The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

[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.

 

[Rade]

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... And all of these events would create opportunities for charity, compassion, and other good acts.

This is an excellent point.

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.

Yes, but this world cannot be of earth, for, as you say, even without evil, pain and suffering remain. The world you look for is called heaven and other such names--the place of no evil, pain, suffering, etc. I call it the place of lack of life = death = lack of conceptualization.

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.

As I defined it above, the benefit of rationalizing the root of all good is that the individual gets happy positive feedback of using self as a means to end. But, we could also hold that there is benefit (e.g. happy thoughts) from rationalizing the root of all evil, e.g., using others as a means to an end. As I see it, the positive feedback from this would be that we must not "use" others but "help" others, in the same way that we help self by using self as a means to end. Since we conceptualize the great happyness we feel when we follow the root of all good moral law, it would be easy to transfer that same feeling when we conceptualize that we must do the negative of the root of evil, and DO NOT use others, but help others (e.g., those in pain, suffering, etc.). Now, we see then that neither following root of good, nor not following root of evil, is motivated by the other, but by maximizing happy thoughts within the self. I think this is what the saying "love others as self" is getting at, and because I find this statement to have no logical flaws, it is from this statement that I developed my ideas of good and evil roots. Thank you for taking time to communicate.

 

[Royce]

There is a Zen saying or the moral of a story; "If everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred." I think that it could be extended to Good; If everything is good, then there is no good.

 

[Rade]

There is a Zen saying or the moral of a story; "If everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred." I think that it could be extended to Good; If everything is good, then there is no good.

But, if /E is good, then ~/E is good, thus the conjunction (/E + ~/E) = good, and there is only good, which is both every-thing and no-thing, the Ying and the Yang of the Zen.

 

[Mattara]

"How can there be a prefect omnipotent, omniscient, loving caring God when there is so much evil, human suffering and disease in the world?"

I'll take my thoughts in steps:
1. Proof of the existense of evil (Assumptions: God is good, evil is not and they are enemies)
If there were no evil, God would have 100% control over everything (all would become good and no evil would exist). Clearly this is not the current cas, becuase there is war, hunger, diseases etc.
2. The different approaches of good and evil
Good has one way of spreading itself and evil another.
Good is spread via good work (you have to make an effort to spread good ex. help people etc.).
Evil is fundamentally different and requires no effort to be spread and does so via (exploiting the sinner named man) people not helping people. Evil recrutes by seducing the human into a selfabsorbed egotist (ex. Should i donate these $4000 that i earned from working extra to the Red Cross or should i buy a plasma TV altough i can manage myself perfectly without those $4000?)
3. God is currently not in a position to conquer evil by his/her/its own
If God was, we wouldn't have diseases etc.
4. The battlefield is earth
The beings on Earth are the only one able to be influenced by good/evil.

 

[Royce]

First, I see that you just joined PF's, welcome. We're glad to have you.

I'll take my thoughts in steps:
1. Proof of the existence of evil (Assumptions: God is good, evil is not and they are enemies)
If there were no evil, God would have 100% control over everything (all would become good and no evil would exist). Clearly this is not the current case, because there is war, hunger, diseases etc.

I have long thought that evil does not exist. The word "evil" is an adjective not a noun. There are evil deeds and evil people; but, evil is not a thing in and of itself. All that we see as evil is the doings of Mankind and due to his way of thinking and living.

2. The different approaches of good and evil
Good has one way of spreading itself and evil another.
Good is spread via good work (you have to make an effort to spread good ex. help people etc.).

"All the darkness in the universe cannot extinguish one small candle yet, one small candle can illuminate an entire room."

Evil is fundamentally different and requires no effort to be spread and does so via (exploiting the sinner named man) people not helping people. Evil recruits by seducing the human into a self absorbed egotist

I believe that it is the self absorbed ego that does the seducing not evil.
Man exploits Man which is evil. Evil is and does nothing by itself.

(ex. Should i donate these $4000 that i earned from working extra to the Red Cross or should i buy a plasma TV although i can manage myself perfectly without those $4000?)

I do not see where this is evil. Why should you give your hard earned $4,000 to the administrators of the Red Cross so that they can pass on $32 to the people actually in need. Charity is not a duty, especially to those who have much more than you.

3. God is currently not in a position to conquer evil by his/her/its own
If God was, we wouldn't have diseases etc.
4. The battlefield is earth
The beings on Earth are the only one able to be influenced by good/evil.

