The Problem of Evil, Messiah, and Wrath.

[muhammad_isa]

Can God decree that murder is moral? Does he have that power over what is moral and what is not?

Yes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I would say immortal. Why does anything even need to be dangerous?

..and now we get to the old chestnut "Why didn't God put all of His creation in the paradise forever without test?"

Why do we have an exam system in schools and colleges?
I think it might be so we take it seriously and really learn something?

 

[MonkeyFire]

I have no idea how this is supposed to be a response to what I said.

Yes, necessarily. A creation reflects on the ability of its creator. An imperfect creation implies an imperfect creator.

Whether the failure was because the design wasn't sufficient for its intended use, or the creation was subject to something unforeseen, any failure of the creation points to a failure on the part of the creator.

Even cases like misuse or sabotage end up pointing to God's failure too, since anything that could misuse or sabotage God's creation is also part of God's creation.

God is perfect, only this world is not, but it gives life to feeble and ethical beings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is perfect, only this world is not, but it gives life to feeble and ethical beings.

How does a perfect creator make an imperfect creation? How can the quality of a creation not reflect on the quality of irs creator?

 

[dybmh]

What do you understand by 'freedom'?

Freedom is the potential for multiple outcomes based on anything from a whim to a long contemplated evaluation of benefit vs. cost.

But touching a hot stove is not a moral act, is it? Couldn't we be just... immune to hot stoves? Or know inherently not to touch them because it is going to destroy their bodies?
Also, I don't think making people feel good about not doing something would be necessary.

I guess we disagree on what would be needed to prevent people from touching a hot stove while still giving them the option to do so, learn from it, and communicate that to others. I think this is similar enough to a moral decision to apply the same conclusion. Is there something I'm missing?

I am not sure I follow. Do you mean the best way to improve would be to refrain from doing something despite feeling good doing the very thing you are not supposed to do (or thinking it is gonna feel good to do it)?

You were asking why a perfect creation would include pleasure derived from improper actions. My answer is: learning when pleasure is appropriate is another vector of improvement. If improvement is valued, then more opportunity to improve makes the creation better and more perfect.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How does a perfect creator make an imperfect creation? How can the quality of a creation not reflect on the quality of irs creator?

no clue… my whole point is that we are perfect as is, since we all suffer the same in this world, regardless of our moral standing, we should only have to be so perfect, as the transgressions are initially out of our control then they basically tempt Mankind (Adam). I think angels walk the earth to save the angels of sorrow. If you Believe in sorrow, belief will deliver her from evil, and sorrow will heal the battle wounds of the angel of faith. I would sacrifice faith and pleasure for a short time if it is to physically save my own love. Life can be perfected.

 

[Koldo]

Yes.

Ok, that's known as divine command theory.

 

[Koldo]

..and now we get to the old chestnut "Why didn't God put all of His creation in the paradise forever without test?"

Your answer being...?

Why do we have an exam system in schools and colleges?
I think it might be so we take it seriously and really learn something?

Do you mean the point of this life is to learn something? What specifically? In what way would you say that God is doing his best to achieve that end?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you mean the point of this life is to learn something? What specifically? In what way would you say that God is doing his best to achieve that end?

I'm not going to write an essay.

We all have experiences in life. The life of this world requires us to earn our living to survive.

There is more to learn about the world, than what we need to know to survive.
Universities have a range of subjects.
..and then there is travel .. and contemplation etc.

 

[Koldo]

Freedom is the potential for multiple outcomes based on anything from a whim to a long contemplated evaluation of benefit vs. cost.

What do you mean by 'multiple'?
How do you figure that a certain set of outcomes is enough to qualify as 'freedom'?
For instance, must Joe be able to kill Steve with his hands for you to say that Joe has freedom?
If not, why do we have this kind of freedom? What's the point of it?
If yes, the existence of quadriplegic people would entail that freedom is not always valued by God. Why?

I guess we disagree on what would be needed to prevent people from touching a hot stove while still giving them the option to do so, learn from it, and communicate that to others. I think this is similar enough to a moral decision to apply the same conclusion. Is there something I'm missing?

I don't quite understand what is the point of getting injuried by a hot stove in the first place. In what way does it benefit us?

You were asking why a perfect creation would include pleasure derived from improper actions. My answer is: learning when pleasure is appropriate is another vector of improvement. If improvement is valued, then more opportunity to improve makes the creation better and more perfect.

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'learning when pleasure is appropriate'? How does feeling good from doing something improper teaches when pleasure is appropriate?

 

[Koldo]

I'm not going to write an essay.

