I agree, with the sad fact that I don't see a dichotomous optimistic realism.

The first problem, of course, the extreme anthropocentricism of religions.

The second problem is the chaotic unrest being acted on by the organized good. Evolution indeed can be seen as a function of this movement, but eventually entropy will take over, and everything will end up in a quiet, luke-warm, uneventful and smooth movementless world.

What then? Whom do you declare as triumphant? The Good, or the Bad? (Or the ugly??)

Evolution indeed can be seen as a function of this movement, but eventually entropy will take over, and everything will end up in a quiet, luke-warm, uneventful and smooth movementless world. — god must be atheist

We'll, I think the "real answer" to that is that WE DON"T KNOW. So in the face of our ignorance of what would happen, we are free to be optimistic and even hope for a dichotomous natural processes behind good and evil that produces a natural evolutionary process that ends with the triumph of the GOOD! The dichotomy about natural good and evil I think is important otherwise we'll end up in mythical accounts about ethics and worst confused ones where good produce evil and the irony it said to be 'wisdom'? Quite ridiculous!

the "real answer" to that is that WE DON"T KNOW. — Zuhair

The sad truth is that we do. Entropy will nullify all movements in the entire world.

The sad truth is that we do. Entropy will nullify all movements in the entire world. — god must be atheist

Is this a FACT of physics? or just a hypothesis?

As far as I understand, it is one of the laws of thermodynamics.

Work and movement change can only occur if there is a differential in energy levels. Once the energy levels even out, then there is no chance of movement change.

I don't know if you can call it a fact. It makes sense, much like evolution does. It is rather all the facts that are possible put together give you this outcome.

I don't know if you can call it a fact. It makes sense, much like evolution does. — god must be atheist

Evolution is a fact. But what you've mentioned is a conjecture. Is there strong evidence to support that energy levels will even out?

There are lots of paradoxes in monotheism, that I don't see in dichotomous optimistic realism. — Zuhair

Why would you add when you can delete and get the same result?

Why would you add when you can delete and get the same result? — TheMadFool

Plain deletion is a partial answer. You won't get the same result! dichotomous optimistic realism adds hope and value, something that just deletion won't confer.

Monotheism pictures a sole wise good God who created a world in which evil is so prevalent, that he can of course stop at any time, yet permit it to exist physically, for some agnostic purpose. — Zuhair

This is ‘the hotel manager theodicy’. Because there is suffering, then God must be either evil or at least a terrible manager, because He lets evil occur. ‘Hey, people are starving! There’s been an earthquake! How can this happen! I WANT TO SEE THE MANAGER.’ And we just can’t understand this. Of course, if God was the ideal manager we suppose him to be, then there would be no suffering, illness, disease, catastrophe, unfairness, inequality, or negative outcomes of any kind. The world would be this perfectly amazing resort where everyone would enjoy perfect health and there would be nothing called suffering. And this obviously isn’t the case, so what does this say for God, eh? :rage:

@Zuhair

Isn't it MORE ethical to think that the source of good is not the same as the source of evil, that there are natural processes that can even be rational (but natural) that planned all Good things, and that opposes a vigorous natural but separate chaotic stuff that is the source of evil, that the first good natural processes are taming over time, thus resulting in "evolution" .

One of the views that combines the laws of thermodynamics, especially entropy, and a god is deism. In which one believes there is a god that created the universe and actualized the world we live in, but after his creation, decided to sit back and allow the world to run its course. Which allows evil, entropy, and natural disasters to take place. Could this god be the benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity?

I would like to argue that yes it could be.

God created us with freewill so that we would love him of our own choice, not out of his choice/ force. So, he decided that he would create a world for us, place us in this world, and then remove himself from this world so that we would know that we are acting entirely of our own accord. One might look at this situation and say well why did he need to remove himself if he wasn't going to be tempted to change our decisions? I would reply that He didn't remove himself for his own sake, but rather for our own sake. Another might rebuke with the statement, well then he must not love us very much if he is willing to leave us to fend for ourselves against the evil that the world and humans create. And to this I would reply, that God clearly values our own freewill over us living in a perfect world where we never experience evil because we don't have freewill. One could also insert the soul-making theodicy, but I do not particularly appreciate that idea. To me it is saying that God didn't make us right the first time around when he placed us on earth, that instead he placed evil around us to make us into beings fit enough to live in harmony with him in Heaven. My idea is that he gave us freewill which allowed evil to enter the world and natural disasters because he has removed himself from our world, so that we could choose whether we want to follow him freely and spend our afterlife with him in Heaven, or we'd rather choose to not follow him and perhaps end up in Hell. As for the fact that God has to have made each and everyone of us, he indirectly has because he created the first human beings who in turn have created every human since.

