The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

  • Thread starter Royce
  • Start date
  • #26
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
I thoroughly agree with you DM. And I would add that the argument that the universe includes intelligence inside it so it must be intelligent itself applies as much to a house as to the universe. I don't think my house is intelligent.
 
  • #27
192
1
DM said:
That still remains a fallacy. What created something eternal? What created God?

It seems there has to be a reason for everything to you when this is in fact not true. Why would an omnipotent and omnipresent God look with his own eyes at what's happening in Africa and many other poverty countries and yet does nothing about it?

Look at life in the undergrowth. Animals, insects and microbes more specifically. They are living organisms like human beings but yet so much suffering takes place with this species. Why do ants fight and kill other insects? Why would God permit such occurrence when the other variety of insects being killed by the ants are also striving for a gasp of life?

Could there really be a point or indeed a "reason" for me to walk down the street on a shinny afternoon and suddenly step upon a living organism such as a wasp and end up killing it? Why would God permit this?

Everything is ultimately reduced to nothing. Absurd or not, nature does not comprehend your ideologies towards life, nor may I say will it ever have time to contemplate upon them.

Perhaps my personal experiences in life totally diverge away from the way you experience life. The God written in the bible and many other religious books are way too good to be true.
Perhaps my personal experiences in life totally diverge away from the way you experienced life because to me, a creator that would create a being that causes and suffers so much grief on his behalf is cruel beyond belief.
 
  • #28
1,481
0
Dmstifik8ion said:
I have based my understanding on the principle that everything comes from something that precedes it but I acknowledge my ignorance in regard to what or where the universe (all that exists at this moment) came from. Omniscience is absurd.
Something is something but it is not what it was before it became what it is. Who is witness to the eternal, anything? I don’t see this as an either/or but as a neither being possible. Because B is not true does not qualify A as true either.
The principle that something comes from something that precedes it is subject to infinite regression, actually is just a simplified version of infinite regression.
Something comes from something that precedes it without beginning. Something comes from something that precedes it without end.
Eternal is defined here as something without beginning and without end.
Thus something is eternal.
Something comes from nothing, nothing that proceeds it violates you own principle of something coming from something that proceeds it. Thus something cannot come from nothing without cause or reason.
I fail to see where the contention is. Where is it that we disagree?
What you are ignoring in this either/or conjecture is the two intimately related aspects which apply to the universe; time and change. Time may be frozen in an instant, as it is for a photon, but an instant is not an eternity; the inverse is not possible. Time itself, by definition, has a beginning and an end, a velocity and a distance and without delimiting both of these time loses definition and meaning.
The universe is defined as all that exists.
Something is eternal
The universe is eternal
The eternal universe is either temporal, with time or atemporal, without time.
If the universes is eternal and temporal then time would have to be eternal.
As "Time itself, by definition, has a beginning and an end, a velocity and a distance.."
Therefore the eternal universe is atemporal, without time.
Again this ignores time and change. The universe is not now what it was before I wrote this sentence. At the very least that sentence happened and the universe although quite similar will never be the same, and much more has happened in that space of time.
I have shown only that the universe as defined is and must be eternal.
I have never said that the universe is unchanging. There are schools of thought that say that the essence of the eternal universe is unchanging.
I am not addressing that here and hold that the eternal universe is constantly changing. In fact I have long maintained that the only constant in the universe is change.
That there is consciousness in the universe is beyond refuting. Agreed!
Something else we agree on. We're making some headway here.
By what definition of consciousness can consciousness take place apart from an observer with the means to observe?
I don't understand this question or what it has to do with the topic
Why does the universe need two names? So that we can attribute the faculty of consciousness to something which can be conscious of nothing but itself? By what means and what for?
Because some people object to the use of the term "God" and the term evokes a lot of emotional bias one way or the other and It is virtually impossible to reason logically about God without religions and beliefs getting all tangled up in the discussion. This thread has nothing to do with religion or the existence of God or not. It has only to do with the paradoxical statement;"God cannot exist because there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."
To create implies consciousness but consciousness implies existence, (something that exists with the capacity to perceive that which exists. Again time and change (cause and effect) the logical sequence required, the time line are being ignored.
While I agree that creation implies consciousness implies existence, I do not agree that it implies time.
In that part of the universe that is physical with space/time as we perceive it, change implies time, agreed. In fact change is how we measure time; but, time is relative to the observer and not a constant. What is seen by one observer as B follows A can be seen by another observer as A follows B. As time is relative to the perception and experience of a sentient observer can we be absolutely sure that time exists at all, that the physical universe is really temporal and, not just a function of our sequential minds and perceptions?
Here is one alternative that reasonably can not and should not be ignored. Consciousness is not eternal. It is born and dies with anything that has the equipment and the ability to use it. Consciousness is not a creation nor does it create; creation requires the action of one entity upon another with a purpose in mind and a mind with a purpose.
That is certainly one alternative and I cannot disagree with it.
However, it ignores that experienced and observed consciousness that is greater than us and is part of us and we part of it, the Universal Consciousness.
It is also out of the realm of my initial assumptions. And thus is off topic.
My purpose is not to destroy a fallacy but to expose it in the hope that once revealed an improved understanding can be applied to demonstrate that we hold a unique and wonderful place in the universe; to be the eyes, ears and mind that bring meaning and purpose to an otherwise meaningless and pointless universe.
Again the arrogance and audacity of Mankind. Yes, we hold a unique and wonderful place in the universe; but, there is no reason to suppose that we are the only conscious sentient beings in the entire universe; nor, that the universe is pointless or meaningless; nor, that it needs us and only us to give it meaning and purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
1,481
0
DM said:
That still remains a fallacy. What created something eternal? What created God?
Neither something eternal nor God are created. They are eternal. That they are not created is implied in the term "eternal."

