08 Feb 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn Hindu view, the dualities such as just-unjust, good-evil, happiness-unhappiness etc. exist within the human perceived world which although real, is very dynamic and changing ever so fast every micro-instant of time. It is a Mayic ( delusional ) world which we take to be permanent. Behind this expressed reality, the unexpressed reality exists. When we experience the unexpressed reality, we have realised God. The best answer to the paradoxes/ dualities in the Mayic world is that we do not and can not understand God's Lila ! Lila, coincidentally, means a Game in Sanskrit !
Small scuttlebutt surrounding the Patriot's decision to allow the Giants to score in the final minutes of Sunday's Super Bowl got me to thinking how similar the situation is to the existence of evil in the world. Namely, how such a thing can be allowed to exist by a perfect God.
Any takers?
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by JS357That does make more sense of it. I believe that god placed no restrictions on what we can do besides our obvious physical limitations. While it's not physically possible for our brains to create fire, if it were, we would certainly be free to light someone on fire this way.
That's because the most evil act you can think of is something someone could do. Like I said, God could have made it impossible for us to even imagine the most evil acts, at the same time as he made them ones that were impossible to do. Like, it is impossible (I think) for mortal beings like us to just will people to light on fire. God could have decide that is too evil.
Maybe that example makes more sense of it?
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by dryhumpI think it does make sense.
I don't think you're post makes sense JS. People have free will. That means nothing is off the table. Hitler can incite an entire country to exterminate members of a religious minority. Albert Fish can murder and eat children. People can also make wonderful choices, like Mother Theresa and Gandhi.
Imagine that the infinite list of all possible "acts" is arranged on a continuum of goodness. We would by definition define one end of the scale as evil. What if god removes half the continuum (the bad half) - makes those deeds IMPOSSIBLE. Would we not then have to define what was left at the bad end as "evil"?
Perhaps he has already done this? (Unimgainable evil has already been eradicated from the universe)
18 Feb 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't consider it as problematic as it may appear.
Such a thing as evil can be allowed to exist by a perfect God if this evil were necessary for some greater good to obtain. So, now you just need to show that it is plausible that all the evil that does exist is as such. Good luck with that....
Most of what we call 'good' is essentially non-offensive whereas the 'evil' is offensive action against the sanctity of personal sovereignty. There exists aggressive good, wherein one actively pursues the furthering of another's happiness but such behavior is icing to the cake and not necessarily expected.
Nonetheless, the concept of a greater good isn't too hard to overcome, if one considers 'good and evil' as one system subservient to a higher rule.
Imagine the following scenario for the purpose of argument.
The commissioner owns the game--- invented it, made the rules, set the parameters--- and the only way for it to be played by any team or player is if the commissioner allows for the same to occur. At any time, at any place, for any reason, the commissioner can by fiat terminate a player's or team's play, or call the game... take his ball and go home, as it were.
Being the sporting type, the commissioner decides to coach his own team and joins the fray. Who would play against him, given his all-powerful reach? No one, unless he adopted the restraints which are placed upon all other players/coaches/teams. He commits to following the rules which he previously put forth and further commits to refraining from using his position as commissioner in order to vouchsafe the success of his team: no matter what the outcome of the game played by the rules, he will play within them instead of using his otherwise all-encompassing power.
Given that the commissioner knows the rules at least as thoroughly as any other coach or player, does it behoove him to use those rules to his team's advantage?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have bumped this, presumably to give a chance for replies. But frankly I don't see how it answers LJ's challenge: "Such a thing as evil can be allowed to exist by a perfect God if this evil were necessary for some greater good to obtain. So, now you just need to show that it is plausible that all the evil that does exist is as such. Good luck with that...."
I don't consider it as problematic as it may appear.
Most of what we call 'good' is essentially non-offensive whereas the 'evil' is offensive action against the sanctity of personal sovereignty. There exists aggressive good, wherein one actively pursues the furthering of another's happiness but such behavior is icing to the cake and not necessarily expec ...[text shortened]... her coach or player, does it behoove him to use those rules to his team's advantage?
21 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince His attribute of omniscience knew all evil power elite devious perpetrations; hoodwinked rank and file machinations; and all potential and real outcomes in infinite detail from Eternity Past... the op premise would seem not to present much if any contradiction at all. What am I missing, Freak?
Small scuttlebutt surrounding the Patriot's decision to allow the Giants to score in the final minutes of Sunday's Super Bowl got me to thinking how similar the situation is to the existence of evil in the world. Namely, how such a thing can be allowed to exist by a perfect God.
Any takers?
P.S. Frankly, I'm equally interested a few details regarding the 2011 Super Bowl "... scuttlebutt"
🙂
21 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMost of what we call 'good' is essentially non-offensive whereas the 'evil' is offensive action against the sanctity of personal sovereignty.
I don't consider it as problematic as it may appear.
Most of what we call 'good' is essentially non-offensive whereas the 'evil' is offensive action against the sanctity of personal sovereignty. There exists aggressive good, wherein one actively pursues the furthering of another's happiness but such behavior is icing to the cake and not necessarily expec her coach or player, does it behoove him to use those rules to his team's advantage?
