Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Trailblazer]

If you processed the rest of my reply, you would see that I said -

I'm not sure if it is possible for us to know the exact mechanics of what I call the "collective enlightenment". ​

And then I explained why.

It is not possible for us to know yet because of the depths of our immorality, both individually and collectively. It should be clearer to successive generations if we become more morally evolved as time goes on. ​

But, if you must know...

Collective Morality and Anarchism.

Oh, now I see why I was confused.
This is what you said that I was reading: In my theory, we can transcend mortality collectively.

I thought you were saying that we could transcend our mortality, not our immorality, and I could not see how that was possible.

I fully agree that we can collectively transcend our immorality. It is not possible for us to know yet because of the depths of our immorality, but it should be clearer to successive generations because we will become more morally evolved as time goes on.

This is exactly what the Baha'is believe, since it was the vision of Baha'u'llah that in the future there will be a New Race of Men who are morally superior.

“With the establishment of the Most Great Peace and the spiritualization of the peoples of the world, man will become a noble being adorned with divine virtues and perfections. This is one of the fruits of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, promised by Him. The nobility of man and his spiritual development will lead him in the future to such a position that no individual could enjoy eating his food or resting at home while knowing that there was one person somewhere in the world without food or shelter. It is Bahá’u’lláh’s mission to create such a new race of men.” (Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 3, p. 126)​

​

From: New Race of Men​

 

[an anarchist]

The PoE is the strongest Atheist / Bible critic argument that I am aware of. It's virtually impossible to defeat.

It's essentially what defeated my Christianity.

 

[an anarchist]

thought you were saying that we could transcend our mortality

I did say that tho. But we'll talk about it another time

 

[dybmh]

It's essentially what defeated my Christianity.

That's odd, because doesn't Christianity blame everything on Satan? So God is off the hook?

 

[Trailblazer]

In my predictions, it should be possible to completely end suffering.

I agree that we can completely end the sufferiing that is caused by immorality, as I just said in my previous post, but all suffering humans endure in this world is not the result of immorality. There is also suffering that comes to us because of the struggle to make a living, because of accidents and injjuries and diseases, and the death of our loved ones. That kind of suffering will never be eliminated completely because these things are inherent in life in the material world.

 

[an anarchist]

That's odd, because doesn't Christianity blame everything on Satan? So God is off the hook?

Hmmmm

Well I read the Bible through at least once. I read through the historical parts with all the stories dozens of times though, as well as the Torah quite a bit. Not too familiar with prophecy portion of the Bible, ANYWAYS

My personal understanding led me to not let God off the hook. There's a question that is often posed by children in church (bless their honest curious souls) "Why did God create the Tree (of knowledge of good and evil)" For every kid, myself included, knew that they'd much rather be living in Eden than the world they were born into.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would actually prevent all suffering that it possibly could. I am not sure if this is your contention. But it is easy to explain why omnibenevolence would entail that.

No, that is not my contention, because if God prevented all the suffering He possibly could, God would prevent all suffering.

That is why I asked:
Can you explain why omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

So can you explain why you think that omnibenevolence would bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

I believe that omnibenevolence might prevent some suffering if we pray to God to alleviate our suffering, and there are even Baha'i prayers for that purpose. For example, here is an excerpt from a longer prayer:

"Thou hast shown me the right way and caused me to enter the ark of deliverance. O God! Keep me steadfast and make me firm and staunch. Protect me from violent tests and preserve and shelter me in the strongly fortified fortress of Thy Covenant and Testament."​

O compassionate God!

Baha'i Prayers (English): O compassionate God! Thanks be to Thee for Thou hast awakened and made me conscious.

www.bahaiprayers.org

But notice it asks God to protect us from violent tests, not from all tests.

Do you accept that someone that prevents some suffering in the world is acting benevolent when doing so?

Yes.

I can imagine someone being even more benevolent because he prevents even more instances of suffering. The utmost I can imagine would then prevent all suffering.

I do not believe it is benevolent to prevent all suffering since some suffering is beneficial for humans to learn and grow spiritually and build their character.

Here is why some suffering is beneficial. There are two reasons:

“While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.​

​

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit. “​

Paris Talks, pp. 50-51​

 

[dybmh]

Why did God create the Tree (of knowledge of good and evil)" For every kid, myself included, knew that they'd much rather be living in Eden than the world they were born into.

What did you tell them? Here's my answer.

The serpent needed to be cursed to the ground. So a prohibtion was given, and it was known that it would be broken, but in breaking it, they rec'd knowledge needed to return to eden. So it was part of the plan, and it's all good.

 

[an anarchist]

What did you tell them? Here's my answer.

The serpent needed to be cursed to the ground. So a prohibtion was given, and it was known that it would be broken, but in breaking it, they rec'd knowledge needed to return to eden. So it was part of the plan, and it's all good.

I just parroted what my pastor told me when I asked. "Well, we would be no different than robots if we didn't have the free will to sin!" And the obvious counter to that is "so?" Idk that answer was a lame one I can still remember the dissatisfaction on the children's faces with that answer.