It seems there has to be a reason for everything to you when this is in fact not true. Why would an omnipotent and omnipresent God look with his own eyes at what's happening in Africa and many other poverty countries and yet does nothing about it?
Where is you support for making a factual statements?
If God does something about it, he takes away from us the opportunity and ability to do something about it. Did your mother walk for you so that you would not fall down and thus deny you the opportunity and ability to learn to walk. Does that fact that you seemingly unseeing and uncaring heartless mother let you risk life and limb learning to walk mean that your mother cannot in fact exist? If your going to argue emotionally at least be consistent.

Look at life in the undergrowth. Animals, insects and microbes more specifically. They are living organisms like human beings but yet so much suffering takes place with this species. Why do ants fight and kill other insects? Why would God permit such occurrence when the other variety of insects being killed by the ants are also striving for a gasp of life?
Pick up a book on biology, ecology and evolution then in a few months come back and argue the point with me.

Could there really be a point or indeed a "reason" for me to walk down the street on a shinny afternoon and suddenly step upon a living organism such as a wasp and end up killing it? Why would God permit this?
What if that wasp was about to fly into a car widow and sting the driver, a sweet little old lady, a loving grandmother who never hurt anybody, which would cause her to lose control and plow through a restaurant window killing 15 people, men women and innocent children one who would have grown up to find a cure for all types of cancer, another who would Father the child who grew up to end all hunger in the world and another who would bring ever;lasting peace to the world.

Come on, get real. You being compassionate and life loving don't step on and kill that wasp and because of you and your insipid emotional responses, you kill or cause to be killed a grandmother, 15 people, forcing hunger disease and terrible suffering on the rest of the world forever. AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!, not God's, he meant for you to step on and kill that wasp and thus save the world, But no, you know better didn't you.:devil:

Perhaps my personal experiences in life totally diverge away from the way you experience life. The God written in the bible and many other religious books are way too good to be true.
I disagree. The God written about in the Old Testament is not good enough. And , this is not about the bible or books or religion. It is about reason and logic applied to the paradoxical statement; "There can be no God because of all the pain, suffering and disease in the world.
 
