameters which would have been quite different and thus not so good since we would not be here. It was good that not all stars are the same size and some become red giants and explode with all the heavier elements a solar system is made of. It was good that these heavier elements were bountiful thus it was necessary for biological life. It was good that the first metabolic processes converted inert chemicals into ever more complex structures. It was good that plants and trees changed the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere to levels that land animals could breathe. It was good that there were mass extinctions thus mammals began to rein the earth. It was good that humans evolved as we are the only species that is aware of being aware of what is good and why good should exist and why good is natural perfection.

What I have described up until now is pretty much physical in nature, if you look at these events in the frogs eye view its not the same as the eagles eye view. Good then is natural perfection of nature over time. Self aware creatures know this and can so choose willingly for the increase of good in the natural perfection of the world in physical mental and spiritual ways.

In a world with God(s) and/or a universal consciousness then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds can only reflect that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then locally good would increase but only a related to humans and our conditions.

This is the latter stage of natural perfection the spiritual animal. What one thinks contributes to its own natural perfection but it is most certainly non-local.

Once again, does, can, good actually increase and if so is it because we are changing or is it because we are being changed? Are we doing it or is God doing it?

Good increases if the choice is made to do so, ultimately what is good is the natural perfection of what came before.
The observer is what makes change happen and good increases.

If there is no God or universal consciousness there is no good or bad there is only the physical state that is and is ever changing.

If you consider God and a universal consciousness good, I would agree with you. Then we would have to consider what we know of the natural world that is not physical.

 

[Royce]

I think we shouldn't be too hasty in lumping these two premises together. I think they are very different.

But, I think it is logical to say that "In a world with...a universal consciousness then that is what ultimately determines good and we in our minds [are actually that consciousness and are ultimately determining] that good. If we become more good, reaching toward perfection then [not only would local good related to humans and our conditions increase, but we would be actively contributing to the overall good of the entire universe. We have an awesome responsibility which we each should take very seriously.]"

Paul

Good point, Paul. I agree with it completely and must admit that I wasn't thinking deep enough when I posted my response. Having said that their are some who think or believe, as I sometimes do that God, the Universal Consciousness and the universe is all One, one in the same. this of course includes each of us as well as all others. This is a from of monism.

In my ignorance I thought that it was something new that we were developing here. At least it was new to me. A book that I'm reading, almost parroting our words and speculations here, saying that it is thousands of years old and first arising in India, BCE. I guess it just proves that there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Royce]

My working definition of good is an increase in natural perfection.

If you consider God and a universal consciousness good, I would agree with you. Then we would have to consider what we know of the natural world that is not physical.

I'm not sure what you call this philosophy or its origins.

Is good then intrinsic to the universe and nature?

Or, is good the aim or goal of God, the universal consciousness or the spiritual nature of the universe.

I don't dis agree, Rader, I just don't understand yet how deeply you are thinking and in what terms. Are you speaking metamophically or in parables?

 

[Rader]

I'm not sure what you call this philosophy or its origins.

Ontological philosophy includes all the things that exist in a natural world of which are divided into two truth categories, what is and what out to be. My form of an Ontological philosophy is evolving as new things are learned about the natural world. To know the origin of ontological philosophy would be to know the whole truth.

Is good then intrinsic to the universe and nature?

Good is an intrinsic property of the natural world. One can deduce this from epistemological explanations of the natural world of what is. Existence is good; we are conscious self aware animals that know this. Good is not part of the physical world but has its reflection in it. As I explained before you can follow its trail from the beginning of time to conscious self aware creatures because that’s what we are capable of.

Or, is good the aim or goal of God, the universal consciousness or the spiritual nature of the universe.

If God is good and good is natural perfection, then everything inside a closed system like a natural world would be the creation of Itself. If God is the universe a universal consciousness would be its driving force and would then be spiritual in nature.

I don't dis agree, Rader, I just don't understand yet how deeply you are thinking and in what terms. Are you speaking metamophically or in parables?

No I am trying to be as clear as possible. Everything that exists in the physical world of what is will ultimately have clear epistemological explanations and ultimately all the other truths that exists of what out to be will have clear ontological explanations of why good exists, why it evolves the natural world to natural perfection and answer the question why existence?

