-
wax
301I once read on a forum somewhere far far away, a while ago, that Buddhists believe that if someone ponders the origin of evil for too long, that they will go insane.
If we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil?
If we take the assumption that God is all knowledgeable then, he will know every single action, and permutation that is possible...he will know that it is possible for for a being to kidnap and torture to death someone who meant only good to the beings they came into contact. He will know that the torturer was once an innocent being himself, and fell to an existence of destruction.
And that is just a glimpse of what he knows.
Can a being with such knowledge exist without it corrupting them? Will it not affect them in some way.
If they feel a bit down about the whole thing, maybe life gets a bit dark for them...maybe even God.....and..so he has the bright idea of creating an angel..so powerful that he will drive off the darkness, and fill the world with light, and hope.,...no sooner he thinks it, then it is done, there shining like a billion suns, is that angel............and there is hope, but then the angel is filled with the darkness he has light........he is an angel whose job it is to shine, though, so he goes on shining..or trying to.......anyway, pop goes the weasel and he is done, corrupted forever....this angel is the fall-guy for the knowledge of good and evil.
and a continuing process which has a religious theme, but my main point is the knowledge of the darkness, is an intrinsic part of reality, in an infinite number of possibilities, a fraction of them will be very tragic, and for God this is inescapable.
Does this not make sense, from certain points of view? No need to go insane.
ps, I realise I am just an organism that evolved from bacteria, I must always try to remember the mistake of thinking I really am doing any more than scratching the surface with my thinking. -
tim wood
9.3kIf we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil? — wax
The assumption God is. What do you mean by "God"? "What, exactly, do you mean by "God is good"? Usually people mean by "God" a perfect being of unbounded powers - whatever that means. Trouble is, if you assume that, then anything follows that you care to derive. On the assumption, you can prove anything you want to prove. Which is worth nothing. It's simply an older, but in virtue of that a much more stupid, game of my superhero can beat your superhero.
Why appeal to the supernatural? Try your thinking without recourse to something you cannot reasonably define, or that cannot reasonably exist. If you cannot, then you cannot be reasonable. Or even sensible.
Why not start with just good and evil? Give us your working definitions of these terms, so that we may know where you're starting from, and then say or argue whatever it is you wish to say or argue. -
wax
301
Well I personally think the God hypothesis is fine.
If you start from the position that there is a God, and that he is the source of reality, then it follows that he must have at least some good about him, or life in the universe would be hell; not even a crumb of good, or beauty.
Examples of good, are a piece of toast with marmalade, in the morning, with a cup of tea..whilst listening to some beautiful music.
Examples of bad, or generally processes of destruction that lead to a level of misery...information of which is often available in the news media.
So if God has some good in him, then where did all the destruction and misery come from, is the subject of the thread. -
tim wood
9.3k
And it's fine you think so.Well I personally think the God hypothesis is fine. — wax
So if God has some good in him, then where did all the destruction and misery come from, is the subject of the thread. — wax
Why the question, if God is who and what you think He is? What does the existence of your question imply about (your ideas of) God? -
Terrapin Station
13.8kIf we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil? — wax
Good and evil are assessments that people make about behavior. They're not something that exists independently of people making assessments. And not everyone makes the same assessments about the sake things. -
wax
301
yes, right...I don't think there is such a thing as complete objectivity, there is always subjectivity in our perception, but take the experience of physical pain, for example.
I experience it sometime, like some of the times I've been to the dentist, or injured myself...headaches etc.
Some good may come of pain, but when experienced at the time, there doesn't seem to be much good about it...I assume most people feel physical pain at times.
When there is an earthquake somewhere often people are injured and killed....the injured I assume often feel pain to various degrees, some to the point of misery,
these don't seem consistent with a reality that is all good. -
tim wood
9.3kThat he is error-prone, fallible, makes mistakes - and is clearly questionable
well I have no problem with that, but let us assume he is not error prone, and doesn't make mistakes...where then do processes of evil come from? — wax
As Terrapin pointed out, the evil is in your eye. What makes you think that just because you think something is evil, that it is evil. -
wax
301As Terrapin pointed out, the evil is in your eye. What makes you think that just because you think something is evil, that it is evil. — tim wood
As I said I don't believe completely objective positions on reality are possible, they are always subjective.
Therefore there can be no objective definition of ''evil'.
It seems to me, from my subjective point of view, that some very bad things go on. Processes which lead to great suffering by people and animals. Again I say it is my subjective point of view.
If I see a star go super nova in the sky tomorrow, it will I guess be a subjective experience, but when thousands of astronomers observe it, and it is in the news, a lot of the world will know of it. Supernova last a few days, and can sometimes, if close enough to Earth, even be seen in the day.
A lot of the world's people will subjectively experience the supernova, and it will be generally accepted that the has been one.
The same collective acknowledgement, although subjective to the individual, I base my OP question about where do destructive processes that lead to suffering come from. -
tim wood
9.3kThe same collective acknowledgement, although subjective to the individual, I base my OP question about where do destructive processes that lead to suffering come from. — wax
Time for you to give a clear statement of what you understand evil to be. Not to be confused with evil-to-you.