No offense, but none of this makes any sense to me at all. Are there two gods of nearly equal powers on Earth, one Good and the other Evil?
There is only One and all that is, is One. Disease and evil is a result of our poor choices and ignorance not evil. There is no battle nor battlefield. This is not the Clash of the Titans. That is all mythology.

 

[Mattara]

Ok, i will try to answer your questions.

I have long thought that evil does not exist. The word "evil" is an adjective not a noun. There are evil deeds and evil people; but, evil is not a thing in and of itself. All that we see as evil is the doings of Mankind and due to his way of thinking and living.

I have already proven that evil exists, no matter what part of a sentence it is positioned. I meant "evil" as everything on Earth that is not good.

"All the darkness in the universe cannot extinguish one small candle yet, one small candle can illuminate an entire room."

Try to be realistic instead of quoting bible vers or text inspired by it (i think that that is what it was:P). But if you want to be metaphysical, that is fine by me. There hasn't been any insident in the history of modern world where that has worked for real

I believe that it is the self absorbed ego that does the seducing not evil.
Man exploits Man which is evil. Evil is and does nothing by itself.

Well if man is evil, he can be called evil, and what happens when he seduce another human? That is evil at work using chainreactions.

I do not see where this is evil. Why should you give your hard earned $4,000 to the administrators of the Red Cross so that they can pass on $32 to the people actually in need. Charity is not a duty, especially to those who have much more than you.

I never claimed it was :P You fail to see my point; evil is spread by not acting and good is spread by acting .

As for your attack on the Red Cross, I would like to say that you are quite wrong. Actually, they estimate that >95% goes directly to their projects.

No offense, but none of this makes any sense to me at all. Are there two gods of nearly equal powers on Earth, one Good and the other Evil?
There is only One and all that is, is One. Disease and evil is a result of our poor choices and ignorance not evil. There is no battle nor battlefield. This is not the Clash of the Titans. That is all mythology.

I never stated that there was more than one God. God is much, much, much more powerfull than evil, just not in a position to conquer evil by his/her/its own

Poor choices and ignorance is evil, seduced by otherhuman beings.

Evil is a result of poor choices and ignorance as well as being a made by poor choises and ignorance.

If it were true that there were no battle between good and evil, we would either have all good or all evil, which we have not.

As for mythology, i would like to state that most of philosophy is based on mythology.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Mattara, your definition of evil appears to be things you don't like, and of good to be things you do like. What kind of objective morality or ethics is that?

 

[Mattara]

That sounds interesting! Can you clarify it a bit?

 

[marytormey]

This is the nub of your theodicy, everything else is just curlicues around it.
And what basis do you have for this statement? If your god is omnipotent then why can't he have created an evolved species (indeed ALL evolved species) that is sin-free and able to learn and change in a sin-free manner? Because he's OMNIPOTENT he should be able to do this.
Then if he didn't it must be that for some reason he didn't want to, and we're back to Yahweh's reply to Job: "My ways are above your ways".
But the only criterion for goodness we have is our human one, based on what we think good parents would do for their children. "Would a Father, when his son asked for bread, give him a stone?" And by this standard your god is not good; He could have given us bread but handed us a lump of coal instead.
Merrry Christmas.

One of the most important steps in a human child's development is realizing that it's parents are imperfect.
On Earth it is clear and obvious that children grow up to be much like their parents as our society becomes much like God; testing, judging, and punishing the inocent as well as guilty.
Society over time becomes all seeing and all knowing
Society may have a judgment day where all of society is judged by it's own standards if not for forgiveness society would be destroyed by such judgements.

 

[sameandnot]

maybe it's our idea of God that is flawed...
just because we have been thinking and talking about God in the same way for centuries, doesn't mean that it is appropriate.
is there really a paradox?

 

[Royce]

I have already proven that evil exists, no matter what part of a sentence it is positioned. I meant "evil" as everything on Earth that is not good.

Everything on Earth that is not good is evil, not Evil is everything on Earth is not good. Many people think or believe that Evil exist as a force or power and is personified by the Devil. This is the point that I am trying to make. Things may be evil, but evil is not a thing.

Try to be realistic instead of quoting bible verse or text inspired by it (i think that that is what it was:P). But if you want to be metaphysical, that is fine by me. There hasn't been any insight in the history of modern world where that has worked for real

I am being realistic. It is a simple parable that shows that Evil or darkness has no power or force of its own. Light and truth as well as good does have power of its own. In this we agree. We just put it in different ways.

This is the metaphysical sub-forum and this thread is metaphysical as is virtually everything written here.