1. God created us to have freewill, and the world to be initially good and without evil.
2. God removed himself from his creation after finishing.
3. Evil exists today
4. Evil exists because God created us with free will and removed himself from the world he created, letting us and the world run its course.

On another note, good and evil are selfish labels we assign to things that negatively and positively affect us. But nature is an unthinking and unfeeling “thing” it does not think about its actions, it simply does. Perhaps the “evils” of natural disasters like forest fires, earthquakes, tsunamis are a way to make room for new life to be born. Same thing with death, if we never died, then eventually there would be no more capacity for new human life. Perhaps humans need to die, to make way for life to continue either in a new human form, or let a different species thrive. Its only evil because it negatively affects us. Likewise good things affect us positively. So are doctors good because they usually prolong life? Most would argue yes. But what about the overpopulation of the planet? And the pollution that goes along with overly crowded areas? In this perspective doctors are evil by perpetrating the abundance of human life, and preventing natural deaths that would otherwise occur. So the "evil" that we think God allows, is only evil because it negatively affects us.

Dear Anna,

What you say is too contrived to be true! Would you let your child to choose the road that leads to her being for example kidnapped, while you could have prevented that, just because you are respecting her choice? What kind of a respect of freewill is that? Is that respect an act of LOVE? Or it is just an act of freewill game. Even worse the game we are speaking her can have an endpoint of ETERNAL TORTURE in hell. So God leave you lead the way to that destiney, why? because he loves you and thus respect your free will to go their???? Clearly such a god is not benovolent at all. He like to play games that can lead the participants to go to eternal damnation, like being burned in hell FOREVER, and allow himself not to interfere in that very dangerous game, because he is repsecting actually the ruls of the game, which are phrased as "respecting and valuing our choices", why because he loves us. What a contradiction! So playing a game is more important than preventing subjects from eternal tourcher, or even preventing them from humiliating painful experiences our life is full of, leaving children (who understand nothing of free will) to be the most that suffer from humiliation, disease, rape, etc.. Why? because he respects free will??? Now why animals suffer from pain? is it because he respects their free will ??? Animals lived on earth for hundrunds of millions of years before the rational humans came over, now why all of those ages were full of pain??? it is becasue he respected their free will??? There is too much chaos and agony over the whole living kingdome for "respect of free will" to make up for it. It doesn't work!

Dear Zuhair,

In your recent post, you made the following claim:
Monotheism pictures a sole wise good God who created a world in which evil is so prevalent, that he can of course stop at any time, yet permit it to exist physically, for some agnostic purpose. Isn't it MORE ethical to think that the source of good is not the same as the source of evil, that there are natural processes that can even be rational (but natural) that planned all Good things, and that opposes a vigorous natural but separate chaotic stuff that is the source of evil, that the first good natural processes are taming over time, thus resulting in "evolution" . The problem of evil disappears with the second realistic position, while it is so prominent with the first one that it can only be evaded by running away form it and seeking refuge in optimistic agnosticism. While the second option seems to couple ethical kind of realism (i.e. realism that does NOT feature the paradoxicality of a good who did the bad) with apriori optimism. It appears to me that Monotheism confuses ethical issues, so you see a God ordering evil things like tsunamis, congenital anomalies, earthquakes,etc.., ordering his profits to kill people including innocent children and even animals and plants, and even planning an everlasting torture in hell for MOST of people as an outcome of his wise plan of free will? There are lots of paradoxes in monotheism, that I don't see in dichotomous optimistic realism.
I think your argument has this form:

1) Monotheism leads to ethical paradoxes that are not present in dichotomous optimistic realism.
2) If monotheism leads to ethical paradoxes that are not present in dichotomous optimistic realism, then we should favor dichotomous optimistic realism to monotheism.
3) Therefore, we should favor dichotomous optimistic realism to monotheism (from 1, 2 via modus ponens).

I have the following objections to this argument. Premise one is faulty. Dichotomous optimistic realism as laid out here is vague and unclear. Because of this, it cannot necessarily be posited that the ethical paradoxes seemingly present in monotheism are not present in dichotomous optimistic realism. This argument trades a clearly defined concept in theism for blind hope in optimistic agnosticism. Because of this, premise one is questionable. Furthermore, premise two is also faulty. It is not clear that monotheism leads to ethical paradoxes that are not present in dichotomous optimistic realism. Monotheism offers many solutions to ethical paradoxes like the problem of evil, while dichotomous optimistic realism is vague and does not necessarily have answers for all the ethical problems seemingly present in monotheism. Many people would favor a clearly defined concept with potential flaws over one that claims to get past these flaws without clear evidence that it does. For this reason, premise two is also questionable, and the argument is unsound.

Sincerely, Joel