I have read your post over the years and notice that you seem to be very troubled by pain and suffering in a world where you believe a God exits. So have many others including myself. If you examine the natural world using tools like epistemology or human history or maybe your own introspection, you know good increase as long as you use the eagles eye perspective. Pain and suffering is ultimately necessary for the observer to know what is good to change what is not and increase natural perfection in the natural world.

My working definition of natural world is all the things that do exist including the physical world from which epistemology deduces them.

My working definition of universe is the natural world

 

[Royce]

If God is good and good is natural perfection, then everything inside a closed system like a natural world would be the creation of Itself. If God is the universe a universal consciousness would be its driving force and would then be spiritual in nature.

My working definition of natural world is all the things that do exist including the physical world from which epistemology deduces them.

My working definition of universe is the natural world

All is One. One is all that is. All that is, is natural and good. The Universal consciousness is one aspect of the Good, Natural God. Is this a fair rewording of what you are saying?

 

[newp175]

What is your premise that you come to that conclusion? How could you know this?

So, thinking that any physical law allows the existence of God is wrong, it is the other way around. [/QUOTE]


Did you ever consider that your brain would not work if this law did not govern physical systems? So you would not even be able to think that you knew a God exists.

Consider what these two laws tell us about the world:

The second law of thermodynamics states:
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.

The first law of thermodynamics states:
You can't create or destroy energy.

(First law) Nothing was ever created. The world as we know it is in a constant mutable state between energy and matter.

(Second law) cognitive brains give off heat, if they did not, whatever is doing the thinking would not know anything.

These laws seem to be very necessary for whatever knows to know anything at all.[/QUOTE]


You seem to be saying that God is the Universe and that he/it can eventually be explained through experiments and rationalisation. You also define good as increase in natural perfection. What do you mean with natural perfection? If your theory is evolving, does it consider that empiricism may have its limitations?

 

[Rader]

All is One. One is all that is. All that is, is natural and good. The Universal consciousness is one aspect of the Good, Natural God. Is this a fair rewording of what you are saying?

Royce you stated in words what you think I mean, which to most might seem that both seem to agree. Its not to say that we do not but I get the impression that introspection and empiricism is two different worlds where the only connection might be, that we both seem to know what we think we know that we do not know.

 

[Rader]

You seem to be saying that God is the Universe and that he/it can eventually be explained through experiments and rationalisation. You also define good as increase in natural perfection. What do you mean with natural perfection? If your theory is evolving, does it consider that empiricism may have its limitations?

You did not answer my question. It was not my intention to jump at you so. Many people make the statement that you did and have nothing behind it to even suspect why. Some might say, I had a vision, or somebody told me so, you might have another reason, you mentioned infinity, are you a mathematician?

You seem to be saying that God is the Universe and that he/it can eventually be explained through experiments and rationalisation.

My reason is there seems to be a lot of empirical data that epistemology just so happens to spell out a serious of improbable events where good just so happens to increase natural perfection in a natural world. Rational creatures like ourselves can deduct from the empirical data that what is of the natural world evolves and what ought to be of this same world does also. Good has its mirrored reflection in the physical world. The question is, is God good, is this why we exist?

You also define good as increase in natural perfection. What do you mean with natural perfection?

Natural perfection is what is good in the natural world. At this stage of evolution it would seem that rational creatures like ourselves evolve in three ways physically mentally and spiritually. This is not to say that these things did not exist before we humans did, it only states that, what its like to be a human is not what its like to be what was not our natural perfection.

If your theory is evolving, does it consider that empiricism may have its limitations?

If God is the universe it would have no limitations in examining itself. The question what the observer is, must be answered in order to understand why this is so. What intimately determines how we assume the world exists.

 

[newp175]

You did not answer my question. It was not my intention to jump at you so. Many people make the statement that you did and have nothing behind it to even suspect why. Some might say, I had a vision, or somebody told me so, you might have another reason, you mentioned infinity, are you a mathematician?