Only to those who have no modern insight in the modern world has insight not worked for real. Those of us who do have insight into the modern world know that it works for real. This insight is the motivation for starting this thread. It worked! Its on its sixth page already. Its got people thinking and talking about it.

Well if man is evil, he can be called evil, and what happens when he seduce another human? That is evil at work using chain reactions.

Man is not evil. Some of the thing some men and women do are evil.

One cannot be seduced unless one is willing to be seduced just like you can't con an honest man.

I never claimed it was :P You fail to see my point; evil is spread by not acting and good is spread by acting .

This is not true. Evil can and is spread by doing evil deeds and, sometimes it is better not to act.

As for your attack on the Red Cross, I would like to say that you are quite wrong. Actually, they estimate that >95% goes directly to their projects.

That may well be but not so long ago it was true and authenticated. They may have changed their ways and if good for them or they may be lying. I don't know. That wasn't my point anyway.

I never stated that there was more than one God. God is much, much, much more powerful than evil, just not in a position to conquer evil by his/her/its own

If He is so powerful, Why not. Or, is there no evil to conquer but a need for growth, insight, civilization and wisdom, the Maturity of Mankind.

If there is only one God, then who is he battling on Battleground Earth?
Himself, Mankind, Non-existent Evil?

As for mythology, i would like to state that most of philosophy is based on mythology.

For you edification Philosophy is based of Reason and Logic. Religion is based on or is mythology.

 

[Amp1]

I only read the first page of posts... partially;when I saw Royce reply he believes 'God' to be Omni-everything. Royce 'God' chooses not to be Omni-everything, why...? because it/he/she gave us freewill, therefore 'God' is not omnifident or else we would be robots or automatons. I propose that evolution was designed into the pattern of life, that the creation of the natural laws(physics, ect) became automatic so that 'God' doesn't have to go around tweaking here adjusting there, that creation isn't complete... why?...because this universe is still expanding. I propose that since 'God' isn't cruel(remember it/he/she is good) 'God' has a plan for it(the universe(s) and us) that we probably get hints dropped here and there in time along the course of history but we are still too immature to truly comprehend the big picture . My reasoning follows somewhat along that track.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I only read the first page of posts... partially;when I saw Royce reply he believes 'God' to be Omni-everything. Royce 'God' chooses not to be Omni-everything, why...? because it/he/she gave us freewill

Many people who have worked on the classic problem of evil have started out with the definition of God as the "triple O" being, as in omnibenevolent(all-good), omniscient(all-knowing), and omnipotent(all-powerful). This is not something Royce just came up with arbitrarily. If we are going to have a philosophical discussion about "God", we all have to agree on some larger points of what that concept is. If we can't find some kind of common ground, then it's going to seriously hinder our ability to have a discussion.

The "OOO" properties are typically ones that cross the boundaries of different faiths. Your idea of God might be a being with 8 arms and 6 heads, and mine might be an old man with flowing robes and a beard - BUT we can probably still enter into a discussion about God without that causing too much of a problem. Small details. We can probably agree on the larger more generalized properties that many people associate with God (or with God as a pure concept).

But your comment was about how God chooses to act, wasn't it? So I have wandered off again. Forgive me. OK, suppose I can show a way that God could have created a world where people have free will, yet there is no evil. If God had that option, wasn't it a little irrational (and cruel) then for the creator to make things as they are?

 

[sameandnot]

I am being realistic. It is a simple parable that shows that Evil or darkness has no power or force of its own. Light and truth as well as good does have power of its own. In this we agree. We just put it in different ways.

on this, i disagree. i think... concerning light and darkness: they are completely and utterly mutually dependant. this is known by the wise as well as by the scientist.

when we look at light, our perception is very much like a motion picture. all we see is a fluid progression of motion, without any breaks or "holes".
actually, though, light is equally darkness and darkness is equally light. i will explain:
consider the wave function of a ray of light; consisting of "peaks" and "troughs". light is very much vibrational; it oscillates between light and dark, at a rate (and with contrast) that is proportional to the length, amplitude and frequency of the wave.
the same is true of sound. all sound is made of "sound" and "silence".
just as light is composed of light and darkness.
silence, conversely, is composed of sound, while darkness, as well, is composed of light.

there is no escaping this fact.

buddha says, "find the middle way"; the way between the extremes; "a string that is too loose will not play and one that is too tight will break. only a string that is tuned just right will ring out clean and pure and true." (not a direct quotation).

light and darkness, sound and silence, white and black is more of a game than a war. just like i need a person to play chess with, or play Halo 2 against, light needs darkness. if i were to annihilate my opponent, there would be no more game.

we might consider figuring out the rules, rather than try to destroy "black" cause we "don't like his face."

