23 Feb 11
Originally posted by DowardAnd you cannot conceive of a better, more benevolent way to achieve the same goal?
My point is this: a world with no challanges creates no growth or incentive for growth in the human species, therefor the world is perfect just as it is.
Is this because:
1. Are you lacking in imagination.
2. You do not believe God is capable of carrying out your imagined improvements.
3. You refuse to imagine because that might threaten your belief system.
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am content with the creation as it is, so I do not fall into any of the catagories you have listed.
And you cannot conceive of a better, more benevolent way to achieve the same goal?
Is this because:
1. Are you lacking in imagination.
2. You do not believe God is capable of carrying out your imagined improvements.
3. You refuse to imagine because that might threaten your belief system.
Since this is a hypothetical exercise, then imagine that a being powerful enough to create an entire universe, and all the life contained therein, in addition to al the laws of nature. Do you honestly believe (hypothetically) you would be in any position to question the motives, design or authority of such a being? I think not.
23 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYes our suffering is subjective and so when the plane is falling out of the sky, everyone is suffering anxiety and suffering....but for the man in seat 56, who has spiritual knowledge and who self realized, he does not suffer the anxiety as the others....why?
Let's take Jesus as an example once again. I think everyone would say that of all people, he lived a spiritual life, yet without question he suffered.
Again, you are diminishing peoples suffering when you say that it is illusionary. Even if you are right in that it does not exist, it matters little. All that matters is what is real to you.
Because he is rightly situated and his consciousness has been raised to the transcendental platform which enables him to rise above the suffering of this world.
I am not diminishing the peoples suffering but i am just presenting the reality.
I can not present my comments padded in cotton wool.
The point is, God has the complete over view and God is fully aware that all our suffering is illusionary...... and also anyone who is self realized is aware of this as well and they do not suffer for knowing this.
If people want to live an un Godly life and stay fixed in the illusion, then the subsequent suffering is of their own doing, and God cannot change that.....but the person can.
There is not one person on this planet, who knows the mind of Jesus 2000 yrs ago on a cross.....and what he was feeling or not feeling.
23 Feb 11
8 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe thing is, when you apply "omni" or "maximal" to any statement about god's attributes, pragmatism, common sense, etc... goes completely out of the window - To satisfy the criterion of some attribute like benevolence being maximal then it really has to be a 24h batman (otherwise it might qualify only for being very very very ... very benevolent as opposed to maximally benevolent). To preempt any charge that it is immature on my part that I'd want a god to be such a batman, I want no such thing!! Moreover and I see little reason why one should cling to the notion it is omnibenevolent - it does not undermine the belief in some god to suppose it isn't.
does that mean 14 year old kids won't ever need to not go in dark alleys at night? does that mean all policemen can just go home because a father figure will fight all crime? how about free will? is there a free will if you cannot choose but from a set of actions determined by an outside figure? could we all jump from the tenth floor and demand god to catch ings are hard to fix. that doesn't mean we may demand a supernatural being to do it for us.
As for the scenario I offered, one can suppose we concentrate only on the special cases where misfortune befalls those who cannot realistically prepare or cope with it (and treat cases by their individual merit). For example some wierdo stalks the kid (without his knowledge) and grabs him, at knife point, say, when his route diverges away from his friends on the way home from school; and then leads him to a park where he will be raped and killed. Either way the kid is screwed here because if he dares to shout for help the man knifes him - and if he tries to prolong his life by doing as commanded he gets killed anyway. In this setting there is naff all the kid can do. Moreover we can suppose hypothetically there is noone nearby to help the boy after he's been grabbed and the wierdo is smart enough
to make sure he stays out of the way of other people.
Or if this is too contrived for you (and I really have all the freedom I like to come up with examples) then again I can ask you what I have asked two others:
is a world where Hitler was not struck down by some mysterious bolt of lightning (just before concretising his plans and mobilising his minions) no better than a world where millions of lives were not lost trying to stop this madman?
23 Feb 11
4 edits
To put it another way zahlanzi, consider the following hypothetical exchange (for illustration)
Alice: I have a pet spider in my bedroom and it's the biggest spider in the world, no spider could ever be bigger!