  • #30
192
1
Royce said:
The principle that something comes from something that precedes it is subject to infinite regression, actually is just a simplified version of infinite regression.
Something comes from something that precedes it without beginning. Something comes from something that precedes it without end.
Eternal is defined here as something without beginning and without end.
Thus something is eternal.
Something comes from nothing, nothing that proceeds it violates you own principle of something coming from something that proceeds it. Thus something cannot come from nothing without cause or reason.
I fail to see where the contention is. Where is it that we disagree?
The universe is defined as all that exists.
Something is eternal
The universe is eternal
The eternal universe is either temporal, with time or atemporal, without time.
If the universes is eternal and temporal then time would have to be eternal.
As "Time itself, by definition, has a beginning and an end, a velocity and a distance.."
Therefore the eternal universe is atemporal, without time.
I have shown only that the universe as defined is and must be eternal.
I have never said that the universe is unchanging. There are schools of thought that say that the essence of the eternal universe is unchanging.
I am not addressing that here and hold that the eternal universe is constantly changing. In fact I have long maintained that the only constant in the universe is change.
Something else we agree on. We're making some headway here.
I don't understand this question or what it has to do with the topic
Because some people object to the use of the term "God" and the term evokes a lot of emotional bias one way or the other and It is virtually impossible to reason logically about God without religions and beliefs getting all tangled up in the discussion. This thread has nothing to do with religion or the existence of God or not. It has only to do with the paradoxical statement;"God cannot exist because there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."
While I agree that creation implies consciousness implies existence, I do not agree that it implies time.
In that part of the universe that is physical with space/time as we perceive it, change implies time, agreed. In fact change is how we measure time; but, time is relative to the observer and not a constant. What is seen by one observer as B follows A can be seen by another observer as A follows B. As time is relative to the perception and experience of a sentient observer can we be absolutely sure that time exists at all, that the physical universe is really temporal and, not just a function of our sequential minds and perceptions?
That is certainly one alternative and I cannot disagree with it.
However, it ignores that experienced and observed consciousness that is greater than us and is part of us and we part of it, the Universal Consciousness.
It is also out of the realm of my initial assumptions. And thus is off topic.
Again the arrogance and audacity of Mankind. Yes, we hold a unique and wonderful place in the universe; but, there is no reason to suppose that we are the only conscious sentient beings in the entire universe; nor, that the universe is pointless or meaningless; nor, that it needs us and only us to give it meaning and purpose.
I agree that we are not necessarily the only creatures in the universe with this ability but I currently know of no others.

As for the rest, your entire argument is 'supported' on assumptions by your own admission. I see no point in continuing to point out the fallacies of the same assumptions ad infinitum because I recognize that eternity is absurd when applied to anything and therefore everything.

The universe and existence are not bones of contention. That they exist is self-evident; however they can only be regarded by referring to specific aspects of their nature.

Eternity is meaningless, as is the term ‘god’. They both negate the existence of time, beginning, end, duration, identity, cause and effect, change and definition and therefore the assumption of their existence in reality serves only as a slap in the face of reason.

I also realize that any argument based on a false premise is not an argument that can be refuted by any other means that to expose the fallacy of the premise on which it rests. Having done this to my satisfaction I have in the process learned by participating in this admittedly fascinating discussion and I hope others have to, however at this point it appears that this learning experience has been wrung dry of any further possibilities to gain new knowledge although I imagine my curiosity may lead me back to it on occasion to confirm my suspicions. If I come up with any further worthwhile contributions to make I will pass them on.

Thanks for the exercise in reason!
 
  • #31
Rade
Royce said:
Part of my assumptions is the He is logical and rational. ?Creating a perfect evolved species is an oxymoron; I.E. a contradiction; therefore, not logical.
:confused: But, above you stated this also as a basic assumption of your argument:
God can and has created perfect beings which we call his servants and/or angels.So now you have a logical contradiction, for if god can create perfect beings called angels, he can create perfect beings called evolved species, for, as the story tells us, even perfectly created angels evolve--thus the fall of Lucifer.
 
  • #32
DM
154
0
Dmstifik8ion said:
a creator that would create a being that causes and suffers so much grief on his behalf is cruel beyond belief.
That's our world. Look around you, people are suffering whilst people ignore it.
 
  • #33
DM
154
0
Royce said:
Neither something eternal nor God are created. They are eternal. That they are not created is implied in the term "eternal."
Where is you support for making a factual statements?
Neither something eternal nor Gor are created? You are defining every scientific law that exists. Everything is created, everything.

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

Those that DO something about it are in the minority and even when this is the case, when you or I are thoughful enough to donate money for charities, it's almost always offset by corruption. The money and food that manage to reach their hands are not sufficient enough to help the dire conditions around them. And as if this wasn't bad enough, there are now military people taking advantage of this situation, they beat, rape and kill the weak because of course, "opportunity" is right at their side.

Did your mother walk for you so that you would not fall down and thus deny you the opportunity and ability to learn to walk.
This is how humans evolve from their young age. It does not involve God. It's pure nature.