 

[tandoorichicken]

May I make the follwing suggestion:

The Christian God (it seems that we are referring to Him in this thread) created the world in seven days, or so legend has it. Now say if "Let there be light" was the big bang and later that evening He created Earth, and from there He went on to create Earth as it is, then life, and finally humans. Assuming that each day in the life of God lasted approximately 700-800 million years, and say that the early precursors to humans appeared on God's Saturday (early mammalian types - I could be way off here), then the legend also says that on the seventh day, God decided to take the day off. If that is the case, then the time of "today" which encompasses the whole time modern man has been around is the time period in which God is absent from the Earth and not tending to it. In this case, in the absense of God there is Evil.



Edit: so 800 million years ago is actually the first sign of multicellular life - work with me here

 

[Royce]

I only read the first page of posts... partially;when I saw Royce reply he believes 'God' to be Omni-everything. Royce 'God' chooses not to be Omni-everything, why...? because it/he/she gave us freewill, therefore 'God' is not omnifident or else we would be robots or automatons. I propose that evolution was designed into the pattern of life, that the creation of the natural laws(physics, ect) became automatic so that 'God' doesn't have to go around tweaking here adjusting there, that creation isn't complete... why?...because this universe is still expanding. I propose that since 'God' isn't cruel(remember it/he/she is good) 'God' has a plan for it(the universe(s) and us) that we probably get hints dropped here and there in time along the course of history but we are still too immature to truly comprehend the big picture . My reasoning follows somewhat along that track.

To a large degree I agree with most that you say here.

I stated that for the purpose of this thread that I would assume God is
Omni- everything, not that I believe this to be necessarily true.

I do think that once God decided to create the physical universe in the manner that he did his further choices were limited by the necessities of the method of making it stable and evolving at the same time and be able to have life evolve and thrive. It may be that there is only one way to do this and so he had no choice at at about most of it and the physical laws.

Being still immature to comprehend the big picture is I think quite accurate. I think that enlightenment through meditation is one way at least that we get to see and better understand the big picture, accept it and live with it.

 

[Royce]

Many people who have worked on the classic problem of evil have started out with the definition of God as the "triple O" being, as in omnibenevolent(all-good), omniscient(all-knowing), and omnipotent(all-powerful). This is not something Royce just came up with arbitrarily. If we are going to have a philosophical discussion about "God", we all have to agree on some larger points of what that concept is. If we can't find some kind of common ground, then it's going to seriously hinder our ability to have a discussion.

Thanks Math is Hard, your explanation is more to the point and clearer than mine.

 

[Royce]

on this, i disagree. i think... concerning light and darkness: they are completely and utterly mutually dependent. this is known by the wise as well as by the scientist.

Don't take it to literally. For one thing, one way to look at it is that there is no such thing as darkness, merely the absence or lack of intensity of enough light for us to perceive. Photons, real or virtual, are everywhere always, whether particle or wave.

The same way that evil can be seen as no more than the absence or lack of good.

It can become very confusing and get rapidly muddled if we try to associate values with physics.

 

[Amp1]

I reason thus although,

Good point Math is Hard,

… I can show a way that God could have created a world where people have free will, yet there is no evil. If God had that option, wasn't it a little irrational (and cruel) then for the creator to make things as they are?

I can’t make a judgment on cruelty but this observation Royce gives is valid I think

I do think that once God decided to create the physical universe in the manner that he did his further choices were limited by the necessities of the method of making it stable and evolving at the same time…

Just as there are a limited number of ways to solve certain equations, to construct some tessellations, to find a solution in packing theory and unscramble a Rubik’s cube or arrange a puzzle.

However,OTOH

Suppose I define the goodness of ‘God’ (not necessarily the Christian version) as being its desire for its creations to have perfection and the beneficial qualities of life including an infinite existence. And further, suppose that there are at least two things that are impossible for ‘God’ to do, 1) Cease to exist. 2) Be less than absolute reality or ‘God’(theory-‘God’ created our reality) then it/she/he may have performed the creation as you suggested with everything created perfect and all creatures having freewill so that the inherent possibilities of the future were well nigh infinite, then it is possible that one or more creation could have chosen not to be good - defined as obedient to ‘God’ were obedience is defined as doing God’s will, willingly or unwillingly(= grudgingly/reluctantly but still doing it) And further, suppose that God’s will is that which is beneficial to all his created beings in achieving the above stated ‘Goodness’.

