The God, Evil and Suffering Paradox.

[Royce]

I have run across this so many times that I've lost count, two times in the last 5 days or so. One from a source that surprised me. "How can there be a prefect omnipotent, omniscient, loving caring God when there is so much evil, human suffering and disease in the world?"
This has bee a theological question for centuries. The Christian churches have handled it by saying that mankind has fallen from Grace because of the sin of Adam and Eve and the Original Sin. It makes a good story but is not an answer nor very reasonable. Here, I am going to attempt to reason my way through this apparent paradox.
For the sake of argument, I have to accept some assumptions:

God exists and is the creator and master of the universe.

God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, loving, caring, rational, sane ,logical and reasonable.

God is capable of creating perfection.

Accepting these assumptions as valid, I argue as follows.

There is ample evidence that mankind is an evolved animal and not created 6000 years ago in the same form that he is today.

There is no reason to conclude that this evolution is complete and ended though we have somewhat removed ourselves from survival of the fittest.

God can and has created perfect beings which we call his servants and/or angels.

We are not perfect; therefore, not created perfect, but evolved.

There must be a reason or purpose that God choose not to create perfection on Earth but allows evolution to take place.

If the revolt of Lucifer and Satan and the Sin Of Adam and Eve did actually take place God knew that it would happen and allowed it to happen. It must have been part of his plan for this world.

If it was part of his plan Lucifer, Satan, Adam and Eve were doing God's will and thus there was no sin, original or not. Or, if not his actual will them operating as independent agents doing their will which was known and allowed by God.

This still does not explain why God allows such horrible suffering and disease.

It is not God's fault, but our fault, our responsibility. Again, given free will and individual responsibility it is up to us to make the world and ourselves right. We are born knowing all that we need to know and there is a cure for every disease here available on earth. We allow and toerate evil to happen here. We even make excuses for it and say that it is not their or our fault. We blame God for our own sins.

If the world or we were created perfect there would be no way for us to grow, evolve, mature or learn anything. God can create all the perfection that he wants so he must have a reason for creating evolution and for us being evolved beings.

Neither a sword nor a plow shear can be formed without repeated heating and hammering, quenching and tempering. We therefore must be some tool that God is making for himself. Some self reliant being capable of learning and growing to perfection, a being that has experienced all, the bad and good, that life has to offer.

The image of perfection that we see before us is not evidence of our shortcoming nor criticism of our miserable state but a goal, a signpost, a lamp to show us the way and the eventual goal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If the world or we were created perfect there would be no way for us to grow, evolve, mature or learn anything. God can create all the perfection that he wants so he must have a reason for creating evolution and for us being evolved beings.

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

I know this answer isn't within Royce's assumptions but . . . it could be that the creator did the best it could. I am grateful to exist, perfect or not.

Plus, why assume creation is completed?

 

[Math Is Hard]

If the world or we were created perfect there would be no way for us to grow, evolve, mature or learn anything. God can create all the perfection that he wants so he must have a reason for creating evolution and for us being evolved beings.
Neither a sword nor a plow shear can be formed without repeated heating and hammering, quenching and tempering. We therefore must be some tool that God is making for himself. Some self reliant being capable of learning and growing to perfection, a being that has experienced all, the bad and good, that life has to offer.

This sounds like one of the Greater Goods arguments. When I think of these I associate them with Richard Swinburne, but I'm sure the ideas were around a long time before him. Basically, they all go like this: God allows evil in the world because there is some greater good that comes from it. The particular one you mentioned tends to be shot down with the counter argument that God doesn't need to "create an obstacle course.” He could have made us in heavenly perfection from the get-go. Why put his precious children through the suffering of striving for perfection (the evils of the world) if there was no need for it? Seems cruel. Any wonderful quality that could have been instilled in us through suffering could have been just zapped into us by the almighty OOO creator. I've also heard the GG arguments that

--God allows suffering/evil in the world to allow the counter experiences of patience, bravery, compassion
--Evil is necessary for free will
--There is some greater good that comes from the presence of evil in the world, but we don't know what it is.