My reason is there seems to be a lot of empirical data that epistemology just so happens to spell out a serious of improbable events where good just so happens to increase natural perfection in a natural world. Rational creatures like ourselves can deduct from the empirical data that what is of the natural world evolves and what ought to be of this same world does also. Good has its mirrored reflection in the physical world. The question is, is God good, is this why we exist?



Natural perfection is what is good in the natural world. At this stage of evolution it would seem that rational creatures like ourselves evolve in three ways physically mentally and spiritually. This is not to say that these things did not exist before we humans did, it only states that, what its like to be a human is not what its like to be what was not our natural perfection.



If God is the universe it would have no limitations in examining itself. The question what the observer is, must be answered in order to understand why this is so. What intimately determines how we assume the world exists.

I did not consider anything of what you said as an attack. I am just trying to understand ontological philosophy; it seems like an extension of naturalism to me. I just don't think we have reached the stage to define god or assume that he is constrained by certain laws applicable to us, if this is so, then why is he god and why should we worship him? My intuitive understanding of god is of an all poweful being beyond our universe however I have nothing physical to show for it. Also, I have found an ontological philosophy similar to yours and I don't see how good as we know it fits in, it is not nescessary for our social evolution.

 

[Royce]

Royce you stated in words what you think I mean, which to most might seem that both seem to agree. Its not to say that we do not but I get the impression that introspection and empiricism is two different worlds where the only connection might be, that we both seem to know what we think we know that we do not know.

From: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#emp

Philosophical Dictionary: empiricism

Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

I do not agree with empiricism and am coming to the position that all sensory perceptions and experiences are subjective, just as subjective and all internal, intently and spiritual experiences. I can meditate or contemplate and have perceptions and experience that are just as empirical as a scientific observation or experience.

I don't know yet whether I am simply indulging in playing with words semantically or whether this is a real evolving awareness of a basic truth.
If we don't have a priori knowledge how can we expect to properly interpret and understand our sensory inputs and apply them to theory.
How can we with any certainty assign value to one questionable experience and totally disregard the other as having no validity or importance?

Those of us who have these inner experiences know that they come with their own values of certainty, truthfulness, Truth and importance.

At the moment I honestly feel that there is no real separations between the two and they are in essence and nature one and the same type of thing, empirical experience.

 

[Paul Martin]

How can we with any certainty assign value to one questionable experience and totally disregard the other as having no validity or importance?

I agree with you about the "certainty" aspect. But validity and importance are easy. Accepting empirical experience leads to scientific discovery which leads to technology which has lead to all the marvels which we take for granted that feed us, clothe us, warm us, move us around, cure us, entertain us, teach us, and on and on and on and on. Huge value, validity and importance

Those of us who have these inner experiences know that they come with their own values of certainty, truthfulness, Truth and importance.

Yes, mystics have been saying that for several thousand years. And, the individuals probably do benefit from their experiences. But those experiences have not led to the solutions of any real human problems that are not completely eclipsed by the solutions provided by science. The problem is that if there are any "values of certainty" or "truth" in those experiences, it seems clearly evident that they cannot be expressed in language. And this failure means that the benefits derived by the mystic cannot be passed on to other individuals. Just look at all the religions which have tried to do exactly that. It doesn't work. From the eastern religions we got caste systems and an attitude of resignation that prevented problem solving. From Judaism we got a holier-than-thou attitude that brought unending hostility down on them from the outsiders. From Christianity we got the dark ages, the inquisitions, the witch burning, the crusades, the religious wars, the "troubles" in Ireland, etc. From Islam we get jihads, beheadings, airplane bombs, etc. I am sure that the visions and revelations the holy people received were true and good. They just were not very useful in helping other people.

At the moment I honestly feel that there is no real separations between the two and they are in essence and nature one and the same type of thing, empirical experience.

I think history paints a completely different picture. One has been helpful, and the other has not.

These are just my humble opinions and are not intended to offend anyone.

Paul

 

[Royce]

I cannot deny anything that you wrote, Paul. I can only point out that the evil that has been done in the name of religion, any and all religions, is done by man that justify their evil doings by using religion and saying that God or Buddha or Allah is on our side. Every evil done in the name of religion is against and contrary to the very teachings of the religion cited.

Which brings us right back to the original topic of this thread. It is Man's fault that evil and suffering exist, except for natural disasters, It is Man that do, tolerate and perpetuate evil, not God or religion.