It seems fair that maybe ‘God’ would allow events to run their course even though some of its creatures may suffer or perish from the results of their own, unforeseen(by them) calamities, and creatures with freewill that choose to commit sin (defined as disobedience to ‘God’) Why? I propose that perhaps being Omniscient, ‘God’ would know the end from the beginning and know that allowing this would exhaust all potential of all possibilities so that in the end everything would return to his/its original plan for perfection and being loving, good and quite clever he may have provided a haven for those personalities that suffered and perished. Why? To ensure all those created had the opportunity to exist and when every personality was resurrected those that made the willfully made the wrong choice would not be among them to repeat the drama again.

Keeping in mind that ‘God’ is the Source of all Life and sovereign of eternity it would be God’s prerogative as to who is brought back.

 

[LaPalida]

Hmm. If God gave us free will and we have the ability to choose our path then why do we get punished for choosing against his wish? God then isn't any different than a coersive mobster holding a gun to your head and saying: "If you 'choose' what I deem is good then you may live (you go to heaven), if you 'choose' what I deem is bad then I will shoot you (you go to hell). Now choose". Makes God seem like a nice benevolent guy doesn't it?

 

[Amp1]

LaPalida, you are saying someone gets punshed for choosing against the will of 'God'. How about I explain the choice you make is your own and the consequence is yours also? 1) Suppose, God made the natural laws, say Gravity for instance. 2)You know that God desires that you live and have a healthy life. 3) You know gravity is one of the laws of God. 4)You choose to walk off the roof of a 60 story building. Who made you do it? God, no it was your choice. Should God suspend the its natural laws to save you? That would affect more people than just you. Should God suspend its natural laws in just your vicinity? That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility. (God is absolutely good) Even if you did not know about gravity and performed the action, you would have the same consequence. However, in either case your personality would be preserved for ressurection. Knowing that, an indivdual could repeatedly go against God thinking he/she/it would be revived eventually. However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation. The removal of the reality of ones existence would be the result. There would be no pain or suffering just a cessation of being as contrasted with burning throughout eternity in some fiery hell. Is that coersive? I think even Lucifer was given the opportunity to repent/change, to be good again.

 

[LaPalida]

LaPalida, you are saying someone gets punshed for choosing against the will of 'God'. How about I explain the choice you make is your own and the consequence is yours also? 1) Suppose, God made the natural laws, say Gravity for instance. 2)You know that God desires that you live and have a healthy life. 3) You know gravity is one of the laws of God. 4)You choose to walk off the roof of a 60 story building. Who made you do it? God, no it was your choice. Should God suspend the its natural laws to save you? That would affect more people than just you. Should God suspend its natural laws in just your vicinity? That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility. (God is absolutely good) Even if you did not know about gravity and performed the action, you would have the same consequence. However, in either case your personality would be preserved for ressurection. Knowing that, an indivdual could repeatedly go against God thinking he/she/it would be revived eventually. However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation. The removal of the reality of ones existence would be the result. There would be no pain or suffering just a cessation of being as contrasted with burning throughout eternity in some fiery hell. Is that coersive? I think even Lucifer was given the opportunity to repent/change, to be good again.

"That would be favoritism and would make God who said "I love all of you equally" a liar, an impossibility."

1. Where in the Bible does it say that God loves "all equally" exactly? There is a claim to impartiality, that's about it.

2. God does play favourites. The entire Old Testament is a proof for that. Jews are the God's chosen people. Cain and Abel? Guess God is a rib and steak kind of guy?

"However, God said also that the one who repeatedly flaunts his/its mercy would find that their personality existence would be subject to revocation."

3. Precisely what I am talking about. This is coersive thinking. God of the Bible is a not a gentle/good God but a jealous and insecure God that needs to be worshipped all the time.

4. Walking off of a building is your choice, agreed. Yet why do you get punished for making that choice? Falling to your death is a consequence of that action NOT punishment. Having your existence revoked is punishment for that action. Worse if it was intentional, like suicide, God will inflict an even worse punishment for it. Suicide is a grave sin is it not?

My point is: If you love something set it free, if it comes back to you then it was yours and if it doesn't then it wasn't yours to begin with. Biblical God's view on this: If you love something set it free, if it comes back to you it was yours if it doesn't then hunt it down and kill it. He gives you no choice on the matter and all the talk of "free will" and him wanting you to have the freedom to choose is a sham made to appear like he's giving you some kind of choice.