The last one, I suppose, goes along with SelfAdjoint's quote "My ways are above your ways". That is the one I think I lean to most strongly. It must be something beyond comprehension. It's got to be a greater good that is so good, that it justifies the most horrific things that happen in this world.

 

[Royce]

This is the nub of your theocracy, everything else is just curlicues around it.

This is only one small part of my Theocracy and my philosophy of life.

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?

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.
A lot depends on your definition of sin and sin free. Most of the time we sinners sin against ourselves and not God. A sin against God it to knowingly go against, act against or defy the will of God.

Because he's OMNIPOTENT he should be able to do this.

This is like the question; "If God is omnipotent can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" It is meaningless and contain as self- referential contradiction.

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".

I do not pretend to know the ways of God or his reasons. I only assume that he is omni-everything and that he is rational and logical and that there is a reason for everything.

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.

By the same token would a good parent keep his infant from learning to walk so that he would not fall down and hurt himself. Sometime pain and hardship is the price we pay for knowledge and skill. If its free it ain't worth much.

As stiff necked as we humans are, we are determined to do things and learn things the hard way for ourselves. Obviously we think it worth the price.

Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you and all and to all a happy and prosperous New Year.

 

[Royce]

I know this answer isn't within Royce's assumptions but . . . it could be that the creator did the best it could. I am grateful to exist, perfect or not.

You said it, Les, assumptions. We only assume that a creator would be perfect and omni-everything. But, then he would have to be to have created us, wouldn't he. I am forever amazed at the arrogance and audacity of mankind.

Plus, why assume creation is completed?

It is my assumption that creation is like the Creator (esse, the universe, the One, the Universal Consciousness, the 10,000 names of God, ?) is eternal and ongoing. Creation is one of his attributes. Why would it have a beginning and an end?

 

[Royce]

This sounds like one of the Greater Goods arguments. When I think of these I associate them with Richard Swinburne, but I'm sure the ideas were around a long time before him. Basically, they all go like this: God allows evil in the world because there is some greater good that comes from it. The particular one you mentioned tends to be shot down with the counter argument that God doesn't need to "create an obstacle course.” He could have made us in heavenly perfection from the get-go.

See my answer to SelfAdjoint. He can and has made all of the perfect beings that he needs and wants. Assume that one of his reasons is to experience life from birth to death, good and bad. If He is part of us and we part of him then does he not too suffer and feel pain?

Why put his precious children through the suffering of striving for perfection (the evils of the world) if there was no need for it? Seems cruel. Any wonderful quality that could have been instilled in us through suffering could have been just zapped into us by the almighty OOO creator.

Are you a parent? Have you ever experienced the joy of learning to do something? Can you swim or ride a bike. How many times did you sink or fall down learning. I'm 64 and can still remember having to pick the gravel out of my hands and knees. God, I hated to have to do that. It hurt like hell and yes I can remember the pain. It didn't stop me. Nor did my parents stop me. I also remember the pure joy that I experienced when I first rode my bike all alone without help. Obviously it was worth it and yes I and billions of other would do it again.

--God allows suffering/evil in the world to allow the counter experiences of patience, bravery, compassion
--Evil is necessary for free will
--There is some greater good that comes from the presence of evil in the world, but we don't know what it is.
The last one, I suppose, goes along with SelfAdjoint's quote "My ways are above your ways". That is the one I think I lean to most strongly. It must be something beyond comprehension. It's got to be a greater good that is so good, that it justifies the most horrific things that happen in this world.

I don't think that is beyond comprehension at all. I may be over simplifying it or this may be only a small part or it. To be strong we must endure and to be self reliant and stand on our own two feet we must learn by and for ourselves. As Les said I am grateful to exist and grateful for the beauty and elegance of creation. At my age, everyday I wake up, I have a new or returning pain; but, it beats the hell out of the alternative.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

And what evidence have you that it's illogical to assume a happy unconflicted intelligent evolved species? I have never heard any logician assert this. If the only reason you assert it is to save us from the "God is good but life is evil" paradox then your argument is petitio principi and has no force at all.

