God

Jaketejas wrote: Logan wrote: I tend not to use the term evil, because of certain connotations. I use the terms well-being and suffering more. If anger leads to a positive outcome, and ultimately minimises suffering and promotes well-being, then I might well see it in a positive light, but that itself is a complicated topic. In consequentialist normative ethical theories (a form of utilitarianism), one can only judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by its consequences.    In deontology, the morality is based on sets of rules rather than the consequences of an action. In classic "the problem of evil" territory (one of the first things I studied in Philosophy), if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, why is there so much suffering in the world (and according to some views, in the afterlife too)? Evil need not just refer to human actions, but also to things like natural disasters and illnesses. If God had revealed himself clearly (let's say to people generally), then we wouldn't have so many religions, and sometimes warring sects within religions, conceptions of God and Gods, nor would be have atheism (both positive atheism and soft atheism).   In term of the Abrahamic God and revelation, I have read the Old and New Testament, the Quran, and studied related texts, and God and his will is not revealed clearly to me, and I see contradictions (and obvious one between the Quran and certain Biblical interpretations is whether Jesus is God). There is variance in what is true and claimed to be Gods word. I do wish all firm Christians would read the Quran and all firm Moslems would read the Bible. By the way, if a God exists, it may or may not exist outside of the universe, it may or may not exist outside of our local universe but in the greater cosmos, or it may not be possible for God or Gods to exist at all depending on the conception.   There have been more than a thousand gods, and a huge many hypotheses about the nature of a God. Jaketejas wrote: One point I made is that whether or not you believe in God is purely a matter of faith. That cuts both ways (faith that there is God or faith there is no God) because one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God from scientific measurements. However, you may (if you so choose) rationally infer the existence of God from conscience, from the fact that there should be a basis for good and evil (otherwise you must provide an alternative), as well as other arguments. I don't see it that is way or see it as a simple dichotomy. I don't believe in God, in other words I am not convinced that God exists, but I also don't claim that God does not exist as I am not a positive atheist (someone who not only does not believe in God but also states that God does not exist). My lack of belief is not a position or article of faith. I don't believe in Zeus or Thor other than as a concept/ characters/ part of mythology..., but I'm not making a positive claim to the non-existence in the terms where we tend to talk about the existence of a God or gods. On a tangential note, one of the worst claims I have heard as "evidence" for God has come from some Christians: "I know that God exists because it says so in the Bible." "Why do believe in the Bible?" "Because it's the word of God". I have often heard circular reasoning and begging the question arguments used to claim the position that God exists. I agree that many people use circular arguments. I hope my arguments are anything but circular for the possibility of God, and the idea that either way (belief or disbelief) is purely a matter of faith. I cannot see your logic for choosing wellbeing and suffering as a basis. The reason is that they are states. I can rationalize a person who breaks into someone's home, steals their stuff, commits acts of atrocity on the family, and leaves with a tremendous sense of wellbeing. To me, that's evil. I can imagine a firefighter who enters a crumbling building to save a child, gets stuck, suffers and dies. I call the act, despite the suffering, one of good. I don't think we've mentioned any one particular religion because we haven't cleared the hurdle regarding the philosophy of moral law. If a creator God exists, then if such God created the universe, it stands to reason that such a being exists outside the confines of our known universe, at the very least at the point of inception. Of course, if such a being exists, that being could certainly intersect with the creation. But, trying to detect such a being by scientific means seems to me like an exercise in futility. If such a God came down and made known intentions point blank to every person, then that would seem to me to be taking away from free will. How such a God might handle the various religions is really beyond the scope of my understanding. What people who call themselves Christians say regarding the basis of their beliefs is entirely up to them, but I have put forth what is, for me, a rational explanation for the possibility of the existence of God and what such a God might be like. And, I have done so without mentioning any religion, or beating up on any one religion.

This is not coming from a selfish perspective. Maximises well-being while minimising suffering.... The perpetrator might have a sense of well-being, but he has certainly not maximised the well-being of the family or minimised suffering. That is in-line with a response of mine to yours earlier in the thread where I said "While my determinism affects my views (under some philosophical definitions I would be considered a compatibilist), I have a sense of of morality based on the assumption that the world would be a better place if it had the least amount of suffering and the most well-being, and anything else that I think follows from it, and we should strive to make the world a kinder, fairer, and better place. It has to do with the kind of world that I would want to live in and what I think others would benefit from."