 

[RVBuckeye]

What I like to ponder is the point of view of the individual doing the good/evil. If you assume that our reasons for doing good is that it makes us feel better, I'll give you the opposite point of view. I'm sure each of you at some point in your life took pleasure in some sort of evil. Does that make it actually evil. I might think it was evil, but at the time it might have given you some satisfaction and thus, it wasn't evil to you. Who are we to judge? It's all subjective.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I like to ponder is the point of view of the individual doing the good/evil. If you assume that our reasons for doing good is that it makes us feel better, I'll give you the opposite point of view. I'm sure each of you at some point in your life took pleasure in some sort of evil. Does that make it actually evil. I might think it was evil, but at the time it might have given you some satisfaction and thus, it wasn't evil to you. Who are we to judge? It's all subjective.

I see evil as more about the effects one's actions has on others. If what you do hurts only yourself, then I'd call that foolish (possibly), but not evil.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Let me put this in perspective before I get labeled as "condoning evil". Certainly, I think some peoples actions are evil, but evil could be just a consequence of our free will and not blameable on God. I have been brewing on this one for a while, which is why I chose this topic for my first post--ever. So be patient with me, it's just a hypothesis and is open for discussion. My father is a minister, so I grew up in the faith, but I have a very different opinion of what the nature of God is and our ultimate purpose, and it definitely relates to this topic specifically. If God is infallable, then why does he allow such suffering and evil in the world? This seems to be a serious error of judgement. If God is omnipotent, than nothing I will ever do will change my ultimate fate. Why were we given free will? I think these are mainstream beliefs of Western religion. I've been trying to think of how all these things can hold true, especially when talking about good/evil. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree.
Maybe our purpose on this world is merely to have experiences. Could you imagine life without an experience. Perhaps God created us as a way for him/her/it to have the same experience. (it must be pretty dull being the only thing in existence). Our bodies are clearly sensing machines. It is true that evil acts or thoughts make us feel bad, personally. But without it, we would not know how to feel good.
A further stretch would be to state that maybe, we are all destined for the same fate when we end this life. That fate is to be re-absorbed (for lack of a better word) back into oneness with God, where all the reasons will be made clear to us.
This is the only rationalle I have thought of thusfar to keep those 3 tenets (infallability, omnipotence, and free will) to maintain their truthfulness. Evil is just our way of explaining the alternative to our feeling good. Since God is infallable, evil is good when the context is serving the greater good of human experience. Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose. Creating a human destined for hell would also contradict what I hold to be Gods' infallability.
Now, I know some, if not all, of these points are debatable so please...what do you think?

 

[Rade]

Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose.

You raise many good issues. Here I will comment on one. I hold that since I have free will I can freely (and logically) chose neither heaven nor hell. How ? Did not God allow for so-called "third option(s)" with placement of tree of life in garden ? Did not Adam always have "third" option to live forever on Earth if he had eaten from tree of life ? But is it not strange why tree of life is placed in garden if God is all knowing--e.g., why make big deal out of telling Moses about this tree if God knew all along it would never be eaten of ? Are we saying that God was hoping for Adam to eat from the tree of life so that he could be "more" like God and a friend forever, but how is this logical if God is all knowing and already knew he would not ? But, perhaps one would argue that God "willed" not to know what Adam would do--but, the logical problem here is that God then, during the time evolution of the "willing" process, in fact did not know and thus cannot be considered "all" knowing (e.g., one cannot will not to know for some time period yet claim to know all for all time). I find the reason that God does mention tree of life is that God is telling us that God is in fact not all knowing, thus ultimate reality is not 100% predictable, and randomness and unpredictability represent the pure essence of God and thus essence of pure existence (and is this not what QM of physics tells us via HUP ?). In other words, I hold that God did not know that Adam would not eat from tree of live, but, after Adam ate from tree of knowledge,all bets were off. Suppose I chose from free will, like the third option given to Adam with the tree of life, to exist on the Earth forever once I reach state called lack of life (=death). I hold that all humans have this option (e.g., to select forever existence on Earth as recycled atoms), and that God cannot not allow such a third choice to be freely made, otherwise God is not all good, for an all good God would never deceive man to think that they had free will choice when in fact they did not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Let me put this in perspective before I get labeled as "condoning evil". Certainly, I think some peoples actions are evil, but evil could be just a consequence of our free will and not blameable on God. I have been brewing on this one for a while, which is why I chose this topic for my first post--ever. So be patient with me, it's just a hypothesis and is open for discussion.

I don't think you are condoning evil, and I think your post had some very interesting thoughts. Before commenting on them, I just wanted to clarify that my opening comment to you was to hint that before we talk about evil we have to agree what evil is. More on that below.