What if that wasp was about to fly into a car widow and sting the driver, a sweet little old lady, a loving grandmother who never hurt anybody, which would cause her to lose control and plow through a restaurant window killing 15 people, men women and innocent children one who would have grown up to find a cure for all types of cancer, another who would Father the child who grew up to end all hunger in the world and another who would bring ever;lasting peace to the world.
What if the wasp was collecting pollen for their young? Are you telling me that humans now have the right to prevail or favour over other living organisms? What kind of God is yours?

Come on, get real. You being compassionate and life loving don't step on and kill that wasp and because of you and your insipid emotional responses, you kill or cause to be killed a grandmother, 15 people, forcing hunger disease and terrible suffering on the rest of the world forever.
Yes, indeed. My emotional responses, you know it hits me, being real. People once again choose not to accept reality as it is.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
1,481
0
Dmstifik8ion said:
Thanks for the exercise in reason!
Your welcome and thank you for participating.
 
  • #35
1,481
0
Rade said:
:confused: But, above you stated this also as a basic assumption of your argument:
God can and has created perfect beings which we call his servants and/or angels.So now you have a logical contradiction, for if god can create perfect beings called angels, he can create perfect beings called evolved species, for, as the story tells us, even perfectly created angels evolve--thus the fall of Lucifer.
I obviously am having trouble getting my point across. The term "created"
as used here means to me that God said let there be Lucifer or whoever and poof! there is Lucifer complete and perfect and created by the desires, plan and will of God. This is just an example. I am not saying that this is what I think or believe actually happened.

An evolved species, such as we humans have over the span of billions of years have developed from relatively simple single celled life forms through all of evolution to what we are today. I don't think that we are done yet evolving.

I therefore think that the terms create and evolve are mutually exclusive.

Yes I suppose God could have 6000 years ago created the world and universe 15 billion years old and and created all of life on Earth as if it evolved over a span of 4 billion years. But why? It doesn't make sense to me that a sane, rational God would do this kind of charade.
 
  • #36
1,481
0
DM said:
Neither something eternal nor God are created? You are defining every scientific law that exists. Everything is created, everything.
I disagree but am willing to learn. Who or what created God? Is it not eternal also? If not, who or what created the creator? It that not eternal? If not, who or what created it?

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


It's tremendous how you say it in such a comfortable way. I could guarantee you that if you were unfortunate enough to be born in Africa with horrible conditions surrounding you, you would immediately take back what you've just said. How many more children have to die every three seconds in the third world for you to acknowledge that we'll never have the "opportunity" to do something about it? Humans are consumed with greed, opportunity never crosses their mind.
I am not at all comfortable about this. But, I don't blame God for it either. Nor do I deny that he could exist in any form because of the human condition of this earth.

This is how humans evolve from their young age. It does not involve God. It's pure nature.
Why do you think that it does not involve God? Why do you think that "pure nature" is not on aspect of pure God"



What if the wasp was collecting pollen for their young? Are you telling me that humans now have the right to prevail or favor over other living organisms?
Not the right to prevail but the ability to. It is part of evolution and ecology. Like a food chain. If the wasp doesn't bother me I won't bother it. Unfortunately the wasp does know this and just walking near by it is often considered threat enough to attack me. I do have the right to defend myself against a suicidal wasp.

Yes, indeed. My emotional responses, you know it hits me, being real. People once again choose not to accept reality as it is.
I will accept your version of reality, if you'll accept my version.
 
  • #37
DM
154
0
Royce said:
I disagree but am willing to learn. Who or what created God? Is it not eternal also? If not, who or what created the creator? It that not eternal? If not, who or what created it?
It's ultimately reduced to nothing. I fail to comprehend and accept your ideology of creation. For something to become eternal, it must nonetheless be created.

This is an example of infinite regression and as the name implies it goes on forever with out end or beginning.
You unequivocally believe that God is eternal. Do you believe the universe is eternal?

Going on without beginning and without end is the definition that I am using for eternal. If something is eternal it is not created for if it were created it would have a beginning.
This firm belief of yours is by far the most troublesome view that I have so far come accross with you. The flaw in your statement in my personal opinion is that eternity is not created. Allow me to raise a question. Living in the spirit world after your death is eternal by apparently all religions. According to your entrenched ideology on this matter, it therefore means that the human spirit will last forever. Now, this clearly seems to match your beliefs on an everlasting life. However, your soul was CREATED in the process. For your soul to come to light, your death must occur - paradoxically to your views this also tells me that there's an end to everything - giving rise to a soul, in which must be created in order to live on a spirit world.