A lot depends on your definition of sin and sin free. Most of the time we sinners sin against ourselves and not God. A sin against God it to knowingly go against, act against or defy the will of God.

How would you ever know the will of your god?! Most of the people who are not shy about accusing others of defying the will of god seem to confuse his will with their own.

 

[DaveC426913]

How would you ever know the will of your god?! Most of the people who are not shy about accusing others of defying the will of god seem to confuse his will with their own.

If he's Christian, the will of God is written in the Bible. The Bible is, literally, the Word of God. If he's Muslim, the will of God is written in the Koran. The Koran is literally, the Word of God, etc.

(Nevermind whether you think they are the Word of God, the point is that) those who act in His name can rest assured they know without a doubt what He wants.

(Don't misinterpret my submission as weighing in on the Believer side, I'm just picking off some of the easier discussion points.)

 

[Royce]

And what evidence have you that it's illogical to assume a happy unconflicted intelligent evolved species? I have never heard any logician assert this. If the only reason you assert it is to save us from the "God is good but life is evil" paradox then your argument is petitio principi and has no force at all.

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear enough. The oxymoron lies in the terms "create" and "evolved" Even God can't do the impossible or self contradictory. It is impossible to create and evolved being, It is ether created or it is evolved. I assume once we evolved human being evolve to the point that we are civilized and a mature species the we will be all that you say we should be.

How would you ever know the will of your god?! Most of the people who are not shy about accusing others of defying the will of god seem to confuse his will with their own.

Agreed and it isn't always accidental confusion but intention misrepresentation. One learns and knows the will of God for him or her by looking within and listening with ones soul. Of course if you don't believe in a soul or in a God, it is hard to listen to and hear nothing.

 

[Q_Goest]

Royce, I like the fact you tried to list the assumptions at top:

For the sake of argument, I have to accept some assumptions:

God exists and is the creator and master of the universe.

God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, loving, caring, rational, sane ,logical and reasonable.

I'll try to adhere to these in responding.

These assumptions line up well with typical Christian beliefs, but the one assumption I'd like to see clarified is if we should, for the sake of argument, assume god is not governed by any natural law. Saying he is the creator of the universe could be taken as him being the cause that started what we call the big bang, but do you want to suggest God created nature? Or is he a part of it?

I think you also need to make some assumption about hell and 'souls' being tortured in such a place for eternity. Obviously, any pain and suffering here on Earth is insignificant to such pain and suffering upon death, so one should create an assumption regarding hell if we're to make reasonable conclusions about an allegedly loving deity. Any thoughts on that one?

If we assume God created the universe, we might also assume there must be a reason (a "plan") as you point out. If that's true, he not only had a plan but assuming he is omniscient, he also knew the outcome of the plan. If he is also omnipotent, then he also could have created the end result without implementing creation so there would seem to be no purpose in having the universe created and progress if he could have simply created the end result. Perhaps this suggests that the universe evolving over time IS the plan, as opposed to a means to an end. Do you see anything wrong with that logic? This might be called the "Means to an End" (ME) problem because if God were truly omnipotent and omnicient, then the end result is not the reason for our creation but the actual time evolution of history is the reason for creation and thus all of the good and bad is also part of that reason for creation.

If the ME problem is correct, it sheds a slightly different light on the issue you raise about evil and suffering. Obviously, there is no need for evil and suffering or any such negative if god could have created the end result without it. It would seem to imply that he wanted to see this universe evolve with all the good AND bad simply for himself, simply for ME. He could have avoided our suffering by simply creating the end result if the end result is what he was after. Hence it would seem to contradict the assumption that god is good.

There's another problem with this concept if we make the assumption that hell exists as given in most religions. Why would any deity that knew before hand, which one of us would suffer in hell for eternity, create us only so that we might suffer in hell for eternity? That would seem to contradict your assumption that god is loving and results in another ME problem.

On the other hand, if god were not omniscient and omnipotent, if he were actually part of nature and not supernatural, I think one would find some interesting conclusions which are not so self contradictory.

 

[DM]

Saying he is the creator of the universe could be taken as him being the cause that started what we call the big bang, but do you want to suggest God created nature? Or is he a part of it?

I very much agree with the latter. For it would partly answer what created God in the first place.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

As long as we are making assumptions, why not assume that we created 'god' to 'justify' some rather bazaar albeit irrational assumptions, (rather than the other way around)?

 

[Royce]

Royce, I like the fact you tried to list the assumptions at top:
I'll try to adhere to these in responding.
These assumptions line up well with typical Christian beliefs, but the one assumption I'd like to see clarified is if we should, for the sake of argument, assume god is not governed by any natural law. Saying he is the creator of the universe could be taken as him being the cause that started what we call the big bang, but do you want to suggest God created nature? Or is he a part of it?

I am coming to believe that God is nature and the universe. The Universal consciousness that I refer to as God is eternal as is the universe. The physical universe may not be eternal and may have been caused by the big bang. As I have said so many times in the past; God said; "Let there be light." Big bang.
I have the idea that once set up and put into motion, God had very few options as to the physical laws and values. I don't know. How many ways are there to create a stable evolving physical universe that leads to conscious sentient life?

As there is only One, then, of course, God is nature as he is everything else.

I think you also need to make some assumption about hell and 'souls' being tortured in such a place for eternity. Obviously, any pain and suffering here on Earth is insignificant to such pain and suffering upon death, so one should create an assumption regarding hell if we're to make reasonable conclusions about an allegedly loving deity. Any thoughts on that one?

I don't believe that there is a hell (unless this world is it.) nor a devil as commonly thought of. There is no mention of Hell and eternal damnation in the five gospels of the new testament nor of the devil. I think that this was part or Zoroasterism that was incorporated in early Christianity to provide the stick to go along with the carrot.

If we assume God created the universe, we might also assume there must be a reason (a "plan") as you point out. If that's true, he not only had a plan but assuming he is omniscient, he also knew the outcome of the plan. If he is also omnipotent, then he also could have created the end result without implementing creation so there would seem to be no purpose in having the universe created and progress if he could have simply created the end result. Perhaps this suggests that the universe evolving over time IS the plan, as opposed to a means to an end. Do you see anything wrong with that logic?

No, this is one of my assumptions that I did not list. There is a reason for everything. Why is there evolution and creation? Why is there free will and the will of God? Why is there cause and effect and uncertainty or non-determinacy. While he may know all in the eternal moment is must be played out in physical time in the physical universe.

This might be called the "Means to an End" (ME) problem because if God were truly omnipotent and omniscient, then the end result is not the reason for our creation but the actual time evolution of history is the reason for creation and thus all of the good and bad is also part of that reason for creation.
If the ME problem is correct, it sheds a slightly different light on the issue you raise about evil and suffering. Obviously, there is no need for evil and suffering or any such negative if god could have created the end result without it. It would seem to imply that he wanted to see this universe evolve with all the good AND bad simply for himself, simply for ME. He could have avoided our suffering by simply creating the end result if the end result is what he was after. Hence it would seem to contradict the assumption that god is good.

God did not create evil and suffering. We persist in blaming God for our being evil. Saying that it is all God's fault is as ridicules and saying that the devil made me do it. There is free will. If not then what would be the point, as you say. With freedom comes accountability and responsibility.
Either we have free will and are accountable and responsible for our own actions or there is no free will and it is all God's fault. The latter, in my mind, makes God insane, a sick, twisted, evil mind. Therefore the assumption that God is sane, rational and logical and as agents of free will most of the evil and suffering in this world is our fault or a result of the fact that we are not yet fully evolved and civilized.

There's another problem with this concept if we make the assumption that hell exists as given in most religions. Why would any deity that knew before hand, which one of us would suffer in hell for eternity, create us only so that we might suffer in hell for eternity? That would seem to contradict your assumption that god is loving and results in another ME problem.

This is why I don't believe in Hell and eternal damnation. The entire concept is irrational and illogical.

On the other hand, if god were not omniscient and omnipotent, if he were actually part of nature and not supernatural, I think one would find some interesting conclusions which are not so self contradictory.

He may still be omnipotent and omniscient and be nature. There is no supernatural just as there is nothing outside of the universe if "universe" is defined as all that is, all that exists.

 

[Royce]

I very much agree with the latter. For it would partly answer what created God in the first place.

My assumption is that God is the Universe and is eternal not created.
Again ether something is eternal or something came from nothing. Something coming from nothing without cause or reason is, to me, absurd.

 

[Royce]

As long as we are making assumptions, why not assume that we created 'god' to 'justify' some rather bazaar albeit irrational assumptions, (rather than the other way around)?

There is no doubt in my mind that we created the myth of the Judeo-Christian God. That there is an entity that is the universe and universal consciousness and is eternal is something that I am learning about.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear enough. The oxymoron lies in the terms "create" and "evolved" Even God can't do the impossible or self contradictory. It is impossible to create and evolved being, It is ether created or it is evolved. I assume once we evolved human being evolve to the point that we are civilized and a mature species the we will be all that you say we should be.

Sorry I don't see your premise here. The Catholic Church, for one, is cool with evolution guided by god, or necessarily fulfiling his plan, or something along thse lines (they await their Thomas Aquinas). So I don't see the dichotomy. If evolution is thus the expression of god's will "by other means" then he still has responsibility for the way they turned out, I think.

 

[Royce]

Sorry I don't see your premise here. The Catholic Church, for one, is cool with evolution guided by god, or necessarily fulfilling his plan, or something along these lines (they await their Thomas Aquinas). So I don't see the dichotomy. If evolution is thus the expression of god's will "by other means" then he still has responsibility for the way they turned out, I think.

As God set up the rules, within limits if any, and set it in motion then, yes, he is responsible. I just don't think that we are done yet, done evolving that is. If he wants created perfection he creates it. If he wants evolution then in the physical universe it takes time. We're still evolving toward perfection in my opinion.

 

[Q_Goest]

Royce, It seems to me you've reverted to arguing your own personnal beliefs about god at this point.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

There is no doubt in my mind that we created the myth of the Judeo-Christian God. That there is an entity that is the universe and universal consciousness and is eternal is something that I am learning about.

Your stated certainty is encouraging. I am however curious as to who/what told/informed you that anything is eternal and why do you believe them/it? Also, perhaps of greater importance is; are you suggesting that the universe as a whole, (or something beyond the universe), possesses consciousness? If so, do you have a particular entity in mind, and on what basis do you justify this belief?

 

[DM]

If he wants evolution then in the physical universe it takes time. We're still evolving toward perfection in my opinion.

Whilst people suffer from it?

Why would God create such a system? Remember, Adam and Eve? they were perfect!

 

[Royce]

Royce, It seems to me you've reverted to arguing your own personal beliefs about god at this point.

Your probably right. I am trying to keep it on a logical reasoning basis but to make specific responses to specific questions or statements I am finding it very hard not to let my personal beliefs influence my responses and remain honest and forthcoming.

 

[Royce]

Your stated certainty is encouraging. I am however curious as to who/what told/informed you that anything is eternal and why do you believe them/it? Also, perhaps of greater importance is; are you suggesting that the universe as a whole, (or something beyond the universe), possesses consciousness? If so, do you have a particular entity in mind, and on what basis do you justify this belief?

I stated this earlier in this thread and in a number of others. Regression or the First Cause argument eventually come to the point where there are only two alternatives left. Either something is eternal meaning without beginning and without end or something came from nothing without cause or reason. I hold that something from nothing is absurd; therefore, something must be eternal.

The other point is that the term "Universe" is defined as everything that exists. Using this definition there is and can be nothing outside of the universe and that by the above the Universe is eternal.

That there is consciousness in the universe is beyond refute.

It has been observed and experience that there is a consciousness greater than that of individual beings such as ourselves. This consciousness seems to be part of us and we a part of it and has come to be referred to here and PF's, at least, as the Universal Consciousness and as it is universal we, I make the assumption that it is the universe. Therefore, yes, the universe as a whole itself is conscious and sentient in my opinion based on the above reasoning.