We all have experiences in life. The life of this world requires us to earn our living to survive.

There is more to learn about the world, than what we need to know to survive.
Universities have a range of subjects.
..and then there is travel .. and contemplation etc.

Do you mean the purpose of this life is to learn about this world?
Why is it important to God that we learn about this world?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you mean the purpose of this life is to learn about this world?

..that includes matters of the heart and soul [mind].

 

[Koldo]

..that includes matters of the heart and soul [mind].

Why does God want us to learn about this world? What's the point?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why does God want us to learn about this world? What's the point?

..our spiritual lives don't end at death.
We journey on from plane to plane.

We can spiritually grow, or we can stunt it.
We learn by our mistakes [or not]

 

[Koldo]

..our spiritual lives don't end at death.
We journey on from plane to plane.

We can spiritually grow, or we can stunt it.
We learn by our mistakes [or not]

What's the point of learning about this world if we journey from plane to plane?

 

[wellwisher]

What's the point of learning about this world if we journey from plane to plane?

If you look at the science model of evolution, species DNA change and improve through natural selection. Critters of each generation that best adapt, become what defines the DNA gene pool of the future, through natural selection. Species evolution, from generation to generation, is like the journey from plane to plane, with this journey, optimized by those who are best suited the needs of natural selection.

Not all choices of all critters in a species will be selected in this evolving journey from plane to plane. There is natural/divine selection parameters; physical and conscious environment. We, as humans have will and choice, but not all choices are optimized for the needs of natural selection. One squirrel stores food and the other plays. When selection comes, only one will be chosen, which is that which is optimize to natural needs. The other is not chosen and not scribed onto the DNA. This behavior is not passed forward.

Based on your experiences and choices and the experiences and choices of your elders, over many generations, addenda were added to the DNA from natural selection. There is a optimized path drawn from previous plane to plane, that is based on the optimized wisdom of the past; natural selection.

Conceptually genetic theory was roughed in by Eastern Religions thousands of years ago. It just needed to be translated to modern lingo so it is easier to see. We can see this DNA journey from-plane to plane for physical nature, but humans cannot see it applying to themselves; self and ego, due to the pressures from the super ego of culture, which has it own temporal selection criteria. This is often not align with the natural trajectory of the human self, scribed onto the DNA; inner self. The goal of life is to find the inner path; trajectory of life, and follow it to the future.

 

[Koldo]

If you look at the science model of evolution, species DNA change and improve through natural selection. Critters of each generation that best adapt, become what defines the DNA gene pool of the future, through natural selection. Species evolution, from generation to generation, is like the journey from plane to plane, with this journey, optimized by those who are best suited the needs of natural selection.

Not all choices of all critters in a species will be selected in this evolving journey from plane to plane. There is natural/divine selection parameters; physical and conscious environment. We, as humans have will and choice, but not all choices are optimized for the needs of natural selection. One squirrel stores food and the other plays. When selection comes, only one will be chosen, which is that which is optimize to natural needs. The other is not chosen and not scribed onto the DNA. This behavior is not passed forward.

Based on your experiences and choices and the experiences and choices of your elders, over many generations, addenda were added to the DNA from natural selection. There is a optimized path drawn from previous plane to plane, that is based on the optimized wisdom of the past; natural selection.

Conceptually genetic theory was roughed in by Eastern Religions thousands of years ago. It just needed to be translated to modern lingo so it is easier to see. We can see this DNA journey from-plane to plane for physical nature, but humans cannot see it applying to themselves; self and ego, due to the pressures from the super ego of culture, which has it own temporal selection criteria. This is often not align with the natural trajectory of the human self, scribed onto the DNA; inner self. The goal of life is to find the inner path; trajectory of life, and follow it to the future.

What is the relation between natural selection and divine selection though?

Would you say that someone that breeds like a rabbit and manages to make their genes stay around is chosen by God to make it to another plane?

I think divine selection would have nothing to do with natural selection if we are talking about any ordinary theistic conception of God. What would then be the parameters for divine selection and why? Or even, why would that be necessary rather than merely creating people the way you want them to be?

 

[dybmh]

What do you mean by 'multiple'?

More than one is all that's needed for freedom to exist.

How do you figure that a certain set of outcomes is enough to qualify as 'freedom'?

Unlimited freedom is something else: anarchy. I think we will agree that valuing anarchy is a lot different than valuing freedom. Speaking of the later only requires a set of possible outcomes.

why do we have this kind of freedom? What's the point of it?

