Humans and God share common traits — MoK
We can however have access to our past experiences, so-called flashbacks. — MoK
An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? — BC
A perfect agent is God and not a human with all human limitations. Humans have to get through, evolve further, and grow to become perfect (if that is possible at all). Therefore, humans are not perfect yet. If God can create a perfect agent then God should only create God!If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. — kindred
As far as I remember from the Bible Adam looks good in the eyes of God and not perfect. I don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't know what image means. Do you? In regards to humans, we know that humans are the result of evolution and humans were not created at once.In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. — kindred
Bad Karma from the past life.Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that? — kindred
What do you mean by the perfect creator?In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god. — kindred
How would you know the concept of joy without suffering. How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment. — kindred
That's wisdom.Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. — BC
And that is a problem. You are not critical of your own beliefs. It seems you are here to tell us what you believe, but not to listen or think about things in a new way. Not to do philosophy.I don't think that there is any problem with this view. — MoK
There are several points to be made JUST here. The main one is that 'everything happens for a reason' is both true and NOT RELEVANT to this issue.I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith. — Gnomon
I love this take. Even the way you write it about someone else writing about it SEEMS to be saying that 'fair' means something akin to NOT 'good for you', but MORE LIKE 'easy and perfect for you'. I think it is safe to presume, to infer, that most people will interpret the statement or idea that way. And THAT is the problem.The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". — Gnomon
And THAT specific delusion is morally repugnant to me. Acting or choosing in the name of GOOD, is ... evil, if you do it for any reward other than the sake of the perfect moral GOOD within any moment. That means that clearly, ANY AND ALL transactional efforts towards morality are highly immoral.Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". — Gnomon
No, indeed not. The concept of karma is deeply silly. It again assumes an immoral transactional nature to actions and choices. I suppose if one approaches the moment of now, of choice, as an asymptote, a limit, then that is still ok. That would mean what I already outlined above. The reward or punishment (still somewhat transactional) happens immediately.Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. — Gnomon
No, that is incorrect. Such a conclusion can only be drawn if one is blatantly incorrect (subjective) and transactional in outlook (again incorrect). I guess an easy way to say this is that such a person has NO IDEA what fairness really is.Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. — Gnomon
Again, this is incorrect faithless subjective nonsense.As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". — Gnomon
I would define this conclusion, as constructed, as blatant sophistry of a very low order.For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional? — Gnomon
You should change your mind. The mind and all fear constructs are prisons, limits, by definition. They NEVER arrive at perfection. Only by balancing the transcendence of desire and the being of anger into fear, is moral choice made wise.Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", — Gnomon
Philosophers are not only divided. Taht rather implies a duality. Instead it is a multiplicity of infinite variation of failure.I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. — Gnomon
And see then how Plato was waffling. And then how modern science waffles.Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when. — Gnomon
Nonsense! Politeness, as most often portrayed colloquially, is an uncommitted position. It is THE quintessential waffling mistake, an immoral choice.I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile: — Gnomon
Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.
Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is. — kindred
Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring. — kindred
Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence. — kindred
Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.
Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for happiness to be appreciated. — kindred
I don't know all the attributes of God. I think that humans are not perfect so they don't psychologically have access to all the possible attributes including attributes of God. We have instinct. We can think logically. We have the impression of intuition. I don't know what wisdom is but people talk about it. People talk about meaning too but I don't think that any human has ever experienced it yet. And so on. To complete I don't think that God has access to the future since the future is not decided yet.These statements suggests that your concept of God is too small. A being who is present in all times--past, present, and future; and in all places, knows all, and has unlimited power can't be contemplated using humanoid traits, like thrift or duty, or by comparing God's omniscience to our measly flashbacks. — BC
Without suffering no organism can evolve. So suffering is an inseparable aspect of life. Why God didn't create a perfect agent? God couldn't since a perfect agent by definition is God.An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? Or, why didn't God make people who were good from the start and stayed that way? And so on. We look at this unlimited being from our extraordinarily limited being's perspectives, and think we see God's mistakes. Highly presumptuous. — BC
Yes, our problems are our problems but that does not mean that God is not in charge.Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. It's just that if we want to CLAIM that god is unlimited, then we have to accept that we will never understand such a being, will never understand the Divine plan of Salvation, or anything else about God. We don't have to reject the existence of this unlimited God, but our severe limitations in understanding God put the ball back in our court.
In other words, our problems are our problems. — BC
1) god CANT create a universe where humans can have this knowledge without suffer — schopenhauer1
god is a sadist who wants to see his victims learn a lesson, very humanlike this god is :brow: — schopenhauer1
f course god is capable of creating a universe (or at least a planet) without suffering yet how could you appreciate the beauty of it. If all you tasted is milk and honey how could you truly appreciate that compared to starvation? — kindred
How could we appreciate health without sickness or happiness without suffering ? Justice without injustice etc … — kindred
If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say? — schopenhauer1
Do either of you think that we can make the world fairer? Do you think we ought? — Banno
That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong. — AmadeusD
If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong.
— AmadeusD
Why? — Banno
I like to drop in a Latin phrase every now and then too, but it's helpful to provide a translation or English definition, especially when one's Latin gem is NOT common knowledge (like et cetera). — BC
Then back to my points earlier about a god that can’t create a universe where joy and no suffering exist. God wants this universe to have suffering. And he could make a universe without it. That’s all the info you need. — schopenhauer1
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.