Bob: The biggest spider possible!? I can't think of any spider that's bigger than the spider in your bedroom; even if it isn't alive!???
Alice: Yes! I bought it from Andy's Awesome Arachnids and he says it's the biggest spider ever!
Bob: But what about Museum X down the road, it has a spider exhibition, and one of the spider sculptures they have built for people to look at is massive - it's even bigger than your bedroom! Thus it's got to be bigger than your spider!
Alice: Nonsense! how can it possibly be bigger than my bedroom, no spider is that big!
Bob: See for yourself, it's massive
Alice: Is it a live spider?
Bob: You never specified live, you merely specified it's the biggest spider in the world and it lives in your bedroom. Moreover, whether it is alive, dead, made by humans or whatever - it satisfies the criteria for being a spider and so it must be considered along with any other spider
Alice: That's just silly, you're expecting me to believe in spiders bigger than my bedroom???
Bob: Unfortunately you have to consider ALL spiders if you're going to say it's the biggest spider in the world; be they live spiders, exhibits, or otherwise... Indeed they need only be spiders, and exist on this world!
The point I'm trying to make here is that even if what I conclude from omnibenevolence sounds stupid to you, it is reasonable because of the claim you're making (implicitly) by maintaining the word "maximal"
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaI think it might help to imagine that we are dealing with a God character, like a team pf playwrights, trying to invest that character with believable characteristics, given what we see in the world. This God character doesn't necessarily have to match up to any existing God, we just want it to be believable.
[b]...If people want to live an un Godly life and stay fixed in the illusion, then the subsequent suffering is of their own doing, and God cannot change that.....but the person can. ...
Let's assume for the moment that this God character we are constructing is omniscient with respect to the all the free choices that would be made by each person if that person is created, and God is free to create that person, or not, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.
Let's assume that the world can be populated entirely by people who have freely become Godly. (There are logical reasons this has to be true, because otherwise, the last ungodly person on earth would not be free to choose to be Godly.)
In this case, isn't God free to choose NOT to create those persons who "stay fixed in the illusion" and thus have subsequent suffering 'of their own doing?' God could choose to create only those who will freely choose, whether later or sooner, to live the Godly life.
One of us writers argues that this is a perfectly believable God character, in that we can make it so everyone God creates eventually becomes Godly; just takes some people a lot longer, and/or more lives, to see the light.
To some others, such a God character always will be able to choose not to create that one person who will suffer the most, so there will always be such a suffering person that God could have skipped creating, with no harm done.
But this leads to a whittling away of people being created, and a recognition that the God character will have to be written to create only those people whose first freely made choice is to be Godly from then on, as the only justifiable divine action. And no suffering before that first choice! What's the point of letting people suffer before they have a choice about becoming Godly?
They can't think of a logical reason that God can't create only those persons who do not suffer before they can choose freely, and as soon as they can, freely choose to be Godly.
Except, this doesn't seem to be happening. Rewrite!
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by JS357People create their own suffering, so do you want God to intervene into everyone lives and stop them doing what ever they are doing so they dont suffer.......that would not work at all.
I think it might help to imagine that we are dealing with a God character, like a team pf playwrights, trying to invest that character with believable characteristics, given what we see in the world. This God character doesn't necessarily have to match up to any existing God, we just want it to be believable.
Let's assume for the moment that this God charac ...[text shortened]... n, freely choose to be Godly.
Except, this doesn't seem to be happening. Rewrite!
Someone drives drunk at 100 miles per hour and you want God to come and grab the steering wheel.
And the suffering is an illusion as well....so why would God interfere in what's taking place in a dream.
People are in illusion by their own volition....God doesn't put them in illusion.
The world is a world of illusion, only when the person accepts the illusion.
You should be asking why do we all continue to accept the illusion and therefore suffer.
We continue to accept the illusion because of lust and because of our tendency to lord it over the material energy at any cost.........and the costs are,...... selfishness, violence, corruption, untruthfulness, greed and so on.
As you say false religion does construct their God from their conditioned minds.....but authorized spirituality/religion (Vedanta) presents God as God is, and there is no one doing any fabricating of any God figure.
