The Problem of Evil

[CynthiaCypher]

One thing about that. If one takes the view that all is God then the intervention of a human being to lessen suffering is also an act of God.

Precisely. Indirect intervention but intervention nonetheless.

Like in Futurama, Bender's God said that caring for the universe takes a light touch, so as people do not lose hope and also so they do not become dependent upon divine intervention. And also God has to keep the welfare of the atheists in mind, if God intervenes all over the place, it will harm the atheists in the universe, so Bender's God likes to keep it low.

 

[fantome profane]

Precisely. Indirect intervention but intervention nonetheless.

Like in Futurama, Bender's God said that caring for the universe takes a light touch, so as people do not lose hope and also so they do not become dependent upon divine intervention. And also God has to keep the welfare of the atheists in mind, if God intervenes all over the place, it will harm the atheists in the universe, so Bender's God likes to keep it low.

lol, how will that harm atheists?

 

[technomage]

lol, how will that harm atheists?

How would any human being feel if their worldview was traumatically shattered?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

lol, how will that harm atheists?

Imagine the massive existential crisis they would all go through. The very reason for existing as my respected opposition would be taken from them.

 

[fantome profane]

:angel2:

How would any human being feel if their worldview was traumatically shattered?

If it was the truth, I would love it.:yes:

 

[fantome profane]

Imagine the massive existential crisis they would all go through. The very reason for existing as my respected opposition would be taken from them.

So "Bender's God" keeps a low profile just so you can have someone to debate with?

 

[technomage]

:angel2:
If it was the truth, I would love it.:yes:

I would, too ... but the sudden transition would still be extremely unsettling.

 

[fantome profane]

I would, too ... but the sudden transition would still be extremely unsettling.

The most wonderful experiences in life are extremely unsettling, at least at first.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

:angel2:
If it was the truth, I would love it.:yes:

You say that now. But I went through a process where my worldview was shattered and the things I took comfort in were taken away. It was painful, I went through all the stages of grief, including a deep depression. Not everyone is strong enough to recover from that sort of thing.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Imagine the massive existential crisis they would all go through. The very reason for existing as my respected opposition would be taken from them.

It's a cute idea, but think about the millions struggling with Nietzsche's "God is dead" and the problems of morality that come with it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's a cute idea, but think about the millions struggling with Nietzsche's "God is dead" and the problems of morality that come with it.

I doubt millions are struggling with Nietzsche, but I wish millions were doing so.

I don't see Nietzsche's statement "god is dead" as creating a problem of morality itself,but it is about the problem of morality though in the face of encroaching nihilism and I think Freddie is telling people in the face of nihilism it's time for humankind to put on her big girl pants and buckle up. Because if you don't act like a big girl and grow up and create a new meaning and morality for yourself then nihilism will win.

 

[nazz]

And so is the intervention of a human being to cause suffering. So if one takes the view that all is "God", then "God" is certainly not omni-benevolent.

Well I'm also a dualist so there ya go

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well I'm also a dualist so there ya go

Good for you. I just happen to subscribe to dialectical monism.


"The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein." - A.C

 

[technomage]

Good for you. I just happen to subscribe to dialectical monism.

And I subscribe to "It's time to go to bed, I'll see you people in the morning." :sleep:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And I subscribe to "It's time to go to bed, I'll see you people in the morning." :sleep:

Nite-nite. Want me to tell you a bed time story...like "Goodnight Moon"?

 

[cottage]

So the evil of God is not something I would deny nor does it make me feel discomfort. In fact it offers some comfort and encouragement because God is just as good as God is evil. God's evil offers me assurance of God's goodness.

So God is sometimes evil, sometimes not? That is not an argument for ‘goodness’ but an example of indifference, which is actually a fact confirmed for us in experience. So where is the argument for an indifferent God over no God at all?

 

[Sees]

So God is sometimes evil, sometimes not? That is not an argument for ‘goodness’ but an example of indifference, which is actually a fact confirmed for us in experience. So where is the argument for an indifferent God over no God at all?

Neither good or evil may indicate indifference....sometimes good and sometimes evil doesn't at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ETA: More accurately, "omni-benevolent," _as we use the term_, is not among his, her, or its attributes. I personally believe that _if_ such an entity exists, it is fundamentally beyond our understanding.

Or, as I've written before, …

if G-d, then

for all { X }

G-d != { X }​

​

​

The Problem of Evil is the Problem of Anthropomorphic Projection.

 

[gree0232]

Or, as I've written before, …

if G-d, then

for all { X }

G-d != { X }​

​

​

The Problem of Evil is the Problem of Anthropomorphic Projection.

Actually, there is something of a problem when we start talking about omni ... whatever. The concepts are themselves basely illogical, and one in particular basally blows the issue out of hand.

Specifically, omnipotence is illogical. It means, literally, that anything is possible. As in ANYTHING. That would include taking the rules of logic and handily ignoring them.

For example, can an omnipotent being make something so massive that even he could not move it? Of course, such a thing is possible. Could he then, illogically, turn around and lift that thing he just could not anyway? Yep. Because EVERYTHING is possible.

When we attempt to limit these concepts by applying logic to them, we, in the very act of doing so, place boundaries upon these claims that can be violated anyway.

The question isn't really whether something COULD be done by an omnipotent being, but whether such a being WOULD do such a thing - assuming that an omnipotent and omniscient being understood the basic premise of logic - which would seem to be a valid hypothesis given the boundaries of omniscience - IMHO anyway.

The real question of the problem of evil is whether or not evil needs to exist? If we are here to learn and grow, to understand the importance of ethics, then it would seem that consequences for our actions MUST be in place to reinforce these lessons. That would include allowing people to BE evil and do evil things that they themselves might learn, and that others might see them and learn.

Is there a logical problem of evil for an omnipotent and omniscient 'God'? Nope. Attempting to apply logical boundaries to premises that are basely illogical is about the equivalent of attempting to logically reason with an disassociatively insane person.

Is there an ethical problem for such a God? Perhaps. Then however, the question become what our lives would be if evil choices were not permitted, and that, IMHO, would be a form of slavery. Allow some to choose evil or all to be enslaved? That is indeed something of an ethical pickle, but one I personally do not think a 'God' would be on the wrong side of by allowing people to make bad or otherwise evil choices.

 

[Willamena]

So God is sometimes evil, sometimes not?

Or good and evil coexistent.