If by "destructive processes that lead to suffering" you mean the storms of the world and its natural processes, then the answer is built in: it's part of the world - it is the world! -
wax
301Time for you to give a clear statement of what you understand evil to be. Not to be confused with evil-to-you.
If by "destructive processes that lead to suffering" you mean the storms of the world and its natural processes, then the answer is built in: it's part of the world - it is the world! — tim wood
but if the source of the universe and this world is God, then why is it built in? surely it could be possible to create a place of living without suffering. -
Heracloitus
500@op
You have to define your understanding of 'God'. Perhaps start with saying whether God is immanant or transcendent, as I think this will effect your inquiry significantly. -
wax
301Questioning God? And how do you know you're suffering? What is "suffering"? And how about that clear statement about evil? — tim wood
well perhaps for the sake of argument, we could replace 'suffering', for 'evil'.
If I try to define 'evil' I will only base the definition on suffering anyway.
How do I know when I'm suffering?
Well it is a feeling. It commonly means that something bad is happening to my body, although there are conditions where people can feel pain for no ordinary reason; it is some kind of brain or nervous system problem..
All I can say is it isn't really something I want to experience too often...That is my subjective position on pain and suffering.
From my subjective experience of other people, they tnd to follow similar lines of thought, and try to avoid pain, and this makes sense evolutionarily, as an organism that isn;t motivated to avoid pain, and dangerous situations, won't over many generations, survive as well as those organism that are motivated(by pain) to avoid or deal with dangerous situations.. -
tim wood
9.3kthat is based upon the assumption that there is some kind of god. — wax
We get back to the first point. You assume a "superhero." With that you can do whatever you want. There is no discussion of interest, significance, or merit that comes out of such things.
As to Christian notions of evil and suffering, The evil in question is of and from Satan, and nothing to do with the natural world. The pains and ills, the suffering, you experience from the natural world are nothing to do with any Christian idea of God. But there are incorrect understandings of that - mainly, if someone tells you that God can save you from the pain of suffering, they're selling something. -
wax
301We get back to the first point. You assume a "superhero." With that you can do whatever you want. There is no discussion of interest, significance, or merit that comes out of such things. — tim wood
In this thread, we are debating a hypothetical reality, based upon certain assumptions/axioms.
We are arguing about a model.
It isn't supposed to be like a comic where the creator of the comic can draw whatever picture they like, and create any story they like.
It is quite correct that the assumptions that the model is based upon should be clear, the rest of the model should be argued about following on from the assumptions, in a logical way.
I most likely haven't laid out my assumptions for the model in a clear way.
Perhaps we can flesh out the groundwork for the model, and the assumptions it is based upon.
Assumptions for this model:
There is some kind of god.
This god is the source of everything.
He is all knowing.
He does not want suffering, and will optimise his actions to avoid it.
He has his own needs.
Anyway, it seems like a difficult problem to set out the assumptions, but I just was hoping for a fairly loose discussion on what the origins of suffering are.
If God has always existed, and there are logical reasons for why there is suffering, then it seems to logically follow that there has always been suffering.....so maybe in assuming there is a god, we end up having assumed there is suffering...(?)....to start with, and so are no clearer about the origins of suffering... :)
Anyway if that ends up as the logical conclusion, then the existence of suffering isn't an argument against the idea the god is benevolent.
It has puzzled me for a few years, when exactly the devil is supposed to have come about...if he came about at a certain point, then did he not exist for an eternal amount of time(time in the realm if god that is).... -
tim wood
9.3kAssumptions for this model:
1) There is some kind of god.
2) This god is the source of everything.
3) He is all knowing.
4) a) He does not want suffering, b) and will optimise his actions to avoid it.
5) He has his own needs. — wax
1) Granted by assumption.
2) ditto
3) ditto
4) a) ditto
4) b) Given 1, 2, 3, and 4a, this as it stands is incoherent. If he's God and he wants it, then it's done, yes?
5) Can you give any account at all of what it might mean for God to have needs?
Sorry, you shall have to unpack this. There appears to be a hidden assumption that suffering, presumably meaning an unpleasant felling, is somehow justified. I reject this for lack of evidence or argument.and there are logical reasons for why there is suffering, — wax
Anyway if that ends up as the logical conclusion, then the existence of suffering isn't an argument against the idea the god is benevolent. — wax
You may be interested in the scholastic realism, nominalism schism. The realists argued in essence that God is good, the nominalists that God is all-powerful - omnipotence v. benevolence. Can't be both. And suffering, at least to Christians, never was an argument against benevolence, although not for your reason.
In an argument/model based on an explicit hypothesis, you have to be prepared to dismiss the hypothesis if it doesn't make sense. A characteristic of religious discussion/argument is that the hypothesis is taken as real, and what doesn't make sense is explained away or ignored. Not scientific, certainly not logical, as it turns the logic upside down. -
Michael Ossipoff
1.7kIf we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil?
If we take the assumption that God is all knowledgeable then, he will know every single action, and permutation that is possible...he will know that it is possible for for a being to kidnap and torture to death someone who meant only good to the beings they came into contact. He will know that the torturer was once an innocent being himself, and fell to an existence of destruction.