23 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardThe mistake your making here is looking at a small sample of problems humans can solve or have solved and then extrapolate from this humans can solve all problems.
I live in the Northeastern part of the USA, it gets very cold here in the winter, it also gets very hot and humid in the summer. The winter would not be survivable for human beings if we didn't build shelter, store ample supply of heating fuels, and larder foods. All of these things take a cooperative effort in order for the species to thrive and survive in t ...[text shortened]... owth or incentive for growth in the human species, therefor the world is perfect just as it is.
I say there are some problems humans cannot, or could not have solved (until the problem ran it's course). For example: nasty diseases and pandemics - they take lives; no intellectual or spiritual growth occurs for those who are swamped in pain, and whose every thought is centred on the knowledge they're going to die a slow, horrible and hideous death for which there is no present cure.
It's a wonderful world for people hacking their lungs out and being eaten alive from within eh? Of course, I'm quite content to say that life can be cruel - and remain consistent with my beliefs.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaYou didn't get it, did you. I only want to explore what it would take to create a believable character that merits being called "God" as that appellation is commonly used. It's a way to invite new thoughts. I don't expect anything new from you.
People create their own suffering, so do you want God to intervene into everyone lives and stop them doing what ever they are doing so they dont suffer.......that would not work at all.
Someone drives drunk at 100 miles per hour and you want God to come and grab the steering wheel.
And the suffering is an illusion as well....so why would God interfere in ...[text shortened]... (Vedanta) presents God as God is, and there is no one doing any fabricating of any God figure.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by Agerg"Given that you "don't have all the answers" I'm not so sure I trust your first paragraph. But anyway let's go slowly..."
Given that you "don't have all the answers" I'm not so sure I trust your first paragraph. But anyway let's go slowly...
Is a world[hidden](that has no shortage of a-holes presently to partly preempt your next response)[/hidden]where Hitler didn't get struck by lightning before his rise to power better than a world where millions of jews were not tortured/ki ...[text shortened]... f people did not die painful deaths trying to help put an end to a madman's evil schemes?
If I had said I did have all the answers would you believe me? Never mind that. lol
"Is a worldwhere Hitler didn't get struck by lightning before his rise to power better than a world where millions of jews were not tortured/killed, and millions of people did not die painful deaths trying to help put an end to a madman's evil schemes?"
No. I read somewhere once that 36 billion people have lived since creation. They are all dead. Would it have been better had they never been born? I am as horrified as you are by the ugliness that is going on around us everyday. We'll never know the extent of it.
Why do you think you associate suffering with the existence of God? Assuming there is no God, does that alleviate suffering? But if there is a Creator/God, is He then the cause of suffering?
God is the diamond in the shattered glass.
If I read you correctly, this is your issue; That it is claimed that there is a "GOD" who is the most supreme being imaginable. That the existence of such a being is inconsistent with the fact of the existence of unspeakable suffering.
Is it? Do you really think you have an open mind? You'll have to invert your thinking. The fact is that the existence of what is plainly visible, the pain and horror and suffering, is the evidence for the existence of the being you claim doesn't exist.
You think that's crazy? Well then, why don't we blame it on evolution? We live in a vast universe of universes of space, matter, and time where there is only organic matter intent on its' own destruction.
Or maybe there is a reason for suffering other than the idea of the survival of the fittest.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by Dasa"The point is, God has the complete over view and God is fully aware that all our suffering is illusionary..."
Yes our suffering is subjective and so when the plane is falling out of the sky, everyone is suffering anxiety and suffering....but for the man in seat 56, who has spiritual knowledge and who self realized, he does not suffer the anxiety as the others....why?
Because he is rightly situated and his consciousness has been raised to the transcendental platform ...[text shortened]... who knows the mind of Jesus 2000 yrs ago on a cross.....and what he was feeling or not feeling.
Suffering is an illusion? You are suffering from an illusion. You, and those who think like you are part of the reason why suffering continues.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergI disagree, my view is actually far broader than yours. I see beyond the immediate, you see only the determinite means and not the determinate ends.
The mistake your making here is looking at a small sample of problems humans can solve or have solved and then extrapolate from this humans can solve all problems.
