• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Ahriman even stand a chance?

The Emperor of Mankind

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Something I've come across while reading about this religion is the consistent notion that Ahura Mazda is far and away more powerful than his rival Ahriman.

With that in mind, in what sense is there a conflict any more than there's a conflict between men and maggots? Could Ahura Mazda not simply wish Ahriman out of existence with a thought, ending his influence over our universe forever; and if so, why doesn't he?

If the battle between good & evil is ultimately predestined to end with all of us being reunited with the Wise Lord after Judgement Day then what is the point of allowing Ahriman to continue a futile struggle?

Any Zoroastrians want to give answering this a shot?
 
Last edited:
J

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Ahriman is not a God in the sense Ahura Madza is.

I disagree there is no reasonable theist explanation for evil - privation. The logical problem of evil has largely been abandoned completely. The so called evidential problem is not a huge worry for the classical theist, though it trips some people up psychologically.
 
J

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Aupmanyav said:
Probably there is, but those which I have heard did not satisfy me. Of course, I know about Ahriman.
Click to expand...

Your personal lack satisfaction, of course, is neither here nor there when it comes to the problem in its logical and philosophical sense. Even contemporary analytical philosophers of religion admit there is no strict contradiction between the existence of God and evil. They like to concentrate, instead, on probabilistic arguments on the amount of suffering in the world, but as philosophical arguments these do not really touch classical theism.
 
MD

MD

qualiaphile
A Disgruntled Scotsman said:
Something I've come across while reading about this religion is the consistent notion that Ahura Mazda is far and away more powerful than his rival Ahriman.

With that in mind, in what sense is there a conflict any more than there's a conflict between men and maggots? Could Ahura Mazda not simply wish Ahriman out of existence with a thought, ending his influence over our universe forever; and if so, why doesn't he?

If the battle between good & evil is ultimately predestined to end with all of us being reunited with the Wise Lord after Judgement Day then what is the point of allowing Ahriman to continue a futile struggle?

Any Zoroastrians want to give answering this a shot?
Click to expand...

I am a strict Gathic Zoroastrian, so I only follow the Gathas.

From my understanding Ahriman is not far more powerful than Ahura Mazda. Ahriman and Ahura Mazda are metaphysical forces in the universe which we assist through our actions and deeds. The whole purpose of our existence is to assist Ahura Mazda in a battle against Ahriman through doing good. Attaining Asha, which is the highest form of righteousness and harmony should vanquish Ahriman. If evil were to grow in power, as I feel it has, then suffering would grow and Ahriman would become far more powerful. To be honest I'm not even sure if Ahriman is even a spirit or divine being, or a state of chaos and disorder.

Ahura Mazda is a benevolent God, but not omnipotent. Thus it sidesteps the problem of evil. We hope that through attaining Asha, Ahura Mazda will win but do not guarantee it.
 
J

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
That would side step the problem of evil by essentially surrendering to it, when there is really no need. It would mean that Ahura Mazda is not the ultimate explanation and source of reality. There are certain figures in Zoroastrian history, as I understand it, that have or more less put forward such a position, such as Mardan-Farrukh. But generally radical dualism has not been the Zoroastrian position.
 
MD

MD

qualiaphile
Jeremy Taylor said:
That would side step the problem of evil by essentially surrendering to it, when there is really no need. It would mean that Ahura Mazda is not the ultimate explanation and source of reality. There are certain figures in Zoroastrian history, as I understand it, that have or more less put forward such a position, such as Mardan-Farrukh. But generally radical dualism has not been the Zoroastrian position.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how Zoroastrianism views the ultimate nature of reality, I do know that Zoroaster was a dualist in the philosophical sense, that the mental and physical are two separate realms.

However, by accepting evil exists separate from Ahura Mazda you don't necessarily have to surrender to it. It provides a greater impetus on us as human beings to do good and destroy evil, as with every act of good we do we strengthen Ahura Mazda in the fight against evil.
 
J

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Mazdaian said:
I am not sure how Zoroastrianism views the ultimate nature of reality, I do know that Zoroaster was a dualist in the philosophical sense, that the mental and physical are two separate realms.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but my understanding of Zoroaster is he did not separate them completely, as, for example, Manichaeism is supposed to have done.

However, by accepting evil exists separate from Ahura Mazda you don't necessarily have to surrender to it. It provides a greater impetus on us as human beings to do good and destroy evil, as with every act of good we do we strengthen Ahura Mazda in the fight against evil.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think the main problem with radical dualism - rather than a dualism that is ultimately overcome, not just at the eschatologically but ontologically - is that it denies Ahura Mazda is the source of reality, and therefore the ultimate explanation of all things. If there is a radical dualism that is not ultimately resolved - ontologically and not just eschatologically, again - then Ahura Mazda cannot be the principle of being and reality. Being and reality must be something else, beyond him and determining him.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Mazdaian said:
To be honest I'm not even sure if Ahriman is even a spirit or divine being, or a state of chaos and disorder.

Ahura Mazda is a benevolent God, but not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
How come you are not sure about Ahriman but are sure about Ahur Mazda?
 
MD

MD

qualiaphile
Aupmanyav said:
How come you are not sure about Ahriman but are sure about Ahur Mazda?
Click to expand...

That is a good question, and I guess the best way I could answer it is that I believe that consciousness is either a primary source of reality or is a separate source of reality from matter. So with order you have higher forms of consciousness, like in human beings with our complex brains.

In disorder you have lower forms of consciousness. Thus the more we work towards Asha, the stronger we make Ahura Mazda through harmony and order. The weaker we make Ahura Mazda, through lies and chaos, the weaker we make universal consciousness.

I'm still formulating thoughts on this, but thanks for the question.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
It is in scheme of things/life
Click to expand...

Virtue and Evil have both been created by G-d Ahura Mazda, as part and parcel of life.
As with the creation of North Pole, South Pole is created; one cannot eliminate North Pole without the elimination of the South Pole, so Virtue has no meaning without Evil, both are part and parcel of life . Here comes in the concept of relativity, without suffering there will be no concept of pleasure, without hell there will be no heaven.
Regards
 
MD

MD

qualiaphile
paarsurrey said:
Virtue and Evil have both been created by G-d Ahura Mazda, as part and parcel of life.
As with the creation of North Pole, South Pole is created; one cannot eliminate North Pole without the elimination of the South Pole, so Virtue has no meaning without Evil, both are part and parcel of life . Here comes in the concept of relativity, without suffering there will be no concept of pleasure, without hell there will be no heaven.
Regards
Click to expand...

I disagree. If God created evil, then God is himself part evil. I would rather believe in a non omnipotent fully benevolent God, than an omnipotent God who is capable of evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top