Why do you think that it does not involve God? Why do you think that "pure nature" is not on aspect of pure God"
Because God does not contribute or intervene in any phases of your walking. Indeed, this may be an opinion but even to all of those who are religious, would in my belief agree that your walking phases are purely down to you.

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

Like a food chain. If the wasp doesn't bother me I won't bother it. Unfortunately the wasp does know this and just walking near by it is often considered threat enough to attack me. I do have the right to defend myself against a suicidal wasp.
There's your tailored case scenarios and there's mine. The wasp like I previously wrote was collecting pollen for his youngsters. You accidently killed it, why didn't God intervene?

I will accept your version of reality, if you'll accept my version.
I'm not sure you're entirely prepared to accept my version of reality when you previously stated:

Come on, get real. You being compassionate and life loving don't step on and kill that wasp and because of you and your insipid emotional responses
But hey, I never stated I didn't accept your version of reality. I think it should be more than obvious that whilst we battle our stances in this issue, we shouldn't even contemplate on disrespecting each others views.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
DM
154
0
Please notice that a few amendments were made. The majority were grammatical and vocabulary mistakes. Do please re-read my post and change your responses if appropriate.

My Apologies.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
1,481
0
DM said:
It's ultimately reduced to nothing. I fail to comprehend and accept your ideology of creation. For something to become eternal, it must nonetheless be created.
I think that you are reading too much into what I'm writing. It is not about religion at all. Get that out of your mind and address just the logic and reasoning.

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

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

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

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




You unequivocally believe that God is eternal. Do you believe the universe is eternal?
Yes by logical necessity as said above.



This firm belief of yours is by far the most troublesome view that I have so far come across with you. The flaw in your statement in my personal opinion is that eternity is not created. Allow me to raise a question. Living in the spirit world after your death is eternal by apparently all religions. According to your entrenched ideology on this matter, it therefore means that the human spirit will last forever. Now, this clearly seems to match your beliefs on an everlasting life. However, your soul was CREATED in the process. For your soul to come to light, your death must occur - paradoxically to your views this also tells me that there's an end to everything - giving rise to a soul, in which must be created in order to live on a spirit world.
Most of this is outside the topic of this thread and I have said nothing like any of this in this thread. I therefore assume that you have been reading some of my other posts and or threads. Even though off topic and smacking of religion I will address these items as best I can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because God does not contribute or intervene in any phases of your walking. Indeed, this may be an opinion but even to all of those who are religious, would in my belief agree that your walking phases are purely down to you.
I do not believe that God does not contribute or intervene at all. Just the opposite as any father would. I just don't believe that God is responsible nor culpable for all the hardships, sins, suffering and disease on this world.
I think that most of this is brought on by our collective selves, all of Mankind and our situation and state at this time. It is possible that once evolution is set in motion that there is no other possibility for direct intervention in the conditions of life on this world. I don't know.

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

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

There's your tailored case scenarios and there's mine. The wasp like I previously wrote was collecting pollen for his youngsters. You accidental killed it, why didn't God intervene?
Because it didn't, doesn't matter in the greater scheme of the Cosmos?

But hey, I never stated I didn't accept your version of reality. I think it should be more than obvious that whilst we battle our stances in this issue, we shouldn't even contemplate on disrespecting each others views.
Again, we agree! It is never my intention to be disrespectful even when arguing tooth and nail and going for the throat for a good clean kill.:devil: o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #40
DM
154
0
Royce said:
I think that you are reading too much into what I'm writing. It is not about religion at all. Get that out of your mind and address just the logic and reasoning.
I think it's about religion if you don't mind me insisting. Your views are firmly attached to religion because you keep on referring to God and its laws. I on the other hand insist that God does not exist in the way you think it does (if he at all exists) and thus challange your views. I'm not in any way or form critising you but in fact encouraging you to be open minded about your ideologies and indeed exchange them in our conversation.

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

If something is eternal it is not created because then it would have a beginning. Eternal is defined an without beginning and without end.
Definition wise the word "eternal" means that something or someone lasts forever. In three dictionaries that I have personally looked at, nowhere does it mention "without a beginning" or other similar meaning words.

The universe is eternal.
God exists.
God is eternal.
God created the physical universe (in such a way that it evolves just as we do.)
I'd like to for now forget all about the rest that has been debated amongst us so far - for the sake of clarity as you very well put it - and would like to draw your attention to the following. How does all of the above assumptions fit with your belief about apocalypse? If the world ends, will the universe also end?