My father is a minister, so I grew up in the faith, but I have a very different opinion of what the nature of God is and our ultimate purpose, and it definitely relates to this topic specifically. If God is infallable, then why does he allow such suffering and evil in the world? This seems to be a serious error of judgement. If God is omnipotent, than nothing I will ever do will change my ultimate fate. Why were we given free will? I think these are mainstream beliefs of Western religion. I've been trying to think of how all these things can hold true, especially when talking about good/evil. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree.

I will disagree with some of your assumptions below.

Maybe our purpose on this world is merely to have experiences. Could you imagine life without an experience. Perhaps God created us as a way for him/her/it to have the same experience. (it must be pretty dull being the only thing in existence). Our bodies are clearly sensing machines. It is true that evil acts or thoughts make us feel bad, personally. But without it, we would not know how to feel good.

Well, we are consciousness. The ability to experience and the ability to become "experienced" is what defines consciousness (IMHO). Consequently, in a way you are saying our purpose in this world is to be conscious. If you observe a baby you can see that from day one he/she is learning consciousness skills, and those skills are furthered or impeded by the quality of experiences the child has. So I don't see any way your statement can be wrong.

It is also true that we want to feel good. Personally I believe we want to feel good over and above anything else.

A further stretch would be to state that maybe, we are all destined for the same fate when we end this life. That fate is to be re-absorbed (for lack of a better word) back into oneness with God, where all the reasons will be made clear to us.

It's not such a stretch as you might think. In fact, that concept (with a couple of small adjustments) is the basis of Christian mysticism. Are you familiar with that?

This is the only rationalle I have thought of thusfar to keep those 3 tenets (infallability, omnipotence, and free will) to maintain their truthfulness.

I don't understand the insistence that God be infallable and omnipotent. Considering it from a logic perspective, if there is a consciousness powerful enough to create this universe, this solar system, this planet, life (biology), and a central nervous system capable of housing consciousness, then that is one heck of a creator, perfect or not. That creator doesn't need to be "perfect" to create all that we find here. Maybe he/she/it is doing the best he/she/it is capable of.

Likewise, logically speaking a creator doesn't need to be omnipotent to create this universe; he/she/it only needs to be powerful enough to create a universe (that applies to omniscience too . . . i.e., just knowledgeable enough know how to create the universe).

These old concepts are neither indicated logically, nor are they supported by any known evidence. IMO, they are merely assumptions made dogma by past popes and fed to the masses. I don't see why we need to attach those concept to God. All they do is raise doubt and drive some of the faithful crazy because they really don't make much sense.

Evil is just our way of explaining the alternative to our feeling good. Since God is infallable, evil is good when the context is serving the greater good of human experience. Since we have free will, we can chose evil/good with no real consequence as to where we are going to end up, since God already knows what we are going to chose.

Well here is where I want to decide what evil is. Personally I limit evil to intentionally harming others. So if I want to drink myself to death, and only I am harmed, then it might be foolish (or whatever) but not evil.

But if we include evil among the many things we can do that feel bad, then I think your theory is pretty good (if I've understood it correctly). To a reasonably healthy consciousness (and we need that "healthy" qualifier), experience teaches us to pursue "good" (quite Aristolean, eh?) because good stuff is what feels the best. So experience teaches us.

One source where I see of a lot of evil may agree with your assessment, and that is when we pursue things which we believe will make us feel good, but which really don't. Some of those pursuits seem to encourage us to behave selfishly without regard for others, or even to harm others so we can get what we want. Sometime a consciousness doing that doesn't learn in time to keep from self destructing and hurting a lot of people in the process.

 

[RVBuckeye]

In fact, that concept (with a couple of small adjustments) is the basis of Christian mysticism. Are you familiar with that?

Depends on what you call Christian Mysticism. I've never heard of that phrase before. I think I'm familiar with the core beliefs of some of the mainstream religions (ie, christianity, judaism, mormons, christian science), but I've done little research into the subject. Really, it's been only the data which supported my life's work of disproving the existence of God. It's been a rather recent endevor of mine to accept that there is a God, and try to explain his nature.

