It just goes to show that those people are judging everything by their own standards.I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer
Shall we revisit the Psalms, wade knee-deep in the blood of David's enemies, to see that there is plenty of justification for hostility and violence in the Bible that believers in Jehovah can draw on? — baker
My "mind is not for rent to any god or government".
— Harry Hindu
Don't flatter yourself. ;-) — Wayfarer
Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. — Athena
What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased? — Athena
The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.
— baker
What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back. — Athena
I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?
“Basis”, not “bias”. — DingoJones
↪baker
I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer
Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication? — Athena
Really? If we know nothing about any of g/G's other "qualities", how do we then know it's even possible (yet not necessary) for it to exist?All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. — god must be atheist
Which "God"? I glean from posts above you'd rather avoid discussing whether or not g/G exists, but I don't see how any discussion does not presuppose an existence claim either way (unless by "God" you mean just a referentless, or philosophical, concept and not a 'providential entity' of Abrahamic, Vedic or pantheonic religions).I would love to open up the discussion of God... — Athena
You are raising the point that existence is a quality or attribute. There is a debate on that. A huge debate. I am on the opinion (feel free to disagree) that existence precedes the ability to have qualities and attributes. Without existence it is impossible to have qualities and attributes. Therefore existence is such a basic quality or attribute, that it can't be a differentiator -- everything in existence has existence, and the qualities and attributes may very well vary. Therefore, since existence is an across-the-board undifferentiated quality or attribute for everything existing, itself existence is not an attribute or quality.Really? If we know nothing about any of g/G's other "qualities", how do we then know it's even possible (yet not necessary) for it to exist? — 180 Proof
what the purported goodness of God actually entails — Wayfarer
those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’ — Wayfarer
Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis
entails knowingly allowing children to be sold in to sex slavery where they will sometimes be raped to death, then that is no goodness at all. (If he doesn’t know, or can’t stop it, then that’s an excuse that saves his goodness, but undermines any claims to godliness in the sense people usually mean). — Pfhorrest
You’ve yet to explain on what grounds....something can be called good or bad other than the enjoyment or suffering, broadly construed, that it brings about. — Pfhorrest
You’re depicting God as a responsible executive, a commander in chief who 'allows' or 'stands by'. It is an anthropomorphic projection. All of those evils are done by human beings, by people. Presumably if they were conscientious Christians (or Hindus or Buddhists), they would never behave in those ways - which is not to say that Christians don't behave like that, but when they do they're obviously flouting their own laws. All of the terrible evils done in the last century - the holocaust, the atomic bomb, the killing fields, the immense loss of life in war - these were all done by people. — Wayfarer
And people have free will, they're able to behave however they like. If they were programmed to only do good, they'd be mindless automatons for whom good means nothing. — Wayfarer
The religions depict a highest good in terms of 'eternal life' or 'Life', capital-L. — Wayfarer
a good that has no opposite — Wayfarer
And God has no power to stop people from doing these things? Or doesn't know he needs to? Or he just doesn't bother? Which is it? — Pfhorrest
If God existed, I would love for him to make me very smart/wise/insightful/whatever such that I am never in error about what the right thing to do is,. — Pfhorrest
a good that has no opposite
— Wayfarer
Would not the deprivation of it be its opposite? Just as sickness is the deprivation of health, etc.
4 hours ago — Pfhorrest
No, the problem is that you're taking up a problem that is not yours to begin with.So the problem is that we are mistaken when we say that child sex slavery is bad, and from God’s perspective that’ must be perfectly fine, since he clearly allows it to happen? — Pfhorrest
IOW, you have knowledge of God? First-hand, certain knowledge of God?Oh but God gave man free will. He didn't give that to women who must submit to men. However, in Heaven, there is no free will, because our free will does not go with perfection. — Athena
Presumably, there are God's terms.The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.
— baker
What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back. — Athena
And whose problem is that?I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. Well, god does not give us any indication which way god is, so, again, WHY ARE SOME OF US SO PRESUMPTIOUS AS TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUALITY OF GOD?
This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.
I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer. — god must be atheist
I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. — god must be atheist
God is not the kind of super-person you imagine. — Wayfarer
God is always telling humans not to kill, steal, commit evil and so on. That is what ‘conscience’ is. The fact that there are those whose consciences are stunted - like psychopaths - or who choose to disregard it’s urgings, again doesn’t mean there is no such attribute as conscience. Humans are free to disregard it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. — Wayfarer
It might work if you actually believed it rather than simply making a rhetorical gesture. Religious people go through a lot to try and realise that state of grace. — Wayfarer
Regarding ‘deprivation’ - one of the philosophical doctrines of evil is ‘evil as privation of the good’. It is associated with Augustine. The idea is that evil has no actual being, in the same way that shadows are simply the occlusion of light, and cavities the absence of matter. In Augustine’s philosophy, evil is the absence or privation of the good, if we were to see the true good, then we would realise that evil has no inherent reality. — Wayfarer
If you don't believe in God, then the presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are none of your business and none of your concern. — baker
And circling back to the OP, if all you mean by "God" is conscience, then as I said a post or two ago I would love for "God" to "exist more" than "he" already does: I'd love for it to be easier to discern what is good and easier to follow through on that judgement. — Pfhorrest
Right, that's what I was referring to. Yet darkness is still the opposite of light, even while it is also only an absence of light, no? — Pfhorrest
a "mystical", "religious", or "peak" experience is a kind of intense contentedness, which is consequently quite pleasurable in contrast to the usual pains of life. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.