The logic that nothing created God is highly controversial, I just cannot contend with this belief. I'd like to know how this is possible in your opinion. How did God emerge? Stating that God has been ubiquitous forever is very ambiguous, how did his presence appeared in a vacuum?
 
  • #41
1,481
0
DM said:
I think it's about religion if you don't mind me insisting. Your views are firmly attached to religion because you keep on referring to God and its laws. I on the other hand insist that God does not exist in the way you think it does (if he at all exists) and thus challenge your views.
This thread is intended to be a philosophical discussion of one statement that shows up again and again. "God cannot exist as there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."

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

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

Definition wise the word "eternal" means that something or someone lasts forever. In three dictionaries that I have personally looked at, nowhere does it mention "without a beginning" or other similar meaning words.
If you do not agree with nor accept the initial assumptions or definitions the an agreement must be made or no meaningful discussion can take place. I defined eternal as meaning without beginning and without end.
What it is defined as anywhere else has no bearing on this topic.

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

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

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

The logic that nothing created God is highly controversial, I just cannot contend with this belief. I'd like to know how this is possible in your opinion. How did God emerge? Stating that God has been ubiquitous forever is very ambiguous, how did his presence appeared in a vacuum?
Either something came from nothing or something is eternal.
The universe is defined and all that exists.
If something exists eternally, then the universe is by definition eternal.
The universe is thought to be atemporal, without time.
If there is consciousness in the universe it too must be eternal.
It is thought that this consciousness is eternal and is the Universal Consciousness.
It is possible that this eternal universal consciousness my be the universe itself. They are and identity.
I refer to this identity as God. This is my personal believe and preference.
 
  • #42
DM
154
0
Royce said:
This thread is intended to be a philosophical discussion of one statement that shows up again and again. "God cannot exist as there is so much evil, suffering and disease in the world."
Which happens to be highly paradoxical with what you mostly state and underpin your statements with.

As in any such debate there are starting assumptions made and definitions of terms defined. I did this at the beginning of this thread.
Any ensuing discussion to be meaningful and in topic must be within those assumptions or meanings.
In which happens to be yours, nowhere does it state that interlocutors must accept your assumptions. I'm starting to see your impatience growing on this matter. Installing parameters on assumptions does not challenge anyones beliefs about life, whether you include or exclude God.

Again I say that this has nothing to do with religion or any religious view, beliefs or theology. It is a valid metaphysical topic. Despite what you may think or believe you are obligated to stay within the topic and within the assumptions and definitions of this thread if you are going to participate.
This was not the case in the past. There were members that challanged your views and you agreed with their participation. This response can only be construed by me as a means of anger and impatience. I choose to no longer participate in this thread.

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

There are plenty of religious forums available. This is the philosophy sub forum of Physics Forums.
Religion is completely intrinsic to philosophy. I thought you knew that.

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

Finally I can only hope we continue to engage peacefully and respectfully in other discussions to come in the future. It was a true pleasure debating with you.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
1,481
0
DM said:
Which happens to be highly paradoxical with what you mostly state and underpin your statements with.
I agree that it is paradoxical and was attempting to reason through the paradox.

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

Another line would be:

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

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

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

This was not the case in the past. There were members that challenged your views and you agreed with their participation. This response can only be construed by me as a means of anger and impatience. I choose to no longer participate in this thread.
It is of course your prerogative to no longer participate. This was not my intention nor reason for my replies. I am trying to give you, us some guide lines of discussion to keep this thread open. In the past if threads wandered too far of topic or strayed too much into religion they would be locked down. I am not and was not growing impatient but I can see how that could be construed from my responses. For that I apologize.







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

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

Finally I can only hope we continue to engage peacefully and respectfully in other discussions to come in the future. It was a true pleasure debating with you.
There is no need to stop. We can, if you want, continue our discussion.
If we get a warning we will have to comply or the thread will be locked.
It is entirely up to you.
 
  • #44
340
0
Yet another approach

Royce said:
We could try another approach.
Throw away all of the assumptions that I started with as well as the definitions and start with new one.
Less drastic, and I would think more fruitful, would be to throw away only that one assumption of God being omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, complete, immutable, and any other such "almighty" attribute.

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

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

Paul
 
  • #45
1,481
0
I agree, Paul but, there is no paradox to solve nor reason to blame God or deny his existence.
 