I don't understand the insistence that God be infallable and omnipotent. Considering it from a logic perspective, if there is a consciousness powerful enough to create this universe, this solar system, this planet, life (biology), and a central nervous system capable of housing consciousness, then that is one heck of a creator, perfect or not. That creator doesn't need to be "perfect" to create all that we find here. Maybe he/she/it is doing the best he/she/it is capable of.
Likewise, logically speaking a creator doesn't need to be omnipotent to create this universe; he/she/it only needs to be powerful enough to create a universe (that applies to omniscience too . . . i.e., just knowledgeable enough know how to create the universe).
These old concepts are neither indicated logically, nor are they supported by any known evidence. IMO, they are merely assumptions made dogma by past popes and fed to the masses. I don't see why we need to attach those concept to God. All they do is raise doubt and drive some of the faithful crazy because they really don't make much sense.

I absolutely agree with you. I've long thought religion to be an "opiate for the masses" as well. Nothing irks me more as when I see brilliant people being seemingly duped by these unfounded concepts. What I am trying to contemplate is how they all might fit together harmoniously. Just assuming those 3 basic tenets to be true. Like i said, that's the only thing I have been able to come up with thusfar. Perhaps it might be worththy of a new topic- "the nature of God"

Well here is where I want to decide what evil is. Personally I limit evil to intentionally harming others. So if I want to drink myself to death, and only I am harmed, then it might be foolish (or whatever) but not evil.
But if we include evil among the many things we can do that feel bad, then I think your theory is pretty good (if I've understood it correctly). To a reasonably healthy consciousness (and we need that "healthy" qualifier), experience teaches us to pursue "good" (quite Aristolean, eh?) because good stuff is what feels the best. So experience teaches us.
One source where I see of a lot of evil may agree with your assessment, and that is when we pursue things which we believe will make us feel good, but which really don't. Some of those pursuits seem to encourage us to behave selfishly without regard for others, or even to harm others so we can get what we want. Sometime a consciousness doing that doesn't learn in time to keep from self destructing and hurting a lot of people in the process.

Limiting evil to intentionally harming others is interesting, and since I maintain that it is subjective, I can't logically disagree with you. I will throw this out there though. Was it evil, then, for Moses to kill a Egyptian guard, before the exodus out of egypt? Apparently it was a necessary act in order for the exodus to have happened. I don't think God held it against him. That wasn't the reason they spent 40 years in the desert. (I know, maybe a bad example, as I don't think there is any other source for Moses' existence than the Bible, historically speaking.) Some would say it was justifiable homicide (not evil). The family of the guard would think it was murder (evil). I think our concepts of evil is just the tagword we associate with the extreme of negative thoughts and actions. But again is there really evil?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Depends on what you call Christian Mysticism. I've never heard of that phrase before.

Google Christian mysticism, interesing stuff. A famous book called "Mysticism" was written at the turn of the last century by Evelyn Underhill. More recently Jacob Needleman wrote a book called "Lost Christianity." Those and many other works describe how some Christians (monastics mostly) pursued knowledge of God through an inner practice.

Limiting evil to intentionally harming others is interesting, and since I maintain that it is subjective, I can't logically disagree with you. I will throw this out there though. Was it evil, then, for Moses to kill a Roman guard, before the exodus out of egypt?

I should have been more clear. I meant to say harm done to innocents for self-serving purposes (or something like that). I usually don't get involved in the minutia of trying to figure out where every act falls on the good-evil scale; but for instance, if we don't kill a terrorist about to explode a bomb, lots of people will die. But then, if the terrorist believed he was serving God, is his act evil? I usually factor in intent, so I might see his actions as deluded, but not really evil.

Some have argued that evil doesn't really exist, just ignorance. I can agree with that too. Each is a way of looking at behavior and intent. I probably see it more along the ignorance line myself.

 

[Amp1]

LaPalida:

1. Where in the Bible does it say that God loves "all equally" exactly? There is a claim to impartiality, that's about it.

Well first, I'm not exactly holding strictly to the Bible as my only source; however, it is one. When 'God' says it/he/she is '...no respector of persons' then I take that to mean no favoritism.

2. God does play favourites. The entire Old Testament is a proof for that. Jews are the God's chosen people. Cain and Abel?...

Singled out to be representative from any other group does not automatically imply favoritism. One can also look at them as the control group in an experiment - observe what happens if you follow my guidelines that I told you would be to your benefit. As opposed to look at those who don't. Even peoples who were not Jews, that followed the guidelines benefited.

3. Precisely what I am talking about. This is coersive thinking. God of the Bible is a not a gentle/good God but a jealous and insecure God that needs to be worshipped all the time.

Not having ever existed one could not be punished, IOW, you never miss or suffer for what you never had, I maitain that there is no cruelty in that nor coercion. This applies to your forth point, it's a consequence that stops the infection in the past so that future generations are not spoiled.