Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil. — simplyG
Stunning. How do you define "perfect"? — javi2541997
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be — dictionary
According to your basis, free will always pushes us to commit sins. Only in a predetermined life would we all be perfect then? — javi2541997
I think there is a bigger problem than this. If creation is the product of good god, then why did this god conceive of and build a system wherein bloody and abject suffering of innocent living things was written into the very act of survival? To a great extent, insects and animals torment, hunt and eat other insects and animals in order to stay alive. What kind of a cruel deity (when presumably anything might have been possible) would conceive of a vicious reality wherein predation of this kind is a foundational attribute? — Tom Storm
That would defeat the purpose of diversity and life itself, I think he just wanted to create knowing perfection would be boring so he chose imperfection instead, I don't really know. — simplyG
The idea that god would be happy to factor in intense suffering as an inherent attribute of their creation (in order to prevent boredom) sounds sociopathic. — Tom Storm
I'm saying bad choices are bad and that not being able to tell the difference is ignorance rather than bad. If something evil is performed deliberately and the person performing knows it's a bad thing to do then there is not contravention of free will taking place, it's the privilege of having free will — simplyG
Yes, then you agree that the answer to thread's question is god creates suffering and therefore, that god is, in effect, indistinguishable from the devil (i.e. wholly unworthy of, or is immorsl to, worship). :pray: :naughty: — 180 Proof
Not saying evil is good, I am however saying evil is in one sense inevitable — simplyG
Jacob Boheme's insight was that such a unity cannot achieve certain things that divided being can. Self-knowledge is impossible for a unity because there is no differentiation between it and anything else. Just one thing existing becomes the same as nothing existing, it's like the information held in an infinite series of just 1s or just 0s. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If everything is good, without the possibility of bad, then good becomes contentless. It is a label applied equally to all things. Thus, the creation of good implies the bad. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I raised this point in another thread. If g/G is omnipotent, either 1) g/G is a sociopath or 2) g/G is beyond good and evil.
1) This would be that g/G has some sort of agenda where he needs evil to happen to see an outcome. But if he was omnipotent, surely he could have picked a range of choices that had no evils in it.
2) This would be that g/G is on a level of ethics whereby "good" and "evil" does not apply to him. He's working at a "higher level". But this doesn't get around the fact that many/all of his creatures did/do/will suffer and he is aware of it. How does ethics at a "higher level" justify suffering at the "lower level", when it is perceived as suffering at this lower level? Surely an omnicient g/G would know this.
Either way, these two scenarios are quite problematic. 2 is especially problematic in that it may be the case that humans are default being used for a "greater plan", but nullifying the "don't use people as a means to an ends". If there is no "greater plan", then there is still the mystery of why "suffering" and "evil" exist in and of itself.
Also, with 2, it is oddly anthropomorphic to assume that g/G has started a game (the universe/multiverse) so that he could watch something play out. If he is truly "beyond all ethical values of comprehension", even this pedestrian interest in watching a game play out, is ridiculously anthropomorphic. — schopenhauer1
Or alternatively again, there could have been a possible world where people could change the degree of hardship and change it back so that they had the opportunity for less optimal conditions to "overcome" something, but if this was too much, they could switch back, etc. If this is preposterous, it is because yeah, it doesn't exist. It's a "utopia".
The creation is still the output of a creator. See my problems above again.
R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.
The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances interacts with how they promote, or destroy other's freedom. There is the distinction between "learning to desire that which is good," and the second order volition aspect of "being able to desire what you want to desire." But these two only become mutually reinforcing in a social context of we "desire to want the good," and can make those desires effective. — Count Timothy von Icarus
IDK, that's like, if roads are good, saying that the road pavers not-build roads all the places there aren't roads and that this is a bad act. Or if numbers are good, and God only emanates the natural numbers, then God is somehow acting by not emanating the reals. — Count Timothy von Icarus
, it doesn't follow that any creation is act of creation is thus a contradiction of goodness. I personally have never found that sort of religious philosophy particularly interesting, so I forget the details, but I recall it being convincing. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God. — Count Timothy von Icarus
IIRC, this idea (re: Bakker's Neuropath) goes back about two decades earlier (at least) to George Alec Effinger's notion of cybernetic augments (re: "daddies" & "moddies") in When Gravity Fails and Iain M. Bank's genengineered "drug glands" in his early Culture novels Consider Phlebas and The Player of Games. Decades earlier, adjusting oneself to suit or despite circumstances biochemically / physiologically also is explored, though differently, in both Ursula Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness (re: "changing sex back and forth") and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (re: "soma drug"). I think the "neuro app", however, is the most likely version of this idea to manifest as feasible tech. :nerd:R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.
The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances ... — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.