I don't have a problem with calling certain acts evil and good, or with how you're using the term. When people are classified as evil, or a supernatural force or presence, I am more likely to take issue. I love Time Bandits, and found Evil awesome in that. Just re-watched it last night:

Kevin: "You mean you let all those people die just to test your creation?"
The Supreme Being: "Yes. You really are a clever boy."
Kevin: "Why did they have to die?"
The Supreme Being: "You might as well ask why we must have evil."
Kevin: "Yes, why do we have to have evil?"
The Supreme Being: "Ah, I think it's something to do with freewill."

I concur with such a conception of God as creator of the universe, and have come up with the same conception (it's the only idea to consider and we are so limited in understanding) -- even as a child when thinking about it, that's where it took me. If no time, energy or space existed before this universe, and in fact nothing existed in the truest sense being the absence of something, then it seems logical that it would have had to be outside of it to create it. That said, it might still be part of the cosmos rather than being part of the local universe, and not supernatural per se.

I've also rather liked the idea of God being everything, and every atom is a part of its being. If there is God, we don't know if creating the universe was intentional anymore than our body producing new cells is intentional. God can be such a nebulous concept.

On the free will part (while acknowledging that I don't believe in truly free will) making his intentions known need not necessarily take away libertarian agency. My dad let his intentions be known often, but that didn't mean that I followed his wishes. I often chose not to (even if a variety of causes forced that effect).

I'm fine with people believing what they will, generally, provided they do not force those beliefs on others, and if I don't think it causes harm. That said, I don't think it is entirely up to them (even if I believed in limited free will) because people are inculcated with belief systems and made to feel guilty when they question all too often. Note that I was responding to more than your post, others have brought up religions, specifically, the God of Abraham, Judaism, Christianity and Islam was brought up. Religion does tend to come up when God comes up, of course, as I think most believers in God adhere to a religion and have developed a conception based on their religion.

Edited by Logan - June 28 2019 at 15:02

Something that really doesn’t seem to make sense is for believers to be offended by blasphemy. Hear me out here. I’m not talking about heresy. It does make sense for believers to actively oppose false teachings about their belief system. But blasphemy, “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God,” sounds like something God should handle himself. If he’s insulted, he can punish the blasphemer now or in the hereafter. On the other hand, why would God be offended? It seems like that would be the same as you or I being angry at a two-year-old sticking his tongue out at us. For either of us to fly off the handle would be a sign of instability or irrationally. For us to insist that the other children punish the offending child would be petty and cruel.

Jaketejas wrote: But, to me the question seems a bit circular, because in essence you are asking ... why is God ... or why are people offended by the offensive?

Yes, I see your point. I guess I meant to ask how God could possibly be personally offended by one of his creations.

Maybe easier to see the argument if you flip it. If God was not offended by evil, that means that God condones evil ... which is impossible for a being that is considered by those who believe in God to be the ultimate good.

God huh... 

I'm not being sarcastic or tongue in cheek when I say this but I think you can see why I deemed it necessary to undertake an exercise in rational thought.

YESESIS wrote: Exercise in rational thought. If we accept that time and space are infinite then I would think that a 'Higher Intelligence' almost certainly exists somewhere. This is obviously apart from my own personal experiences telling me that it's so. If we think that the part of the universe that we're aware of is all that exists anywhere then we're like the ant who thinks his hill and immediate surrounding areas are the whole world. Think about it.

I was pointing out that an exercise in rational thought can lead to the idea of a higher power outside the known universe and that belief and unbelief are purely matters of faith.

Ok I read some of your posts and I see a lot of good and evil, and free will. Yeah I was shown that the purpose of this life is basically to learn and grow as people/spirits. Free will is necessary for this. And so unfortunately some will choose to do evil, until they learn a better way.

Atavachron wrote: ^ What your describing is nature.   Nothing more and nothing less.   Not sure what you mean by 'the part of the universe that we're aware of'--  do you mean the part we can observe which is clearly minuscule, or the possibility that something else exists entirely that would remain undetectable even by a more advanced civilization? Further, it seems that generally those who believe in a Higher Intelligence (God) will always do so, and those that see things in a scientific/para-physical way also will always do so.