We search for knowledge with every facility that we have. Our physical senses supply one type of knowledge, our minds another, and our souls yet still another. They are all knowledge and if they are correct, true and valid then we benefit from having that knowledge so long as we use it for the benefit of mankind and the world.

Few would say that physics is evil yet through it Man developed atomic and nuclear weapons, Biochemistry developed nerve gas and biological weapons, Chemistry gave Mankind explosives and environmental pollution.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

For every evil that man has done in the name of religion, we can show an evil that mankind has done using Science and Technology. At least religion causes local evil but, has not threatened us with total extinction.
Genocide yes but not all life on earth.

Which is more evil Religion or Science or is it neither. I say it is the evil that Man does with his knowledge, not knowledge itself, whatever its source may be, that is evil.

 

[Rader]

I did not consider anything of what you said as an attack. I am just trying to understand ontological philosophy; it seems like an extension of naturalism to me.

Ontological philosophy can explain all that exists in the natural world because it recognizes that there are things that exist in a natural world that are not physical.

I just don't think we have reached the stage to define god or assume that he is constrained by certain laws applicable to us, if this is so, then why is he god and why should we worship him?

You’re mixing things up here, it seems that you imply that, that is what I mean.
I think my philosophy defines God in exactly the way that I assume the world exists. Good exists and it evolves natural perfection in a natural world. We are aware of being aware of everything, which includes possible existence of a God. What we know of the world gives us sufficient premise to question this.

Second everything that I am arguing is quite the opposite of what you think I mean as far as applicable laws. The physical world has its applicable laws we know this. What we do not know is, that what is not physical, might most certainly have its own set of laws also. All law physical or otherwise may eventually be understood that there is only one law, Good is the universe. To be clear no experiment has ever been done by a physical observer.

Third maybe cause we are made in the image and likeness of.

My intuitive understanding of god is of an all powerful being beyond our universe however I have nothing physical to show for it.

There is no evidence of anything outside our universe either physical or otherwise. What there is, is evidence of a physical world somehow putting together a series of poker hands that are against all odds. What there is, is I am conscious and have no way of knowing why a bunch of dumb atoms could make that possible. We have to start from premises that are known to eventually deduce epistemological truth from our experience. If we did not we could just say anything. I could be wrong but at least I point out two premises for what I believe and one has its roots in the physical world of what is and the other has its roots in what ought to be which is not physical.

Also, I have found an ontological philosophy similar to yours and I don't see how good as we know it fits in, it is not nescessary for our social evolution.

I hope you are dead wrong because if you are not, the world may cease to exist. Why build bridges we could just as well cross the river and let half of us be swept away, we would not have to worry about over population. Why have good thoughts, we should just teach our children pornography and be glad they end up hookers. Better still I could just let that old lady cross that busy street by herself, I am always late for work and if I arrive a little earlier maybe I could get a pay raise so I could go to Cuba. Is there no one in the world but me, that sees that good increase natural perfection of a natural world? I gave plenty of examples when there were no humans and we have plenty of examples when we examine human history and of course we have all our own personal experiences.

 

[newp175]

I think I did not explain myself fully in my last post.

I did a search on google, here is what I found.
Take a look at this: http://www.twow.net/MclOdaW.htm

Now, I apologise if this has nothing to do with what you wrote but it looks similar, if not identical. At least it starts from the same principles.

You have said that good is some sort of social, spiritual and physical evolution and it is also relative. We are forgetting here several examples from human history where people who loved their families brutalized and tortured others. Example is Beria, a loving husband and father and also brutal murderer and pervert. Was he good or evil, how did he manage to combine the two? What if a society came to be where everyone hated and envied each other but were too cowardly, stupid and constrained by unbreakable control from above to do anything about it and instead smiled.
That society would be perfectly evolved physically with people adapted to their environment, socially since for the first time a social system would work, and perhaps spiritually, since according to that piece it could mean anything as long as certain relations between individuals are maintained.
The problem with this theory is that it cannot define good accurately since it does not distinguish between actual and observable good. It cannot distinguish because of the use of empiricism.
In fact, why do we need to construct complicated theories based on our limited intellect and knowledge at every stage in our history to define good through them? Everybody knows inherently what good is, except from the most profoundly retarded and insane. Animals know what good is: a dog that dies for its loved owner knows. No philosophy has ever defined good accurately. Making such theories only confuses the issue and opens the door to ''relative'' or ''greater'' good.
And what if the physical world is essentially an illusion, like Bohm once said. That would make good and evil and the effects it has on us the only truth anywhere.