And that is just a glimpse of what he knows. — wax
You didn't say that God is omnipotent. Not all Theists believe that God created this physical world or is responsible for its worse aspects. (I'll avoid your Biblical word "Evil"),. For example, the Gnostics don't believe it, and I agree with them.
Omnipotence is problematic, and brings contradiction.
Do you think it would be possible to make there be a logical proposition that is true and false?
Do you think it would be possible to make there be two mutually-contradictory facts?
If not, then maybe you're blaming too much on God.
Michael Ossipoff
9 Sa -
wax
301You didn't say that God is omnipotent. Not all Theists believe that God created this physical world or is responsible for its worse aspects. (I'll avoid your Biblical word "Evil"),. For example, the Gnostics don't believe it, and I agree with them.
Omnipotence is problematic, and brings contradiction.
Do you think it would be possible to make there be a logical proposition that is true and false?
Do you think it would be possible to make there be two mutually-contradictory facts?
If not, then maybe you're blaming too much on God.
Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
I steered clear of omnipotence. -
wax
3015) Can you give any account at all of what it might mean for God to have needs? — tim wood
part of the assumption that there is a god, is that you can place that assumption anywhere, ie the assumption also logically that you are not dealing with where he came from,and that he may have always existed.
This is one problem with humans trying to build a model based upon the assumption of there being a god, in that it is kind of our usual thinking and experience that things have beginnings.
So with a hypothetical god model, there is no initial condition.
But let's say he has the power to make changes, to create, to make decisions.
What would motivate him to use this power?
Is it based upon a need?
It seems like everything we do is based upon a need..if it isn't, why would we do it?
The same seems this would be true of god, as well.
Can you explain what decision, and action that isn't based upon need, is then based on? -
wax
301I don't understand your question. — TheMadFool
I presume you mean the question 'what is the origin of evil?'...?
Well lets say that maybe I should have used the word 'suffering' instead.
What is the origin of processes that lead to suffering?
There usually is a consensus that there is suffering in this world, so what brought this about?
If God doesn't want suffering, then what lead to its existence? -
tim wood
9.3k
First, I consider desire and need kissing cousins - not worth distinguishing between them. But. to to have a need is to be subject to - to the need. How can God be subject to anything? Presumably also, need, it seems, must be prior. God would not create it, would he? And, you overlook reason as motive, although you have not established that "motive" applies to God. God, it seems to me, must be prior to motive. And God as realized reason, has no need of reason, being himself reason itself. These are just a few of the rabbit holes a casually created God falls into.Can you explain what decision, and action that isn't based upon need, is then based on? — wax
For me, a person, not all my decisions and actions pursuant to my decisions are based on need, and neither are yours.
This is one of your givens: given, God does not want suffering. I would argue that if God does not want it, and given your other givens, then there is no suffering. Whatever it is you think is suffering must be something else, and it's up to you to say what that something else is. If it isn't something else,, and there is suffering notwithstanding that God does not want suffering, then your premises 2) and 3) above are a problem.If God doesn't want suffering, then what lead to its existence? — wax -
TheMadFool
13.8kThis is the problem of evil. An answer that makes sense and also doesn't satisfy is that we can't comprehend God's intent or logic. Just as a child doesn't understand why of getting punished.
The best riposte to that is that even apparently ''simple-minded'' life like humans can think of utopian worlds. Why couldn't God?
Perhaps God's hands are tied and nothing could be done i.e. evil is necessary. I’ll give you a thermal analogy: Life is impossible at absolute zero because there’s no energy and at very high temperatures chaos doesn’t permit life. Another way of saying that is life falls somewhere in the “middle” and once we’re placed in that position we’re subject to the two poles of the spectrum. Not only Evil but also Good exist because of this situation. -
wax
301This is the problem of evil. An answer that makes sense and also doesn't satisfy is that we can't comprehend God's intent or logic. — TheMadFool
funnily enough when I reach these positions after a lot of thought and taking myself way too seriously, I do find it intensely satisfying.
To realise I am naked and an atom in a reality whose complexity maybe unbounded...I am like an amoeba compared to the intelligence that is running the show. -
TheMadFool
13.8kfunnily enough when I reach these positions after a lot of thought and taking myself way too seriously, I do find it intensely satisfying.
To realise I am naked and an atom in a reality whose complexity maybe unbounded...I am like an amoeba compared to the intelligence that is running the show. — wax
I think we shouldn't take the ameba analogy too far. There's a lot we know now. Diseases, for example, were thought to be the work of evil spirits but now we know germs exist. Of course your ameba analogy still works in that we can still fit disease and actually any and all that is conceivable into it. The well known phrase ''God works in mysterious ways'' is apt here.
Notice though that such a standpoint is irrefutable and some consider that a flaw. I don't know why as yet but it does look suspicious when someone says: "I'm right no matter what''. -
wax
301Notice though that such a standpoint is irrefutable and some consider that a flaw. I don't know why as yet but it does look suspicious when someone says: "I'm right no matter what''. — TheMadFool
I like this quote that someone had on a forum in their signature:
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas
not that I know any Latin, but I know how to google...:)
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
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.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum