NationStates Jolt Archive

A topic I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions on! :D

Discuss! (or don't, if you like, but I'd prefer if you did. Obviously, as I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.)

No, which is why the obvious conclusion one must come to is that, assuming the judeo-christian-islamic theory of God is right, God is nothing more than a spoiled brat with too much power.

I'll bite.
Not necessarily, nor do such conditions necessitate the opposite.
I think the parameters of definition of said god would help - some religions have better reasons for evil in the world than others ....
As a benevolent god theory goes, in most of them it would appear one would have to garner that entity's favour.
If you're talking about biblical references, then i've argued pretty strenuously there isn't a decent enough reconciliation with the actions of the biblical god to the standards you're posing.
Indeed, as the question is posed, there's likely to be quite a bit of posing of theories and such. Justification, et cetera along the lines of human thinking, unfortunately, kind of describe the parameters as well as we can - invariably bringing up the fact that pretty much all deific reference is through another human perspective, probably male.

Hope that doesn't sound too confusing.

A topic I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions on! :D

Discuss! (or don't, if you like, but I'd prefer if you did. Obviously, as I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.)

yes, but only if God isn't omnipotent.

I'm keeping the definition of the god in question intentionally vague (hence the small g). I'm assuming that most of the people here will be making arguments with the Judaeo-Christian God in mind, but if anyone else has a different concept of the divine that they'd like to press, I won't try to stop them.

No proof of either side.

Why argue?

Theodicies and Natural evil can account for two different sides. This thread will amount to nothing.

much as I hate to burst your little bubble of self importance, please realise that the concept of "evil" is one created by humans, there is no God except the one you created for yourself and people are sick and tired of whiney theists refusing to let go of their ancient moral system and spirital code ...... what a joke

Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?
A topic I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions on! :D

Discuss! (or don't, if you like, but I'd prefer if you did. Obviously, as I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.)
yes.

Because of such, to benefit from God's Benevolence, you need to give God something. Faith and Obedience.

I would go so far as to say that any proposed "perfect" god is inconsistent with itself. Benevolence only increases that inconsistency. I encourage everyone to check out http://www.infidelguy.com for more information.

Go ahead and flame away--I'm fireproof.

God and evil can easily coexist, but only if God has limits. An all powerful being can easily eliminate such evil as exists or will ever, but a being at the beck and call of more powerful, objective, amoral forces has a much harder time of it. Such a being might have to allow evil.

yes.

Because of such, to benefit from God's Benevolence, you need to give God something. Faith and Obedience.

Actually, there's a point here: just because God's benevolent doesn't mean he's benevolent to everyone, he could just be benevolent to his dog.

The further away from God one is, the colder one is.

With no heat, life is dead.

So, if one chooses to not be near God, why is God to blame for the death?

The further away from God one is, the colder one is.

With no heat, life is dead.

So, if one chooses to not be near God, why is God to blame for the death?

I suppose its because God forgot to turn up the thermostat.

Actually, there's a point here: just because God's benevolent doesn't mean he's benevolent to everyone, he could just be benevolent to his dog.

Well, the Judaeo-Christian God is traditionally omnibenevolent, but yeah, you're quite right!

Well, the Judaeo-Christian God is traditionally omnibenevolent, but yeah, you're quite right!

And this may not even be the Judaeo-Christian god we're talking about either.

1. God gave us free will because otherwise he could not love us.
2. This is because he is then not the puppeteer, but the Blue Fairy, first giving us life, and at the end we become 'a real boy' in heaven.
3. In order that we might have true free will, he gave us choice: To obey him or disobey him.
4. God does not like it when we sin, but like a perfect parent, he still loves us. He gets angry and punishes us, but he still loves us.
5. When we repent of our sin, if that is what we believe, he loves us all the more, and forgives us. WHATEVER WE DO, however bad, he forgives us.

1. God gave us free will because otherwise he could not love us.


Exactly. It only works if there is something God can't do. If God is all-powerful it falls apart.

Exactly. It only works if there is something God can't do. If God is all-powerful it falls apart.

I think that if you read what I said properly it'll make more sense. God could, if he chose, take over us completely and be the pupeteer. How happy was Pinocchio when he was finally made a real boy? And how sad was he for the puppets that were strung up and burned? And how glad was he to see his father Gepetto again? The answer is more than 'very', more than 'extremely' each time. God would much rather be the blue fairy.

And you know, God chooses to do a lot of things that confuse us humans. We can never understand him because we aren't him. We have failings. How can you accuse the Christian God of being 'imperfect' when nobody is perfect here on earth. Remove the log from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your friend's.

1. God gave us free will because otherwise he could not love us.
2. This is because he is then not the puppeteer, but the Blue Fairy, first giving us life, and at the end we become 'a real boy' in heaven.
3. In order that we might have true free will, he gave us choice: To obey him or disobey him.
4. God does not like it when we sin, but like a perfect parent, he still loves us. He gets angry and punishes us, but he still loves us.
5. When we repent of our sin, if that is what we believe, he loves us all the more, and forgives us. WHATEVER WE DO, however bad, he forgives us.

What about natural disastors which kill many people for no reason whatsoever. Certainly there are no good tornadoes or earthquakes.

I think that if you read what I said properly it'll make more sense. God could, if he chose, take over us completely and be the pupeteer. How happy was Pinocchio when he was finally made a real boy? And how sad was he for the puppets that were strung up and burned? And how glad was he to see his father Gepetto again? The answer is more than 'very', more than 'extremely' each time. God would much rather be the blue fairy.

And you know, God chooses to do a lot of things that confuse us humans. We can never understand him because we aren't him. We have failings. How can you accuse the Christian God of being 'imperfect' when nobody is perfect here on earth. Remove the log from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your friend's.

Wait, so if God's mind is incomprehensible how do you know he shares our ideas about free will being good? Since an all-powerful God sets what people like and dislike what seem to be moral constants contained in Pinnochio are really nothing more than the whims of a being with no real motivations. God decided to make free will a good thing, thus he decided that its consequences could take effect. If he had made free will undesirable, immoral, unloveable, etc, it would be so. Otherwise he's not all-powerful.

1. God gave us free will because otherwise he could not love us.
2. This is because he is then not the puppeteer, but the Blue Fairy, first giving us life, and at the end we become 'a real boy' in heaven.
3. In order that we might have true free will, he gave us choice: To obey him or disobey him.
4. God does not like it when we sin, but like a perfect parent, he still loves us. He gets angry and punishes us, but he still loves us.
5. When we repent of our sin, if that is what we believe, he loves us all the more, and forgives us. WHATEVER WE DO, however bad, he forgives us.
Bingo.

When people start throwing about the term "benovelent God", they assume something that the Bible does not teach. The Bible teaches that God is into "tough-love" (for lack of a better term) not "I'll fix everything so that you never have any consequences and never learn anything".

Bingo.

When people start throwing about the term "benovelent God", they assume something that the Bible does not teach. The Bible teaches that God is into "tough-love" (for lack of a better term) not "I'll fix everything so that you never have any consequences and never learn anything".

Theoretically that's not what the person who started this thread meant by benevolence, but that's OK.

He gets angry and punishes us, but he still loves us.
He'll send you to a world of everlasting torment if you misbehave, but he still loves ya!

Actually, there's a point here: just because God's benevolent doesn't mean he's benevolent to everyone, he could just be benevolent to his dog.yep... or to the people whom accept him as God.

I think one thing that might be tripping everyone up here is what is evil?
If we are sticking to the realm of the Judeao- Christian God, evil is simply a manifestation of hell, where hell is the absence of God (not the flaming , pitchfork apparition) So it would follow that God , onipotent and by nature benevolent created a people with free will....who can choose things that are against or not of his benevolent will. So you could say that because god is benevolent evil exists....but evil is one or many person's free choices and their reprecussions.

yep... or to the people whom accept him as God.

That one's a bit less likely. Example: the Jews.

I think one thing that might be tripping everyone up here is what is evil?
If we are sticking to the realm of the Judeao- Christian God, evil is simply a manifestation of hell, where hell is the absence of God (not the flaming , pitchfork apparition) So it would follow that God , onipotent and by nature benevolent created a people with free will....who can choose things that are against or not of his benevolent will. So you could say that because god is benevolent evil exists....but evil is one or many person's free choices and their reprecussions.

I guess the issue is that free will itself is a decision on the part of God, one calculated to introduce evil into the world.

Just on the topic of the all-mighty god:

"Can god make a taco so hot that he can't eat it?"

I know it's not new, but proves nonetheless that there can be nothing that is all-mighty.
Not that logic, or prove through demonstration has ever convinced a religious person to drop their faith.
As far as I'm concerned, god exists because people are naturally inquisitive and want to find out why things are the way they are. When your average caveman left his cave, he could find out what is behind that hill, and under that rock. When it came to what stars are, were your father went at the ripe age of 27 and the like, the answers were difficult to get. So the best thing they could come up with is the root of all religion.
I would argue that today we can answer a great deal of the things religion set out to inform us about and that therefore god is largely obsolete adn will become moreso as time progresses. And I agree wholeheartedly that evil is what some declare evil. A cat eating a baby bird is no more "evil" than an unborn shark being devoured by its siblings is no more "evil" than a plane crashing into a building. If we had a perfect world, we would be
1. bored to death, since we developed for (or is it because) the world isn't perfect - what a neat link to our topic of the week "creationism"...
2. annoyed, since we couldn't move without stepping on the toes of about 100 billion other people stacked on top of each other on this rock.

I think one thing that might be tripping everyone up here is what is evil?
If we are sticking to the realm of the Judeao- Christian God, evil is simply a manifestation of hell, where hell is the absence of God (not the flaming , pitchfork apparition) So it would follow that God , onipotent and by nature benevolent created a people with free will....who can choose things that are against or not of his benevolent will. So you could say that because god is benevolent evil exists....but evil is one or many person's free choices and their reprecussions.

There's a problem I can see here: if you're defining evil in terms of acting against god's will, you run into difficulties involving the Euthyphro dilemma. Namely: if god's will defines what is good, then, to say "God is good" translates roughly as "God does whatever god feels like doing." ie. it becomes near-meaningless. Similarly, it simply wouldn't make sense to praise god for his goodness, as it would be inconceivable that he could be anything else.

From Plato's point of view, at least, it makes a great deal more sense from everyone's point of view if there's an objective standard of good and evil to which everyone (even god) is accountable.

There is nothing to justify.

Anyone who says benevolence is the only aspect of the Almighty is either a liar or ignorant.

There's a problem I can see here: if you're defining evil in terms of acting against god's will, you run into difficulties involving the Euthyphro dilemma. Namely: if god's will defines what is good, then, to say "God is good" translates roughly as "God does whatever god feels like doing." ie. it becomes near-meaningless. Similarly, it simply wouldn't make sense to praise god for his goodness, as it would be inconceivable that he could be anything else.

From Plato's point of view, at least, it makes a great deal more sense from everyone's point of view if there's an objective standard of good and evil to which everyone (even god) is accountable.

Which would make him non-omnipotent! (I love my logic)

There is nothing to justify.

Anyone who says benevolence is the only aspect of the Almighty is either a liar or ignorant.

The issue is whether or not it is even an aspect.

I believe in multiple gods, and they aren't all benevelont, nor are they omnipotent, or omni-anything, really.

The issue is whether or not it is even an aspect.

Of course it is. Some things of great beauty and joy have come from, or been inspired by, the Divine.

Of course it is. Some things of great beauty and joy have come from, or been inspired by, the Divine.

But benevolence, at least in the context of this thread, seems to imply an overal affirmation of life and beauty, not just a piecemeal one.

That one's a bit less likely. Example: the Jews.Jewish faith believes in God. They don't believe that Jesus is the Messaih (sp) but they still believe in God.

But benevolence, at least in the context of this thread, seems to imply an overal affirmation of life and beauty, not just a piecemeal one.

Benevolence:

1. An inclination to perform kind, charitable acts.
2.
1. A kindly act.
2. A gift given out of generosity.
3. A compulsory tax or payment exacted by some English sovereigns without the consent of Parliament.

Now, barring definition 3 ... heh ...

There is nothing in the definition of benevolence which draws a person to the conclusion that it means 100% of the time.

Benevolence:

1. An inclination to perform kind, charitable acts.
2.
1. A kindly act.
2. A gift given out of generosity.
3. A compulsory tax or payment exacted by some English sovereigns without the consent of Parliament.

Now, barring definition 3 ... heh ...

There is nothing in the definition of benevolence which draws a person to the conclusion that it means 100% of the time.

It seems to be what this thread was implying, but all right....

Actually, I think God's benevolent in terms of the last one. That makes it make so much more sense!

Actually, I think God's benevolent in terms of the last one. That makes it make so much more sense!

lol .... damnable English sovereigns!

No He's not, cos He gave us free will to do what we liked.

No He's not, cos He gave us free will to do what we liked.

But why does he not like so many things that so many people like?

Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?

Well, if you beleive God knows more than you, than yes it could be consistent. because you could always reason that God must know something you don't which makes what seems to be evil work for good in the overall scheme of things.

The further away from God one is, the colder one is.

With no heat, life is dead.

So, if one chooses to not be near God, why is God to blame for the death?
Christians dont die?

So there is evil because God gave us a free will?
Or in other words: There is evil because a free will exists (btw: it is not all that clear whether there really is something alike).
So why did God give us a free will then?

Man must walk in many paths and be subjected to various processes in his evolution upward. Physically he is not born in full stature but passes through consecutive stages of foetus, infant, childhood, youth, maturity and old age. Suppose he had the power to remain young throughout his life. He then would not understand the meaning of old age and could not believe it existed. If he could not realize the condition of old age he would not know that he was young. He would not know the difference between young and old without experiencing the old. Unless you have passed through the state of infancy how would you know this was an infant beside you? If there was no wrong how would you recognize the right? If it were not for sin how would you appreciate virtue? If evil deeds were unknown how could you commend good actions? If sickness did not exist how would you understand health? Evil is non-existent; it is the absence of good; sickness is the loss of health; poverty the lack of riches. When wealth disappears you are poor; you look within the treasure box but find nothing there. Without knowledge there is ignorance; therefore ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. Death is the absence of life. Therefore on the one hand we have existence; on the other, nonexistence, negation or absence of existence.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 77)

In no particular chronological order:

Marcion: 'There are two gods, one good, one evil.'

Plato: 'God created the world from chaos. Evil comes from chaos rebelling against the will of God.'

Plotinus: 'Even the evillest thing/event has some seed of good in it. Otherwise it would not exist. Therefore if the evil things were taken away, the world would be less good.'

Augustine: 'Evil is necessary for our path to ultimate good.'

Aquinas: 'God wills some things to happen necessarily, and some to happen contingently. The necessary things we have no say in, but the contingent ones we can choose with. If we choose wrong, then there's evil.'

Luther: 'God makes evil, but it will all make sense after you're dead. Of course, you'll probably be burning in hell, because God made you sin and you didn't have any choice about it, but won't it be nice to know there was a grand plan behind everything?'

Leibniz: 'This is the best of all possible worlds. Without evil, how could we appreciate good?'

Nietzsche: 'We created the concept of evil, and the concept of God.'

Griffin: 'If we redefine omniscience to exclude prescience, then there is evil because God doesn't know the future.'

Adams: "Sorry for the inconvenience."--God.

I'm sure I can come up with more, considering I just took an entire course on the question, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now.

Here's an argument that shows that God can't exist (not without being a total moron) and it's better than the taco argument:

Many Christians will tell you that Satan is always trying to get you to do his work and people who do burn in Hell.

But, hang on, doesn't Satan RUN Hell? Imagine it:

"Hello, I'm Satan, thanks for doing my work for me. Now, I'm just going to torture you for that for 50,000 years...erm...is that right?"
(reads Bible)
"Well, it seems to check out, but I'm confused. Hang on"
(consults with God)
"Okay, as He sees it I'm supposed to torture you, but since when did I listen to THAT sanctimonious bas-"
(Threatening sound of thunder from above)
"Er...okay, would you prefer to push the big rock or the sodomy with barbed wire?"

It makes no sense. This point questions the existence of Satan quite well ergo questioning the whole point of Christianity and therefore bringing the point of God into question.

Yes, I am an Atheist.

Here's an argument that shows that God can't exist (not without being a total moron) and it's better than the taco argument:

Many Christians will tell you that Satan is always trying to get you to do his work and people who do burn in Hell.

But, hang on, doesn't Satan RUN Hell? Imagine it:

"Hello, I'm Satan, thanks for doing my work for me. Now, I'm just going to torture you for that for 50,000 years...erm...is that right?"
(reads Bible)
"Well, it seems to check out, but I'm confused. Hang on"
(consults with God)
"Okay, as He sees it I'm supposed to torture you, but since when did I listen to THAT sanctimonious bas-"
(Threatening sound of thunder from above)
"Er...okay, would you prefer to push the big rock or the sodomy with barbed wire?"

It makes no sense. This point questions the existence of Satan quite well ergo questioning the whole point of Christianity and therefore bringing the point of God into question.

Yes, I am an Atheist.

Your pulling a lot of mistaken idea's and sayings together

The idea of "the devil's work" simply means evil. Satan wants people to do evil and ignore God so that more people will be with him in hell at the end. The reason? Well Satan already knows he's lost the war between heaven and hell but he wants to bring as many people with him as he can.

the problem of the existance of evil is only a problem if you dont believe in heaven.

THIS world was not created perfect. have y'all noticed that? if you look around it isnt even "mostly harmless".

biblically speaking, god created the perfection of eden, put flawed humans in it, gave them a taste of perfection, then kicked their asses out. what? you think he didnt know in advance what would happen? you think he didnt make a choice to have humans be what we are? you think he didnt WANT us to be what we are?

sure god could cure every case of cancer; he could stop every crime before it happens. he doesnt. he has made a world where random bad events happen constantly. he has allowed us such free will that evil runs rampant. this is god's choice. this IS the will of god.

so how can he be considered benevolent? how can he be considered anything but utterly reprehensible?

god offers us the possibility of the perfection of heaven. THAT is the life of no evil, no suffering, no random bad events.

all we have to do is live this life well. we have to resist the temptation to do evil. we have to be moral in the face of an immoral world. we have to prove ourselves worthy of perfection. if we follow the rules god has given us, we will escape this nightmare existance to live forever in the delight of his presense.

that he would allow such flawed people a chance at such an existance is benevolent.

Some people seem to be under the delusion that doing good deeds will get you into heaven - I'd like to find a Bible verse that quotes that!

The truth of the matter is that Jesus (whether you believe it or not) died for the sins of the world, so that you could get to heaven, as without sin you can approach God's presence etc. So accepting his 'present' of salvation gets you into heaven, not good deeds. Hence it's a free gift.

Back to the topic though - yes a benevolent God can exist and be omnipotent. He won't frog-march people into heaven, as that would be against free will. So we have the choice - choose free salvation, or not.
So that takes care of 'why is there evil in the world' - human evil is down to our own free will, and God chooses not to stop us.
As for 'natural evil', i'd probably go with one of the Theodicies, probably along the lines of the world being mucked up with origional sin - the start of Genesis covers this. Hence, all evil is covered for by man, since the word evil means not good, and not good means 'against God's will'. Hence, God cannot go against his own will, and hence cannot be the ultimate source of evil. Evil is not an entity, it is a lack of an entity: good.

Whoever wrote about Theists being antiquated, can I ask them in that case why more that 80% of the worlds population believes in a god or higher being of some kind?

That's so true. God never said he'd let all the nice people play in heaven for eternity while the baddies have to go and burn with Satan, it's just not like that.

The only entry requirement for heaven (as far as I can tell) is choosing Jesus. But being a christian is about so much more than heaven anyway. It's about living this life in its fullness as well. It's choosing God's way for your life instead of your own, because that's where true freedom lies. It's having a relationship with your creator and loving father, which is so spectacular and life changing.

as someone who has accepted jesus as your personal lord and savior, you are expected to do good works. it is not the works that get you in per se, but if you dont do them you are demonstrating that you arent a good christian and you wont get to heaven.

What about grace? I'd be very careful before saying who won't get into heaven; that's not for us to decide.

Satan wants people to do evil and ignore God so that more people will be with him in hell at the end. The reason? Well Satan already knows he's lost the war between heaven and hell but he wants to bring as many people with him as he can.

Yes, but why would he torture them? It makes no sense. Most people whould treat people nicely if they wanted as many with them as they can.

What about grace? I'd be very careful before saying who won't get into heaven; that's not for us to decide.
very good point
we dont know people's hearts; we dont know the mind of god; we dont know for sure who gets in and who doesnt. its not our business. our business is to live the best we can.

Yes. The Judeo-Christen and possibly Islamic God can be consistent with evil. He gave angels and archangels free will, lucifer tempted eve to eat the fruit, eve also gave one to adam, they became evil, the son with the plants killed the other son (the one with the animals) although most of genesis is metaphorical.

But in any sense he gave people freewill so they could be evil if decided

[QUOTE=Ashmoria]
what? you think he didnt know in advance what would happen? you think he didnt make a choice to have humans be what we are? you think he didnt WANT us to be what we are?
QUOTE]

No, I don't think that God wanted humans to live a life of suffering. We aren't here to suffer, try to be good, then get to a Heaven where everything is perfect. We are here on this Earth to make the most of it. God wants us to do good, and that includes enjoying ourselves in a proper manner. Yes, the world is a really crappy place. But we have been given talents to make it better. Sure, God could cure cancer. And he is. By giving us the knowlege of how to do it, if only we'd focus our minds on curing it rather than building new biological weapons or creating seedless grapes. Sure, seedless grapes are nice, but you think we'd focus our skills on things that are more important.

Yes, but why would he torture them? It makes no sense. Most people whould treat people nicely if they wanted as many with them as they can.

He wont torture them. What will torture them is not being in heaven. A lot of people think that hell is some specific place. In actuallity hell is just the complete absence of God. The world without God will fall apart. Also the shear notion of seperation from heaven, a place so amazingly wonderful, will make any place hell compared to it.

But if I go to hell well then I hope I burn well
I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye, and Lawrence Welk
And Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist
And Webster yeah Emmanuel Lewis 'cause he's the Anti-Christ

The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn
Burn motherfucker burn

But if I go to hell well then I hope I burn well
I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye, and Lawrence Welk
And Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist
And Webster yeah Emmanuel Lewis 'cause he's the Anti-Christ

The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
The roof the roof the roof is on fire
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn
Burn motherfucker burn
That soldier was singing that in Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm smart, I make observations.

That soldier was singing that in Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm smart, I make observations.

lol ... yeah ... go Bloodhound Gang!

[QUOTE=Ashmoria]
what? you think he didnt know in advance what would happen? you think he didnt make a choice to have humans be what we are? you think he didnt WANT us to be what we are?
QUOTE]

No, I don't think that God wanted humans to live a life of suffering. We aren't here to suffer, try to be good, then get to a Heaven where everything is perfect. We are here on this Earth to make the most of it. God wants us to do good, and that includes enjoying ourselves in a proper manner. Yes, the world is a really crappy place. But we have been given talents to make it better. Sure, God could cure cancer. And he is. By giving us the knowlege of how to do it, if only we'd focus our minds on curing it rather than building new biological weapons or creating seedless grapes. Sure, seedless grapes are nice, but you think we'd focus our skills on things that are more important.
oh darlin', to quote a different religious tradition "life is suffering".
a tsunami comes and wipes out your whole family. you suffer
your baby is born with only a brain stem. you suffer
your soulmate marries another. you suffer
the locusts eat your crops. you suffer
a bad man rapes and murders your mother. you suffer

there is no escape from suffering. for a huge number of people life is an waking nightmare. there is both suffering caused by nature and that caused by humans. even if every one of 6 billion people in the world today lived a life of perfect goodness, we would still suffer from illness and natural disasters.

this is the world that god made. as he made it. to his complete specifications. he made no mistakes. he didnt overlook anything. this is as god intended it. it cant be otherwise.

its not so much that god wants us to suffer as that it is an integral part of the world he set up and we have to deal with it. it is our reaction to suffering, to evil, to things not going our way, that counts. do we turn the other cheek? do we help those whose homes have been washed away? do we reject the easy path of immorality? this is what god is interested in. this is what he will help us with. he will show us the right way to live and help us maintain our dedication to it. he wont keep us from disaster but he will help us deal with it.

A god cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent in this world. If the god is omnipotent, then zie could simply eliminate all evil in one fell swoop.

For that matter, by the rules of this universe at least, there can be no truly omnipotent entity. If there were an omnipotent entity, could zie create an object that zie zerself could not destroy? If zie could, then there would be at least one thing zie couldn't do (destroy the object). If zie can't, then there is still at least one thing zie can't do (create the truly indestructible).

I borrow much of this from this page: http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/thealogy.htm

A god cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent in this world. If the god is omnipotent, then zie could simply eliminate all evil in one fell swoop.

That begs a couple of questions, though. Certainly God could wipe out evil. Where should He begin, though? What definition should He choose? Frequently, one man's evil is another man's good. So until one comes up with an objective definition of evil, there's no way one can say God isn't wiping out evil. It's a case of using human conception as a metric to judge the actions of a being that, if it does exist, is so far removed from human conception as to be non-understandable. The same is true for omnipotence.


For that matter, by the rules of this universe at least, there can be no truly omnipotent entity. If there were an omnipotent entity, could zie create an object that zie zerself could not destroy? If zie could, then there would be at least one thing zie couldn't do (destroy the object). If zie can't, then there is still at least one thing zie can't do (create the truly indestructible).

And there we have another problem, as stated in the first scentence. By the rules of this universe. It's important to remember that whatever divinity does or does not exist functions outside of this universe by definition. While it can act on this universe, there is no reason to believe that, should such an entity exist, its actions are bound by the laws that serve this universe.

That begs a couple of questions, though. Certainly God could wipe out evil. Where should He begin, though? What definition should He choose? Frequently, one man's evil is another man's good. So until one comes up with an objective definition of evil, there's no way one can say God isn't wiping out evil. It's a case of using human conception as a metric to judge the actions of a being that, if it does exist, is so far removed from human conception as to be non-understandable. The same is true for omnipotence.
An excellent argument. I agree that an objective definition of evil would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive. However, as far as I know, we are not discussing human beings at all. The question is "Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?" My answer is "yes" unless you also maintain that such a god is omnipotent. Since to many people the definition of the word god includes omnipotence, I felt this was the best way to word my answer.

And there we have another problem, as stated in the first scentence. By the rules of this universe. It's important to remember that whatever divinity does or does not exist functions outside of this universe by definition. While it can act on this universe, there is no reason to believe that, should such an entity exist, its actions are bound by the laws that serve this universe.
The only rule of this universe that's really required is that of deduction. Discussing a system that does not behave in such a manner that deduction is valid would be pretty hard. For the moment, my hypothesis is that such a system could not possibly affect this universe. If it could, it would have the potential to introduce contradictory elements of existence: For instance, it could create something that is both a cat, and not a cat.

ok, for all of you who think a benevolant God cannot exist when there is so much evil, answer these questions(i won't be checking back, so if u actually have an answer, telegram me): if there was no evil, how would you know what was good? how do you know it is evil? who decides it is evil? if "good" and "evil" are simply figments of human imagination, then wouldn't some find good what others find evil? doesn't it make sense that for us to call God "good" there must be something for Him to be better than? and how do you expect to learn anything or get closer to God if He always give you what you want?

It takes a seriously screwed up person to be more concerned that there's contrast for the sake of definition than the better part of that definition.

Clearly, it's good that heart attacks exist so we know how nice it is to have a heart working well!

ok, for all of you who think a benevolant God cannot exist when there is so much evil, answer these questions(i won't be checking back, so if u actually have an answer, telegram me): if there was no evil, how would you know what was good? how do you know it is evil? who decides it is evil? if "good" and "evil" are simply figments of human imagination, then wouldn't some find good what others find evil? doesn't it make sense that for us to call God "good" there must be something for Him to be better than? and how do you expect to learn anything or get closer to God if He always give you what you want?
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're getting at. I'll respond once I've parsed it all.

An excellent argument. I agree that an objective definition of evil would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive. However, as far as I know, we are not discussing human beings at all. The question is "Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?" My answer is "yes" unless you also maintain that such a god is omnipotent. Since to many people the definition of the word god includes omnipotence, I felt this was the best way to word my answer.

Well, in any discussion of human concepts as they apply to divinity, you have to consider the human. The word "evil" presupposes a very human, and thus very self-relational, definition. It's tempting to chalk this up to the whole, "He moves in mysterious ways" argument, but I don't think that would satisfy either of us. Although, to be fair, I do believe there is a bit of that going on, if only because the nature of divinity, by definition, is so far removed from human perception that it's whole nature must be inconcievable to us.

I guess my response would still have to be that we can't make the judgement because we don't have the same perspective. For example, your child gets an ear ache. Now, most ear aches clear up in one to three days, but antibiotics will make them go away faster. However, by getting those antibiotics, you run the risk that germs and diseases will become immune to them and that they won't work at a later date. But you child is in pain. It's transitory pain, but nevertheless, agony for the child. So what do you do? Do you wait for three days, knowing that no permanent damage will be done, the infection will most likely clear up and, if it doesn't, you can start an antibiotic course then? Or do you get the antibiotics, wagering that your child won't have to worry about resistant strains emerging? I would wager that there are elements of "evil" in either choice, yet neither choice is evil inherantly. That's simply a contrived, lab-clean example and there are levels of complexity to it. Take a real world situation and those levels of complexity expand exponentially. If we can't see all the levels, we can't make a fully competent (please forgive the spelling, it's late and I'm a hideous speller even when fully awake) judgement as to what's evil. If we can't make that judgement, then how can we claim to evaluate is or is not doing?


The only rule of this universe that's really required is that of deduction. Discussing a system that does not behave in such a manner that deduction is valid would be pretty hard. For the moment, my hypothesis is that such a system could not possibly affect this universe. If it could, it would have the potential to introduce contradictory elements of existence: For instance, it could create something that is both a cat, and not a cat.

Honestly, that sounds like exactly something God could do. Indeed, even Schrodinger could do that in a way. Not really such a hard accomplishment. On quantum levels, causality breaks down. Perhaps this is the level at which God acts. I'm fully speculating here.

It takes a seriously screwed up person to be more concerned that there's contrast for the sake of definition than the better part of that definition.

Clearly, it's good that heart attacks exist so we know how nice it is to have a heart working well!

How is a heart attack evil? Unfortunate, sure. Unpleasant, definitely. But intentionally malicious? Hardly.

The question isn't one of general contrast, but one of specific contrast.

Let's try this piece-by-piece.

ok, for all of you who think a benevolant God cannot exist when there is so much evil, answer these questions(i won't be checking back, so if u actually have an answer, telegram me):
First of all, I should clarify my argument. I maintain that there cannot be an all-powerful, benevolent God, nor can there be absolute definitions of right, wrong, good, or evil.

if there was no evil, how would you know what was good?
You wouldn't. Assuming we live in the Judeo-Christian world for a moment, that would be something like the garden of Eden, would it not?

how do you know it is evil?
I had trouble understanding your question here, so I'll approach it from two different angles.

First of all, knowing that there is evil in the world is different from being able to define evil, or even to distinguish between good and evil. If we maintain that there is any good or evil in the world, and that they are polar opposites, then there must be some evil in the world. On nearly every moral issue, there are people who argue and practice both sides.

There are people who kill. If killing is wrong, then those people are committing evil. If killing is right, then all the rest of us who try to stop killing are evil. It is only in the case that nothing anyone is doing is wrong that there is no evil in the world. If you accept this, then I think you will find you must agree that nobody is doing anything right, either, in which case the concept of a benevolent god is meaningless, since that god would have no good act to commit.

Secondly, for each major religion on the planet with a set of morals, there exist people whom, by those morals, are evil. Therefore, in each of these cases a claim that there was an all-powerful, benevolent god that adhered to those morals would be false. If you want to invent a religion that says the only evil is to disobey the laws of physics, then I'd have a hard time disproving that your god was both all-powerful and benevolent, but you'd probably have some problems recruiting rape survivors and victims of burglary.

who decides it is evil?
I really don't know where you were going with this. Was it redundant, or emphasizing your last question?

if "good" and "evil" are simply figments of human imagination, then wouldn't some find good what others find evil?
Yes, they would. And do, as I mentioned above. Some cultures, like Catholicism, find cannibalism good and virtuous. Others shun it as evil.

doesn't it make sense that for us to call God "good" there must be something for Him to be better than?
Anyone else find it extremely interesting how people get caught up in the evolution of language?

The Judeo-Christian God is a creature of superlatives. I believe this started metaphorically. God stood as the anthropomorphic symbol of all that was good, powerful, right, and otherwise desirable. We seem to have turned the concept around lately.

In any case, if there is something for a god to be better than, and if this god is all-powerful, then zie must be allowing it to exist. Why would a good god allow evil to exist?

and how do you expect to learn anything or get closer to God if He always give you what you want?
Funny, God never told me that it was my goal in life to get closer to Him, or to learn the lessons he set down for me. Also, when I go to school, I expect the professor to maintain a fair and respectful environment. Don't you?

Well, in any discussion of human concepts as they apply to divinity, you have to consider the human. The word "evil" presupposes a very human, and thus very self-relational, definition... snip
If the concept of evil is so human, why are we applying it to a god? In any case, humans or no humans, an all-powerful god could wipe out all evil in an instant. Regardless of what the definition of evil was.

I guess my response would still have to be that we can't make the judgement because we don't have the same perspective. For example, your child gets an ear ache. Now, most ear aches clear up in one to three days, but antibiotics will make them go away faster... snip
I think this little example is a false analogy. After all, you're only a parent. But an all-powerful god could clear that earache up in a heartbeat with no antibiotics and no risk of resistant strains cropping up.

Honestly, that sounds like exactly something God could do. Indeed, even Schrodinger could do that in a way. Not really such a hard accomplishment. On quantum levels, causality breaks down. Perhaps this is the level at which God acts. I'm fully speculating here.
Kudos on spotting the Schrödinger reference ^_^. I understand that an anti-particle moving forward through time is like a regular particle moving backwards through time, as well. Does this mean that the laws of physics work in reverse for anti-matter? If so, maybe we could make a machine that cheated entropy! I mean, if entropy worked in reverse on anti-matter, then it would become more organized as it went forward through time. We could then harvest that more organized structure and get better than 100% efficiency out of it!

Anyway, back on the subject. I must concede that if you throw away deduction, then you allow for the existence of an all-powerful god. Just not a benevolent one who's aware of us. But then, what reason do we have to believe that a system devoid of deduction could influence this universe? Seems kinda pointless to discuss that further.

It is amazing, that for a WORLD assembly - only he Judeo-Christian views are being strongly debated. Ok let me throw in Some EASTERN Views.

We use about 7-9% of our brain, can u imagine the power of 100%? Eastern beliefs (which by the way predates Judeo-Christianity by thousands of years) states that God is everywhere - (Gee I think christianity says that too - only theu dont believe it) That means God is in U and Me. If we reach 100% of our potential we become God. This means that regardless of what name, form or form of prayer we assign God from our Limited perspective, WE are RIGHT! God is all of it, and from my philosophy that means that what ever I pray to God will answer, because I am becomming more connected with my potential through prayer. Because we are limited in ourselves, we project God outside ourselves, and this projection becomes powerful because others - of similar faiths are projecting that same energy, combining and magnifying that energy.

Hinduism also understands that there are different worlds that sit on each other, or different dimensions that at times can cross over, leading to angels, devils, ghosts etc. that can help or hinder humans. N we can connect with these levels thru our actions n what we do.

ok my 2 cents, hope it made sense. I know that its a totally different philosophy, but what the hell, u may finally get to the truth in your next life.

I am certain that 'some' definations of god(s) can never possibly exists due to basic contradictions of their definations/properties (i.e. the many different descriptions of gods of existing religion...i.e an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god..etc and such).

However, it is not to be mistaken that a lack of proof is a 'disprove', neither a lack of disprove is a 'prove'.

Hence, I neither believe nor disbelieve with absolute certainty that there is a god (or no god for the matter). Since to disbelieve with certainty involves faith too. And faith based believe is an irrational believe.

What I believe is that 'I do not know' (just like I do not know if her most horny, the invisible-pink-unicorn (may her hooves never be shod), or if a perfectly-invisible-massless-chargeless-flatulent-buffalo revolves around venus...et al...).....hence to claim that there 'CERTAINLY' is or isn't a god is to be dishonest. I would only believe either way if there are substantial evidence pointing to either way, otherwise..the only honest way is to suspend my believe until I (TRUELY) know more.

For those who say that they 'KNOW' with all their hearts that god exists, but couldn't provide substantial evidence needed to prove their claims, and failed to be able to provide a detailed description of what it is..etc..Is nothing more than self-deception, since they could not provide good reasons for their believe other than 'faith'. I believe that a lot of definations of god is highly improbable, while some definations of god has 50/50 probability, one of them is the philosophical view that the universe as a 'non-personal' god...but that kind of defination is superfluous and unnecessary..since it is just to redefine the meaning of god with 'universe' or 'everything'..infact, the probability of this defination of god is (100%) or close to it if you consider other philosophical debates of the meaning of 'existance'... Anyway..a 'personal-god' that 'feels' and 'wants' (thus it has 'needs' and hence couldn't be omnipotent) to create stuff...and send disbelievers to hell out of spite and vanity, while rewarding those that he likes to some whoreland of eternal orgasm..etc is on many orders harder to prove...

And even if proven to exist....they have to further show that there is only one god and it is the god of *insert religion*. And also other properties/definations of this particlular 'proven' god claimed by their religion is totally accurate...etc...and not something else...i.e. an omniboevilant god, or an indifferent god, or what have you...All these have to be separately proven before a rational believe of its possibility (yet never absolute) could be arrived. What if the scriptures or those self-proclaimed 'messagens' of god was infact directed by some cunning evil god (or a god who is just bored and wanted to have some fun with us) instead, cleverly disguising the 'evilness' of those recorded words with a facade of 'good' and 'morality', since such a powerful being would possibly have the farsight to 'see' the destructiveness of its 'seemingly' good creation coming fruit in the far future...etc...and other pointless ALTERNATIVE possibilities that has to be explored in conjunction with the possibility of *your* believe of god/gods...

Thus, I'm more of a person whom could be, I guess, defined as:- agnostic atheist/fallable atheist..

-Wade

http://wadejq.blogspot.com/

Depends on religious/personal beliefs. I think that God created the universe through evolution, thus providing the spark. I also think he judges not on sins, but on how we react to evil, as some-one who commit sins are not necessarily evil.
Therefore the statement is correct.
If the existance of a devil or similar being is belived in, then it too is consisent as this being is responsible for evil.

Depends on religious/personal beliefs. I think that God created the universe through evolution, thus providing the spark. I also think he judges not on sins, but on how we react to evil, as some-one who commit sins are not necessarily evil.
Therefore the statement is correct.
If the existance of a devil or similar being is belived in, then it too is consisent as this being is responsible for evil.
I think I can agree with that being consistent. My major point of contention is over whether there can be an entity that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?

Yes, because we have been given free will to do s.th. about the evil which is created by man. (Natural disasters don't count as "evil" imo)

[QUOTE=Peoplewithheads]
oh darlin', to quote a different religious tradition "life is suffering".
a tsunami comes and wipes out your whole family. you suffer
your baby is born with only a brain stem. you suffer
your soulmate marries another. you suffer
the locusts eat your crops. you suffer
a bad man rapes and murders your mother. you suffer

there is no escape from suffering. for a huge number of people life is an waking nightmare. there is both suffering caused by nature and that caused by humans. even if every one of 6 billion people in the world today lived a life of perfect goodness, we would still suffer from illness and natural disasters.

this is the world that god made. as he made it. to his complete specifications. he made no mistakes. he didnt overlook anything. this is as god intended it. it cant be otherwise.

its not so much that god wants us to suffer as that it is an integral part of the world he set up and we have to deal with it. it is our reaction to suffering, to evil, to things not going our way, that counts. do we turn the other cheek? do we help those whose homes have been washed away? do we reject the easy path of immorality? this is what god is interested in. this is what he will help us with. he will show us the right way to live and help us maintain our dedication to it. he wont keep us from disaster but he will help us deal with it.
all true, except God did not originally make the world with suffering in it; it was not His original plan. Originally, it was perfect. People, acting on the instructions of Satan, managed to screw that up pretty well.

A god cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent in this world. If the god is omnipotent, then zie could simply eliminate all evil in one fell swoop.

For that matter, by the rules of this universe at least, there can be no truly omnipotent entity. If there were an omnipotent entity, could zie create an object that zie zerself could not destroy? If zie could, then there would be at least one thing zie couldn't do (destroy the object). If zie can't, then there is still at least one thing zie can't do (create the truly indestructible).

I borrow much of this from this page: http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/thealogy.htm
u guys just don't get it.

That begs a couple of questions, though. Certainly God could wipe out evil. Where should He begin, though? What definition should He choose? Frequently, one man's evil is another man's good. So until one comes up with an objective definition of evil, there's no way one can say God isn't wiping out evil. It's a case of using human conception as a metric to judge the actions of a being that, if it does exist, is so far removed from human conception as to be non-understandable. The same is true for omnipotence.



And there we have another problem, as stated in the first scentence. By the rules of this universe. It's important to remember that whatever divinity does or does not exist functions outside of this universe by definition. While it can act on this universe, there is no reason to believe that, should such an entity exist, its actions are bound by the laws that serve this universe.
i love it when people asnwer my questions for me. "His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts." - Somewhere in the Bible. God HAS eliminated evil in the world, as far as He can without upsetting His plan.

i love it when people asnwer my questions for me. "His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts." - Somewhere in the Bible. God HAS eliminated evil in the world, as far as He can without upsetting His plan.
Because you know his plan is more important then saving peoples immortal souls :P

u guys just don't get it.
Oh do explain rather then just commenting on our “obvious” :rolleyes: lack of “getting” it (btw omnipotence is still logicaly flawed)

An excellent argument. I agree that an objective definition of evil would be difficult, if not impossible, to conceive. However, as far as I know, we are not discussing human beings at all. The question is "Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?" My answer is "yes" unless you also maintain that such a god is omnipotent. Since to many people the definition of the word god includes omnipotence, I felt this was the best way to word my answer.


The only rule of this universe that's really required is that of deduction. Discussing a system that does not behave in such a manner that deduction is valid would be pretty hard. For the moment, my hypothesis is that such a system could not possibly affect this universe. If it could, it would have the potential to introduce contradictory elements of existence: For instance, it could create something that is both a cat, and not a cat.
u mean like creating a bush that's both on fire and not burning up? or a man who is both man and God at the same time? or a woman who is both pregnant and a virgin? or 5 loaves of bread that can feed 5000 people with leftovers? i think you've finally figured ti out!

Oh do explain rather then just commenting on our “obvious” :rolleyes: lack of “getting” it (btw omnipotence is still logicaly flawed)
who CARES whether God can create something He can't destroy? firstly, He wouldn't, because it would serve no purpose. secondly, obviously not so for you, but all i really care about is whether or not He can forgive my sins and get me into heaven.

who CARES whether God can create something He can't destroy? firstly, He wouldn't, because it would serve no purpose. secondly, obviously not so for you, but all i really care about is whether or not He can forgive my sins and get me into heaven.
Wishes have nothing to do with the logic behind it.

Your religion describes god as omni potent when he could not be such … that casts doubt on his existence much less ability to forgive anything

A god cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent in this world. If the god is omnipotent, then zie could simply eliminate all evil in one fell swoop.

Except that that assumes that being omnibenevolent means he deals with evil.

u mean like creating a bush that's both on fire and not burning up? or a man who is both man and God at the same time? or a woman who is both pregnant and a virgin? or 5 loaves of bread that can feed 5000 people with leftovers? i think you've finally figured ti out!

Actually, I can pull all of that off, very easily.

Special effects have been done since before language.

We have in-fricking-vitro.

And I can make a big ass loaf of bread, yo.

If the concept of evil is so human, why are we applying it to a god?

Fair question. If one assumes the existance of divinity, then one must also accept that, by very definition, it is something who's entirety of existance is completely beyond the scope of human perception. Therefore, God, as a whole, is unknowable and it is meaningless to attribute human values and terms to it's existance.

While this is a very strong argument for agnosticism, I tend to deal with it in the following manner. Consider a river. You walk for miles and miles to reach that river. When you get there, you bend down, scoop up a tiny portion of it into your hand and drink. For you, for that moment in time, the meaning of the river is in that action. It satisfies your thirst. It is unimportant that a short way down the river a woman is washing her clothes in the same river and that, for her, for that instant, the meaning of the river is in her action. Or that even farther down the river, a child is playing in the shallows and, for that child, the meaning of the river is in it's action. All of these are perfectly valid uses for the river, yet none of them encompases the whole of it's existance.

To my way of thinking and in line with my religious beliefs, "God" is a collaborative process. While I think divinity exists, I believe that it is, in it's entirety, unknowable to the human mind, at least given our current set of sensory perceptions. However, the same quality which makes it unknowable also makes it modular. People "carve out" individual conceptions, personifications of God, which have meaning and relevence to them. I "need" a god which supports curiosity, inquisitiveness and the simple joy of learning, so that's what I take from deity and what deity lends me. Someone else "needs" a god of strict rules and definite laws which promise reward for the good and punishment for the bad. That's what they take from the deity and what the deity provides to them. Neither one of these personifications is inherantly better than the other as they both serve different purposes and serve as a basis for personal relationship with whatever deity may or may not exist. They are also not the whole of the deity, because to attempt to take in the entire river, one would drown.

So the question of evil becomes a question of personification. Everyone self defines evil, just as everyone self defines their particular personification of God. One personification may very well be wiping out evil, at least under the specific circumstances that individual has set up. Another (and closer to my own) may feel that "evil" is far too nebulous a concept to be able to effectively strike down wholesale and it's better to let individuals deal with their personal evils in their own way.

Using this coceptualization of divinity allows one to apply human terms to at least a small part of the collective divinity while still acknowledging any contradicitions that may arise.


In any case, humans or no humans, an all-powerful god could wipe out all evil in an instant. Regardless of what the definition of evil was.


I think this little example is a false analogy. After all, you're only a parent. But an all-powerful god could clear that earache up in a heartbeat with no antibiotics and no risk of resistant strains cropping up.

Yes, it's not the best example, but it was the only one which came to mind. However, my initial point still stands. Without a clear and objective understanding of what "evil" actually is, it is impossible to say what God can or can not do about it, at least in terms that we can understand. It is possible that the question isn't one of scope, but of timetable. Perhaps divinity is working to destroy evil, but the time and method it is employing seems to take longer to us than it does to it.

The point is, without sharing the same perspective as any potential deity, we can not make a conclusive and definitive judgement as to it's actions. At least, not as a whole. The best one can say is, "Assuming that an objective ideal of evil exists; Assuming that this ideal is both comprehensible and visible to humanity; Assuming that omnipotence means capable of action only within the specific bonds of this universe and it's physical laws; Assuming that the methods and procedures of a divinity are ultimately understandable and in an appropriate time frame for humanity; Assuming that there is an objective understanding of benevolence as it relates to any given situation; then and only then is the idea of a benevolent God incompatible with the concept of evil."

For the record, I should also mention that I'm not a theist who necessarily believes in true omnipotence of divinity. While I think the methods of action of divinity as a whole are so far beyond human methods of action as to perhaps appear omnipotent, I am not comfortable in assuming that the entity of divinity is capable of exercising those methods in this and every other possible universe ad infinitum.


Kudos on spotting the Schrödinger reference

Say, how did you get the umlaut? I've been posting on here for ages and have yet to figure out how to include special characters or letters from other alphabets.

I understand that an anti-particle moving forward through time is like a regular particle moving backwards through time, as well. Does this mean that the laws of physics work in reverse for anti-matter? If so, maybe we could make a machine that cheated entropy! I mean, if entropy worked in reverse on anti-matter, then it would become more organized as it went forward through time. We could then harvest that more organized structure and get better than 100% efficiency out of it!

Heh, you left out the all important: Step 4-Profit!

My understanding of quantum mechanics is far from complete, so I probably shouldn't have strayed into realms where I don't have a totally firm grasp of the terrain. Still, I suppose that's how one learns and if one only stays where one is completely comfortable, one never goes anywhere. I also don't want to encroach the realm of religion and spirituality on the realm of science. I firmly believe the two may be parallel, but not usable in evaluation of one another. I have far too much respect for both of them to do that.

With that said, from my limited understanding of entropy, I'd be all for an anti-entropy machine. :)


Anyway, back on the subject. I must concede that if you throw away deduction, then you allow for the existence of an all-powerful god. Just not a benevolent one who's aware of us. But then, what reason do we have to believe that a system devoid of deduction could influence this universe? Seems kinda pointless to discuss that further.