 

[dybmh]

I just parroted what my pastor told me when I asked. "Well, we would be no different than robots if we didn't have the free will to sin!" And the obvious counter to that is "so?" Idk that answer was a lame one I can still remember the dissatisfaction on the children's faces with that answer.

yeah, that's not super saticfying. although, if I gave my answer, one of those smart kids would be asking "Eve was the bait???"

 

[an anarchist]

I do not believe it is benevolent to prevent all suffering since some suffering is beneficial for humans to learn and grow spiritually and build their character.

Are you saying that suffering is a necessary prerequisite for spiritual growth and character development? There's really no other or better way for an omnipotent deity to teach man? I disagree
Edit: so your God is not omnibenevloent, because surely there is a better way

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you saying that suffering is a necessary prerequisite for spiritual growth and character development? There's really no other or better way for an omnipotent deity to teach man? I disagree
Edit: so your God is not omnibenevloent, because surely there is a better way

It is only your personal opinion that there must be 'a better way.' Did you forget that God is also omniscient? As such, God has to know 'the best way' for humans to grow spiritually and develop their character.

Some suffering is necessary but it does not have to be excessive or constant to be beneficial. If anyone show be complaining it should be me.
Some people call me Job since I have suffered so much. I wonder if or when it will ever end. At least Job's suffering ended eventually!

 

[sayak83]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

You are, of course correct, the suffering undergone by living things (including humans) rules out omnimax God. I feel that traditional theists fail to appreciate the extent of freedom a hypothetical God can have in creating a suffering free world with ample space for learning and growth. The problem is worse because:-
Apparently the one's who are "saved" get transported (or reembodied..whatever) to a perfect heaven (or new world..whatever) where
a) We STILL have free will and have learned enough through our suffering here in our brief lifetime to NEVER again "sin" (whatever that means) for the remaining eternity. So apparently it IS POSSIBLE to have eternal non-sinning and free will at the same time...only that the omniscient omnipotent God could not think of way to create beings with that "perfected" state from the very beginning...He could think of no other way than subjecting us to this life with all its suffering! This is logical nonsense. I can show it in three-four lines:-
i) It is Possible for a being to exist in a state A where state A is such that it has both free will and it can stay sin-free for eternity.
ii) If it were not Possible for state A to exist, then there could be no permanent heaven or perfected new world as noted in theistic eschatology.
iii) If state A is possible then, by omniscience, God knows how to create a being in state A (otherwise omniscience is falsified)
iv) If God knows how to create beings in state A, then He can create such beings directly in state A (since otherwise He could not and another being who could do such a thing will have more power than Him. So He would not be omnipotent).
v) If God could and He did not, then God is not omnibenevolent as doing that would have decreased the suffering of beings that He did create.

So we see that this world is incompatible with an omnimax God.

 

[1213]

Even if there was the slightest glimmer of truth in this myth, that doesn't justify exposing everybody else to it from that point on. Such an act by itself would make such a god unjust and unfair.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think it is a problem, because everyone has chance to get back to life.

 

[1213]

The problem is that if God is causation of everything as everything then no matter how many steps of causation you do through then God is the primary causation of evil. God has have created evil for us to know it or God hasn't created evil and thus God hasn't created everything.

Evil is like darkness or emptiness, it is really nothing. And therefore, evil is formed only by removing good, or keeping good away, similarly as darkness is formed by removing light. And this is why evil is not created. But, God has allowed us to be in darkness. I believe it is because people wanted to know what evil means. That is why I believe people were expelled to this first death. Here we can see what it is to be without good.

 

[1213]

Evidence? Source?

Genesis 3.

This doesn't address the problem of evil. It doesn't explain how this lesson, as you are calling it, is compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity.

Wouldn't benevolent God not allow people to have freedom to learn to know evil? I think God is great, because he is not like petty earthly tyrant who doesn't want people to be free.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evil is like darkness or emptiness, it is really nothing. And therefore, evil is formed only by removing good, or keeping good away, similarly as darkness is formed by removing light. And this is why evil is not created. But, God has allowed us to be in darkness. I believe it is because people wanted to know what evil means. That is why I believe people were expelled to this first death. Here we can see what it is to be without good.

Lot for words. But that is only so because God is the causation of that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Unless it is necessary for us to exist. If the choice is life mixed with suffering or no life at all, what would you choose?

Essentially you are asking what is fair and just about suffering. It is fair and just if it is the price of admission.

So you don't believe in an omnipotent god?

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think it is a problem, because everyone has chance to get back to life.

So what? The god character still decided that we should all suffer because of the actions of two people. It's a blatant, cruel and vindictive injustice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what? The god character still decided that we should all suffer because of the actions of two people. It's a blatant, cruel and vindictive injustice.

Well, it is also the problem of monism versus dualism in a sense. If everything is one as from God, then how come we have good and bad?