I think this is straying from the topic. We're talking about the elements that contribute to a perfect created reality. My proposal is: Perfection from the human perspective may not match perfection from the creator's perspective. Perfection from the creator's perspective is subjective based on what the creator values. Currently we are analyzing created reality as if the creator values both improvement and freedom ( but not anarchy ). The purpose of freedom is not relevent to this.

the existence of quadriplegic people would entail that freedom is not always valued by God. Why?

Well... I agree that a quadriplegic has limited freedom. It's a good point to start to consider it. If the creator values freedom, why is freedom limited for some more than others?

The easiest thing to do is add another value. In this case, maybe, diversity. In a perfect world would everyone have the same challenges, the same experience? Maybe for those that value fairness this would describe a perfect creation.

It all depends on what's valued. We could probably go on and on like this indefinitely. You could postulate that creation would be more perfect if X,Y, and Z were true. Then I would postulate, not nessissarily if the creator valued A,B, and C. We can keep going down this road if you like. You might stump me. But that's not the point. An imperfect creation does not necessarily imply an imperfect creator.

I don't quite understand what is the point of getting injuried by a hot stove in the first place. In what way does it benefit us?

I doubt that you need me to give examples of benefits of combustion. No injury, no combustion. Besides, I'm not convinced that the world would be better if a person were impervious to damage from a hot stove.

If the world would be better if people would be impervious to the hot stove, then the world would be much much better if people were immune from all physical harm? No. Empathy would be greatly diminished. People wouldn't be discouraged from hitting each other, jumping off a cliff, driving their car like a maniac. People could eat as much as they want, without harm. People could cut off their limbs, or the limbs of their children without remorse. It would be a crazy world.

Please remember, in this example the creator values improvement and freedom. So people would need to be free to do all these weird things. Also, being impervious would decrease the potential for improvement because people would not learn and improve as a result of accidentally harming themselves or others.

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'learning when pleasure is appropriate'? How does feeling good from doing something improper teaches when pleasure is appropriate?

Ah. Feeling good from doing something wrong does not teach when pleasure is appropriate. The pleasure is a flaw. Learning when it is appropriate would be accomplished by other resulting negative consequences and also by experiencing greater pleasure from abstinence or delaying gratification.

 

[Koldo]

More than one is all that's needed for freedom to exist.

Unlimited freedom is something else: anarchy. I think we will agree that valuing anarchy is a lot different than valuing freedom. Speaking of the later only requires a set of possible outcomes.

I think this is straying from the topic. We're talking about the elements that contribute to a perfect created reality. My proposal is: Perfection from the human perspective may not match perfection from the creator's perspective. Perfection from the creator's perspective is subjective based on what the creator values. Currently we are analyzing created reality as if the creator values both improvement and freedom ( but not anarchy ). The purpose of freedom is not relevent to this.

Well... I agree that a quadriplegic has limited freedom. It's a good point to start to consider it. If the creator values freedom, why is freedom limited for some more than others?

So you agree that: There only needs to be multiple alternatives for freedom to exist. But not any given set of alternatives in particular, because limited freedom is already sufficient. Correct?

The easiest thing to do is add another value. In this case, maybe, diversity.

But diversity doesn't explain the existence of quadriplegic people by itself, for there can be diversity without quadriplegic people.

In a perfect world would everyone have the same challenges, the same experience? Maybe for those that value fairness this would describe a perfect creation.

It all depends on what's valued. We could probably go on and on like this indefinitely. You could postulate that creation would be more perfect if X,Y, and Z were true. Then I would postulate, not nessissarily if the creator valued A,B, and C. We can keep going down this road if you like. You might stump me. But that's not the point. An imperfect creation does not necessarily imply an imperfect creator.

We agree. If there are other things that God values more, he might sacrifice freedom, for example, to achieve them.

I will now make a bold claim and say that God values human suffering and evil, as in he actually wants people to suffer and to experience evil. This is the only variable able to sufficiently explain why suffering and evil exists. If you can think of any other, I would like to hear.

I doubt that you need me to give examples of benefits of combustion. No injury, no combustion.

Being immune to fire would solve that.

Besides, I'm not convinced that the world would be better if a person were impervious to damage from a hot stove.

If the world would be better if people would be impervious to the hot stove, then the world would be much much better if people were immune from all physical harm? No. Empathy would be greatly diminished.

I am not sure I follow. If world hunger was vastly diminished (or erased), empathy would then also be greatly diminished. What's the problem?

Empathy is one of those virtues that only make sense within a certain context. I would call it a 'relative' virtue. It is like courage. Is God courageous? Not at all, since he has nothing to fear in the first place. Is God less virtuous because of that? Not at all. The absence of empathy (or courage) is only a problem when the contexts asks for it's existence.