Given, whatever divinity may or may not exist may or may not be aware of us (and isn't that scentece a nightmare of wishywashy-ness). Again, though, I would suggest that, at least in my conceptualization of meta-divinity (I do love that prefix), individual personifications are probably aware of their individual creators. By being a part of the meta-divinity, these personifications make it aware of humanity on some level. I'm hardly aware of every cell in my body. I trust my brain will take care of self-regulation so long as I do my part by providing it fuel. However, should enough of them change in some way or should I catch a cold, I'll pay more interest to certain portions of them, at least for a time.

That's not a great example, either, but it's the best I can do on the fly.

snip

What if the woman washing the clothes uses detergent you drink, then you die?

who CARES whether God can create something He can't destroy? firstly, He wouldn't, because it would serve no purpose. secondly, obviously not so for you, but all i really care about is whether or not He can forgive my sins and get me into heaven.

Here I would have to disagree with you. It occurs to me that, if one assumes that God is responsible for all creation, the next question that springs to mind is, "Why?" Why create it all and why do it like it is?

If one grants omnipotence and omniscience, or at least action and knowledge on a scale far surpassing that of humanity, then one might conclude that the existance of an entity that possesses these would become...well, boring. Knowing everything and being able to do anything sort of takes all the fun and mystery out of existance, at least from a human perspective. Since we're supposedly created in God's image, I have to assume He shares some of this ennui.

So, I suggest that maybe what God did was create something with the capacity to surprise Him. Most of the time, we won't. We'll do exactly what he expects. However, at the core of each of our beings, there exists that which is wholly unpredictable. It's this spark of ingenuity that makes us the creation which can not be uncreated and it's that exact quality that makes us treasured by God. Most of the time, it won't come into effect, but occassionally it will. When it does, it snags God's attention and makes the infinite number of unsurprising actions and the eons of waiting worth it.

I'd also like to address your last point. Are you suggesting that the only reason you pay homage to deity is because of what you can get from it? That's a rather mercenary attitude. Pragmatic as hell, perhaps, but somewhat lacking in the spirit behind Christianity. Could you please elaborate on that?

What if the woman washing the clothes uses detergent you drink, then you die?


That's why I put her down river. :)

That's why I put her down river. :)

what if there is a tidal wash up the river? A a trout drinks it, swims up river, then vomits and dies and you unknowingly drink the vomit and die?

Or what if god makes the river run backwards, to satisfy the prayers of the trout fishers up river?

[QUOTE=Ashmoria]
all true, except God did not originally make the world with suffering in it; it was not His original plan. Originally, it was perfect. People, acting on the instructions of Satan, managed to screw that up pretty well.
you really dont think that god knew what was going to happen? you think he is a chump at the mercy of satan?

It occurs to me that, if one assumes that God is responsible for all creation, the next question that springs to mind is, "Why?" Why create it all and why do it like it is?

If one grants omnipotence and omniscience, or at least action and knowledge on a scale far surpassing that of humanity, then one might conclude that the existance of an entity that possesses these would become...well, boring. Knowing everything and being able to do anything sort of takes all the fun and mystery out of existance, at least from a human perspective. Since we're supposedly created in God's image, I have to assume He shares some of this ennui.

So, I suggest that maybe what God did was create something with the capacity to surprise Him. Most of the time, we won't. We'll do exactly what he expects. However, at the core of each of our beings, there exists that which is wholly unpredictable. It's this spark of ingenuity that makes us the creation which can not be uncreated and it's that exact quality that makes us treasured by God. Most of the time, it won't come into effect, but occassionally it will. When it does, it snags God's attention and makes the infinite number of unsurprising actions and the eons of waiting worth it.

This is a fairly common suggestion for why God might have made everything, that He was bored, or lonely, but it does leave a very big part of the Christian understanding of God, that of the Trinity.
Christians believe that God is a community of three people who are also each the same One God. That's my botch job of explaining the Trinity, and I don't think I really understand all the ramifications of the concept myself. However, it does mean that God was not lonely before He created the universe (and everything and everyone in it), as there existed in a relationship of love within the Trinity before anything else (incidentally, this means that love is more fundamental than the physical world, to a Christian). I also doubt, from this, that He was bored.

Is a benevolent god consistent with the existence of evil in the world?What is this question about? Is there a benevolent god around anywhere? If you mean the biblical god, since when is this god benevolent?

Yeah.
If he existed he gave us free will.

what if there is a tidal wash up the river? A a trout drinks it, swims up river, then vomits and dies and you unknowingly drink the vomit and die?

River's big. Really, really, big. Infinitely big. You just wouldn't believe how mind bogglingly big it is.

So we'd have to be talking about a lot of trout vomit.


Or what if god makes the river run backwards, to satisfy the prayers of the trout fishers up river?

Sigh. Yes, okay, you got me. My example wasn't perfect. There are a million, billion contingencies I didn't and can't plan for. However, might I suggest it's more interesting to debate the point rather than the example used to illustrate it?

Anyway, God, for the purposes of the example, is the river. Not controlling it.

This is a fairly common suggestion for why God might have made everything, that He was bored, or lonely, but it does leave a very big part of the Christian understanding of God, that of the Trinity.
Christians believe that God is a community of three people who are also each the same One God. That's my botch job of explaining the Trinity, and I don't think I really understand all the ramifications of the concept myself. However, it does mean that God was not lonely before He created the universe (and everything and everyone in it), as there existed in a relationship of love within the Trinity before anything else (incidentally, this means that love is more fundamental than the physical world, to a Christian). I also doubt, from this, that He was bored.

I'm not suggesting that God was lonely, but that God chose to exercise his powers in a way that furthers it's own understanding of it's own existance. What I said is in no way contradictory to the idea of the Three-For-The-Price-Of-One God.

I'm not suggesting that God was lonely, but that God chose to exercise his powers in a way that furthers it's own understanding of it's own existance. What I said is in no way contradictory to the idea of the Three-For-The-Price-Of-One God.
It's confusing when you change the pronoun you use to refer to God mid-sentence. Maybe you did it deliberately . . .

Your suggestion is new to me. I've never heard the idea that God created everything in order to learn more about Himself, though some of the thinking about the Incarnation, Jesus[God] becoming Jesus[God/Man] (probably a heretical description, but who knows?) sort of heads in that direction.

You're right, though, you didn't say lonely, that was me, and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. ;)

It's confusing when you change the pronoun you use to refer to God mid-sentence. Maybe you did it deliberately . . .

I'd like to say it was intentional and that when I'm referring to the meta-divinity concept of God I use "It" and when I'm referring to individual personifications of divinity, I use "He". However, I think in this case I was just sloppy. :)


Your suggestion is new to me. I've never heard the idea that God created everything in order to learn more about Himself, though some of the thinking about the Incarnation, Jesus[God] becoming Jesus[God/Man] (probably a heretical description, but who knows?) sort of heads in that direction.

I'm not sure where I came up with that. Ideally, I'd like to be able to say I came up with it myself, but as I can't show any sort of signposting leading to the idea, I can't be sure if I didn't read it somewhere at some time and am now coopting it because it sort of makes sense to me.


You're right, though, you didn't say lonely, that was me, and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. ;)

No worries. I may have not been clear. :)