I say there are some problems humans cannot, or could not have solved (until the problem ran it's course). For example: nasty diseases and pandemics - they take lives; no intellectual or spiritua ...[text shortened]... se, I'm quite content to say that life can be cruel - and remain consistent with my beliefs.
What causes cancer? In most cases it is some outside carcinogen, occasionly it is mere gentetics. In the case of carcinogens, that is humankinds fault, in the case of genetics, it is still our own fault. We have substansively increased our life expectancy by curing numerous ills (especially childhood ailments). When this occurs over the course of a 78 year life expectancy, then oportunities for new diseases take root. 150 years ago few died of cancer, most died of infections, fevers, nutritional diseases etc...
Humankind has the ability to treat cancer, but we still haven't found a cure or prevention. The reason isn't in our abilities, its in economics. Treating cancer is far more lucrative than curing it. Now if you want to have a discussion about the meits of free will and how THAT causes suffering, well I'm game.
24 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardNo doward, you cannot see beyond the immediate as you claim; you merely look at a few special cases then falsely assume these special cases are sufficient to prove a general rule. This is poor logic.
I disagree, my view is actually far broader than yours. I see beyond the immediate, you see only the determinite means and not the determinate ends.
What causes cancer? In most cases it is some outside carcinogen, occasionly it is mere gentetics. In the case of carcinogens, that is humankinds fault, in the case of genetics, it is still our own fault. We ha discussion about the meits of free will and how [b]THAT causes suffering, well I'm game.[/b]
So lemme get this straight, if
cancer is caused by carcigens - it's our fault
cancer is caused by genetics - it's our fault.
Lemme extrapolate further - everything that is harmful to people like earthquakes, influenza, aids, homicidal maniacs, etc... is our fault collectively!? Well what about what is *my fault*, as an individual - or little Jimmy who got murdered by a stalking psychopath --- what was *his* fault? The defence of lumping all cases into one basket is lazy thinking.
Btw, how do you substantiate that economics is the obstacle to finding a cure for cancer, short of just your faith and a couple of other cases where economics might have been a barrier to a different thing.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by DowardActually that makes your answer 1. you are lacking in imagination - unless your contentment is due to some other reason perhaps?
I am content with the creation as it is, so I do not fall into any of the catagories you have listed.
Since this is a hypothetical exercise, then imagine that a being powerful enough
What is 'power' in this context?
to create an entire universe, and all the life contained therein, in addition to al the laws of nature. Do you honestly believe (hypothetically) you would be in any position to question the motives, design or authority of such a being? I think not.
I do not see why not. But the issue of the thread is not whether or not we should question this authority, the issue is whether this authority is the greatest conceivable being. I think not.
24 Feb 11
Originally posted by Agergearthquakes: geologist's have deduced that many earthquakes are a result of the moons effects on our planet. each year the moon moves approx 1/4 inch from the planet. At one time it was extremely close, The extreme closeness of the moon caused actual "tides" of molten lava. Its presence is in large part at fault for the movement of our tectonic plates (though not entirely). Without the moon however, life on the planet would not exist...period
No doward, you cannot see beyond the immediate as you claim; you merely look at a few special cases then falsely assume these special cases are sufficient to prove a general rule. This is poor logic.
So lemme get this straight, if
cancer is caused by carcigens - it's our fault
cancer is caused by genetics - it's our fault.
Lemme extrapolate further - ...[text shortened]... th and a couple of other cases where economics might have been a barrier to a different thing.
Also on earthquakes: we know where the fault lines are yet we still build cities right on top of them...go figure🙄
Influenza: no one need die of influenza, economics (read greed) keeps the inoculations out of the hands of the poor...our fault
aids: our fault, clealry our fault. For godsakes where a condom, or better yet lets not screw monkeys then eachother...clearly our fault as a species
homicidal maniacs: our fault again. economics (read greed again) keeps us from spending the necessary capital to hospitlaize or institutionalize and treat mental disorders, we simply attach a stigma, wait until they commit a criome and then throw them in prison...our fault again
I can go on busting you up all day, just keep feeding me examples, or you can admit that my premis is universal and save yourself the embarrassment