People wouldn't be discouraged from hitting each other,...

It could still be offensive. Like spitting on someone.

...jumping off a cliff,...

I don't really see what's the problem with that.

...driving their car like a maniac.

Wrecking someone else's stuff would probably still not be a good idea.

People could eat as much as they want, without harm.

The problem being...?

People could cut off their limbs, or the limbs of their children without remorse. It would be a crazy world.

Like psycopaths? Which already exist?
I would count cutting off someone else's limbs as injury though though.

Please remember, in this example the creator values improvement and freedom. So people would need to be free to do all these weird things.

You have agreed that we don't need to do everything to be free though. We only need to have multiple choices, but not necessarily all the choices that currently exist.

Also, being impervious would decrease the potential for improvement because people would not learn and improve as a result of accidentally harming themselves or others.

What do you learn from that though other than that you should refrain from harming others? ...Which is a pointless thing to learn in a world where you can not harm anyone.

Or even worse, you can learn what are the best ways to harm someone, which I think you would agree is not something worth of being learned.

Ah. Feeling good from doing something wrong does not teach when pleasure is appropriate. The pleasure is a flaw. Learning when it is appropriate would be accomplished by other resulting negative consequences and also by experiencing greater pleasure from abstinence or delaying gratification.

But if the pleasure is felt, by design, from doing something inappropriate, what are you calling a flaw? Certainly not the pleasure itself for it was designed by God but rather the act of doing something improper, right?

 

[dybmh]

So you agree that: There only needs to be multiple alternatives for freedom to exist. But not any given set of alternatives in particular, because limited freedom is already sufficient. Correct?

Yes. In this hypothetical, 'freedom' implies 'limited freedom' because complete freedom is anarchy and carries with it other disadvantages.

But diversity doesn't explain the existence of quadriplegic people by itself, for there can be diversity without quadriplegic people.

Well, sort of. My approach goes passed a person being a quadriplegic. Being a quadriplegic has unique challenges. Being unique increases diversity. If diversity is valued, then more diversity is better, less diversity is worse. A world without quadriplegics would be less diverse and therefore less perfect to a creator who values diversity.

We agree. If there are other things that God values more, he might sacrifice freedom, for example, to achieve them

agreed

I will now make a bold claim and say that God values human suffering and evil, as in he actually wants people to suffer and to experience evil. This is the only variable able to sufficiently explain why suffering and evil exists. If you can think of any other, I would like to hear.

Bold. I like it. Overcoming/containing evil and reducing suffering are improvements? If improvment is valued, then more opportunity for improvement is better and the perfect creation would have many many flaws to improve on. Evil and suffering are the worst, but all that means is that overcoming and reducing them would be that much more valuable.

Being immune to fire would solve that.

I am not sure I follow. If world hunger was vastly diminished (or erased), empathy would then also be greatly diminished. What's the problem?

Empathy is one of those virtues that only make sense within a certain context. I would call it a 'relative' virtue. It is like courage. Is God courageous? Not at all, since he has nothing to fear in the first place. Is God less virtuous because of that? Not at all. The absence of empathy (or courage) is only a problem when the contexts asks for it's existence.

OK. It's easily resolved if the creator also values empathy.

It could still be offensive. Like spitting on someone.

I don't really see what's the problem with that.

Wrecking someone else's stuff would probably still not be a good idea.

The problem being...?

Like psycopaths? Which already exist?
I would count cutting off someone else's limbs as injury though though.

You have agreed that we don't need to do everything to be free though. We only need to have multiple choices, but not necessarily all the choices that currently exist.

Ok, you've made some good points here. But it's all irrelevent if empathy is valued. Even if you're right that empathy has no value out of context, it could still be a subjective value held by the creator for an arbitrary reason.

What do you learn from that though other than that you should refrain from harming others? ...Which is a pointless thing to learn in a world where you can not harm anyone.

Right. It's pointless. One less thing to learn, one less way to improve, less perfect per the creator's values.

Or even worse, you can learn what are the best ways to harm someone, which I think you would agree is not something worth of being learned.

Don't they have "Poison Control" in Brazil? https://www.poison.org/ It's good to know what'll kill'ya.

But if the pleasure is felt, by design, from doing something inappropriate, what are you calling a flaw? Certainly not the pleasure itself for it was designed by God but rather the act of doing something improper, right?

Yes, I propose that the pleasure itself is a flaw. It could have been designed as a challenge.