I refer to that sentient consciousness, whether it is or is not the universe as a whole, as God or sometimes as the god head.

I base my belief on the reasoning that if the universe is all that is, exists, and that the universe is real and if there is consciousness in the universe and it too is universal then it must be the universe itself that is conscious and sentient. Therefore. this consciousness is real and is an entity and the only such entity that I know of is usually referred to as God, the Creator and Master of the universe. I believe that this is true.

While the Universe is eternal the physical universe in which we live may not be and thus may be created. There are other alternatives but it is convenient to refer, think and use these terms.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

I stated this earlier in this thread and in a number of others. Regression or the First Cause argument eventually come to the point where there are only two alternatives left. Either something is eternal meaning without beginning and without end or something came from nothing without cause or reason. I hold that something from nothing is absurd; therefore, something must be eternal.
The other point is that the term "Universe" is defined as everything that exists. Using this definition there is and can be nothing outside of the universe and that by the above the Universe is eternal.
That there is consciousness in the universe is beyond refute.
It has been observed and experience that there is a consciousness greater than that of individual beings such as ourselves. This consciousness seems to be part of us and we a part of it and has come to be referred to here and PF's, at least, as the Universal Consciousness and as it is universal we, I make the assumption that it is the universe. Therefore, yes, the universe as a whole itself is conscious and sentient in my opinion based on the above reasoning.
I refer to that sentient consciousness, whether it is or is not the universe as a whole, as God or sometimes as the god head.
I base my belief on the reasoning that if the universe is all that is, exists, and that the universe is real and if there is consciousness in the universe and it too is universal then it must be the universe itself that is conscious and sentient. Therefore. this consciousness is real and is an entity and the only such entity that I know of is usually referred to as God, the Creator and Master of the universe. I believe that this is true.
While the Universe is eternal the physical universe in which we live may not be and thus may be created. There are other alternatives but it is convenient to refer, think and use these terms.

I stated this earlier in this thread and in a number of others. Regression or the First Cause argument eventually come to the point where there are only two alternatives left. Either something is eternal meaning without beginning and without end or something came from nothing without cause or reason. I hold that something from nothing is absurd; therefore, something must be eternal.

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.

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 other point is that the term "Universe" is defined as everything that exists. Using this definition there is and can be nothing outside of the universe and that by the above the Universe is eternal.

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.

That there is consciousness in the universe is beyond refuting. Agreed!

It has been observed and experience that there is a consciousness greater than that of individual beings such as ourselves. This consciousness seems to be part of us and we a part of it and has come to be referred to here and PF's, at least, as the Universal Consciousness and as it is universal we, I make the assumption that it is the universe. Therefore, yes, the universe as a whole itself is conscious and sentient in my opinion based on the above reasoning.

By what definition of consciousness can consciousness take place apart from an observer with the means to observe?

I refer to that sentient consciousness, whether it is or is not the universe as a whole, as God or sometimes as the god head.

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?

I base my belief on the reasoning that if the universe is all that is, exists, and that the universe is real and if there is consciousness in the universe and it too is universal then it must be the universe itself that is conscious and sentient. Therefore. this consciousness is real and is an entity and the only such entity that I know of is usually referred to as God, the Creator and Master of the universe. I believe that this is true.

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 the Universe is eternal the physical universe in which we live may not be and thus may be created. There are other alternatives but it is convenient to refer, think and use these terms.

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.

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.

 

[DM]

Again ether something is eternal or something came from nothing. Something coming from nothing without cause or reason is, to me, absurd.

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

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.

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[Royce]

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.

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.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

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!

 

[Rade]

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.

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.

 

[DM]

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.

 

[DM]

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.

 

[Royce]

Thanks for the exercise in reason!

Your welcome and thank you for participating.

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DM]

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

My Apologies.

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes by logical necessity as said above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough. Point taken.

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

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

Another line would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Paul Martin]

Yet another approach

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

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

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

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

Paul

 

[Royce]

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rade]

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

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

 

[Rade]

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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