 

[Rader]

I think I did not explain myself fully in my last post. I did a search on google, here is what I found.
Take a look at this: http://www.twow.net/MclOdaW.htm
Now, I apologise if this has nothing to do with what you wrote but it looks similar, if not identical. At least it starts from the same principles. QUOTE]

I posted that link on this forum 2 years ago. Its part of what my philosophy has evolved to.

You have said that good is some sort of social, spiritual and physical evolution and it is also relative.

Good is what it is, natural perfection, the relationship is that it can be seen in all these things.

We are forgetting here several examples from human history where people who loved their families brutalized and tortured others. Example is Beria, a loving husband and father and also brutal murderer and pervert. Was he good or evil, how did he manage to combine the two? What if a society came to be where everyone hated and envied each other but were too cowardly, stupid and constrained by unbreakable control from above to do anything about it and instead smiled.

The world is not made of what ifs but of what is and what ought to be and anything else eventually subsists as good increases natural perfection.

That society would be perfectly evolved physically with people adapted to their environment, socially since for the first time a social system would work, and perhaps spiritually, since according to that piece it could mean anything as long as certain relations between individuals are maintained.

You mean like Sodom and Gomorra. For some strange reason these things do not persist.
As I tried to explain to Royce, there is an eagles eye view of all this and a frogs eye view. In a natural world events that lead to natural perfection are perceived by conscious minds. I know of no one that denies it is in his head and perceives this arrow of time.

The problem with this theory is that it cannot define good accurately since it does not distinguish between actual and observable good. It cannot distinguish because of the use of empiricism.

I try to define all my terms so there is no misunderstanding how about doing the same. What do you mean by actual and observable good, those are your terms not mine?

In fact, why do we need to construct complicated theories based on our limited intellect and knowledge at every stage in our history to define good through them?

I have no way of knowing why anyone else would want to know this answer. My reason is to answer the question of Why existence? Good is why I exist. So that leaves me in a very special place in a long evolutionary chain of events, of which what I think affects everything.

Everybody knows inherently what good is, except from the most profoundly retarded and insane. Animals know what good is: a dog that dies for its loved owner knows. No philosophy has ever defined good accurately. Making such theories only confuses the issue and opens the door to ''relative'' or ''greater'' good.

Again define your new terms and I will answer you the best
I can. You have four of them now actual, observable, relative and greater good.

And what if the physical world is essentially an illusion, like Bohm once said. That would make good and evil and the effects it has on us the only truth anywhere.

You seem to think that the only thing that exist in this world is physical, once you understand that ontological philosophy says nothing of the kind, you can begin to understand what natural perfection is. We are not debating if the world is physical, notwithstanding if the world was only a bunch of dumb atoms that new how to play poker, a computer animation or a hologram, our brains produce a consciousness that gives us a perception that while we see complexity increase over time, it appears good, we can measure it in epistemological terms.

No matter what you believe is ultimately reality, the reality we know is what we experience, even if the physical world was an illusion, I am is not, good can increase natural perfection because I know that I make an attempt at it.

 

[Intuitive]

Now I am going to throw away all of the assumptions of the original thread and make one other.

Let's assume that the physicalists are right. There is no God or Creator.
All that is is the natural result of the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and evolution.

Who or what now do we blame for all the evil, suffering, starvation, disease and killing in the world?

Geneticists could eliminate Evil by altering certain Genes, But Religion will dam it as before, There are certain Genes that are tied to Psychological disorders that cause violent tendencies.

The Church has damned themselves by not allowing certain Genetic research to be conducted.

The Church needs to realize that Gene/Medicine research is good.

It has saved many lives and could save more if Genetic Research didn't have limitations, Certain guide lines could still be followed so the Work can continue.