  • #46
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
DM said:
Religion is completely intrinsic to philosophy. I thought you knew that.
That is incorrect. The major categories of philosophy are logic, ethics, epistomology and metaphysics. Possibly you've misunderstood the difference between metaphysics and religion.


Paul Martin said:
Less drastic, and I would think more fruitful, would be to throw away only that one assumption of God being omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, complete, immutable, and any other such "almighty" attribute. This is an unwarranted assumption that people accept simply because it has been repeated so often since ancient times.
I have to give you a hearty "bravo" for that statement. I can't tell you how many debates/dicussions have been rendered useless and silly here because of all the assumptions people feel they need to drag around with them. There is absolutely no logical or evidential reason to maintain the assumptions other than somebody a long time ago said it.


Paul Martin said:
If the creator is indeed limited, say on the order that we as humans are limited, nothing would prevent the creator from designing and building things just as humans design and build things. One of the natural consequences of this would be that there would no doubt be errors and imperfection in those designs and creations, just as there are errors and imperfections in our cars and space shuttles.
On the other hand, we can't assume such a creationary consciousness has the same limitations as humans do for no other reason than how long it may have evolved. Starting about 5 billion years ago with the development of our solar system, the quality of changes from that point to now on Earth has been astonishing. No human can produce a solar system with the built in features ours has to protect and encourage a blue planet, no human can produce a living cell, no human can evolve a brain and have consciousness emerge that is intelligent enough to contemplate its own existence.

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


Paul Martin said:
One of the natural consequences of this would be that there would no doubt be errors and imperfection in those designs and creations, just as there are errors and imperfections in our cars and space shuttles.
It's interesting how smart we are becoming. Will there be a day when we understand living systems well enough to rid ourselves of disease? Might the creationary consciousness forseen that happening?


Paul Martin said:
"Problem of Evil" thus becomes a non-problem and is explained simply as a set of unintended consequences that you would expect from a less-than-perfect designer.
Paul
Something I think is funny is two ways science believers (athiestic) may talk about creation depending on what is cited as the creator. To someone saying God is the creator they may say, "What kind of God would create all this misery, all this disease, war, rape, children tortured and killed. This God must be a monster indeed."

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

So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm. :cool:
 
  • #47
Rade
Les Sleeth said:
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. :cool:
Yes, because nature maintains the the right to create both good and evil, and since nature created God, all makes perfect sense.
 
  • #48
Rade
Les Sleeth said:
.. The major categories of philosophy are logic, ethics, epistomology and metaphysics. Possibly you've misunderstood the difference between metaphysics and religion.
I find it instructive that you place religion outside philosophy. By definition (Webster) to "philosophize" is to "investigate phenomena and assign rational causes for their existence". Thus we note that those that study religion, while they clearly investigate phenomena, must then by definition do so outside "reason" (e.g., outside rational causes), and hence we see clearly why religion is also outside "science". The causes for ultimate existence obtained via religion are thus by definiton obtained by a mental process that functions outside of reason, outside of logic, and are thus part of the irrational mental images of humans. Thank you for clarifying this issue.
 
  • #49
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Rade said:
Les Sleeth said:
So let's see, if God produced it, then the universe is a cruel evil place, but if nature did it, then creation is a wonder. Hmmmmmmm.
Yes, because nature maintains the right to create both good and evil, and since nature created God, all makes perfect sense.
I'm sure you think your answer somehow makes your case, but I don't see it. Nature has "rights"?
 
  • #50
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Rade said:
I find it instructive that you place religion outside philosophy. By definition (Webster) to "philosophize" is to "investigate phenomena and assign rational causes for their existence".
There you go using a dictionary again in a philosophy discussion. Where a dictionary is appropriate is for language questions, not for philosophical meanings. It is never relied on in serious philosophy, which isn't primarily about language but about the nature of reality.


Rade said:
Thus we note that those that study religion, while they clearly investigate phenomena, must then by definition do so outside "reason" (e.g., outside rational causes), and hence we see clearly why religion is also outside "science". The causes for ultimate existence obtained via religion are thus by definiton obtained by a mental process that functions outside of reason, outside of logic, and are thus part of the irrational mental images of humans. Thank you for clarifying this issue.
:rolleyes: I've only repeated a bushel of times that I don't like religion, and that much of it can't be made sense of.

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

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

Related Threads on The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

Replies
82
Views
6K
Replies
134
Views
14K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
Top