No. A lot of what we term 'evil' does not mean to implicate agency; whereas your characterization of 'evil' here implicates agency, since actions are performed by agents. The problem of evil encompasses the subject of so-called natural evils too, for example. Please make sure your argument addresses all the types of 'evil' at issue.
Imagine the following scenario for the purpose of argument.
Okay, I am imagining it. Please go ahead and present your argument.
Given that the commissioner knows the rules at least as thoroughly as any other coach or player, does it behoove him to use those rules to his team's advantage?
I do not understand the question. Is it not trivial (simply definitional) that any advantage behooves its possessor?
Not sure how any of this is relevant. What is your actual argument?
22 Feb 12
If having free choice means that evil is perpetuated, then surely god must be evil at he/it has free will. Evidence of this is that over the ages there is more evil in the world than there is/has been good (which is why many feel justified in accusing god as being evil). Maybe there is an alternative, who knows.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySome folks herein have trouble getting their minds around omniscience, I guess!
Since His attribute of omniscience knew all evil power elite devious perpetrations; hoodwinked rank and file machinations; and all potential and real outcomes in infinite detail from Eternity Past... the op premise would seem not to present much if any contradiction at all. What am I missing, Freak?
P.S. Frankly, I'm equally interested a few details regarding the 2011 Super Bowl "... scuttlebutt"
🙂
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe problem of evil encompasses the subject of so-called natural evils too, for example. Please make sure your argument addresses all the types of 'evil' at issue.
Most of what we call 'good' is essentially non-offensive whereas the 'evil' is offensive action against the sanctity of personal sovereignty.
No. A lot of what we term 'evil' does not mean to implicate agency; whereas your characterization of 'evil' here implicates agency, since actions are performed by agents. The problem of evil encompasses the ...[text shortened]... possessor?
Not sure how any of this is relevant. What is your actual argument?[/b]
I have truly never heard of anyone, anywhere referring to natural disasters as anything remotely close to 'evil' or any other descriptor involving agency... unless they are attempting to argue that God's refrain from involvement, i.e., stopping catastrophes, is a form of evil.
If you look at the first two or three pages of Google search, excepting the BMX bikes or other random products, you will find evil referenced only as an act of agency.
If you search Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you will find the same result (minus the BMX bikes, of course).
Not sure where you got the concept that floods, earthquakes and large-scale loss of human life as a result of unintentional/natural occurrence, so I really can't speak to something that doesn't appear to be part of common parlance.
Not sure how any of this is relevant. What is your actual argument?
Given the scenario, the relevance is that God is expected to use the best strategy in order to secure a win.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by JS357A simple read of my post a few above yours should clear the question
You have bumped this, presumably to give a chance for replies. But frankly I don't see how it answers LJ's challenge: "Such a thing as evil can be allowed to exist by a perfect God if this evil were necessary for some greater good to obtain. So, now you just need to show that it is plausible that all the evil that does exist is as such. Good luck with that...."
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo lets restart the thread and title it "Existence of 'bad things'." I am fairly sure that most people in the discussion thought that dying of a nasty disease or an earthquake was well within the definition of 'evil' that we were talking about.
Not sure where you got the concept that floods, earthquakes and large-scale loss of human life as a result of unintentional/natural occurrence, so I really can't speak to something that doesn't appear to be part of common parlance.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWow. Have you actually studied the problem of evil at all? I am sorry to be so brutally honest, but you ought to be simply embarrassed that you presume to declaim on the argument while clearly having little or no familiarity with it.
[b]The problem of evil encompasses the subject of so-called natural evils too, for example. Please make sure your argument addresses all the types of 'evil' at issue.
I have truly never heard of anyone, anywhere referring to natural disasters as anything remotely close to 'evil' or any other descriptor involving agency... unless they are attempting t ...[text shortened]... the relevance is that God is expected to use the best strategy in order to secure a win.[/b]
Maybe you are the one who should bother to actually read those references you cite, since it is simply outrageously false that they support your contention that the problem of evil does not, in common practice, encompass such 'evils' as the states of affairs you mention. I mean -- honestly -- did you even bother to read them before you entered them in as evidence? For example, try reading the following link from the Stanford Encyclopedia, which is something you cited. You cannot honestly be serious when you imply that this website supports your contention.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
Even a very cursory reading of it will show that your contention is false. 'Evils' in the common sense of the argument surely do include suffering, pain, etc, that are in the cards of the consequences of articles of the natural lottery.
At any rate, if you think your theodicy does not need to encompass such natural evils, you are simply wrong. There are an astounding number of seemingly unfortunate states of affairs (with, again, no implication of direct agency) that result in suffering, pain, death, and such bads. It really should be a no-brainer that your theodicy needs to address this.
Given the scenario, the relevance is that God is expected to use the best strategy in order to secure a win.
I am afraid I do not understand your argument. How does your argument purport to show that it is plausible that all the evil that does exist is necessary for some greater good to obtain?