Then of course there is the idea that our flawed universe is the product of a Demiurge. The Gnostic accounts suggests a creature of some malignancy. — Tom Storm

I think the Gnostics were simply unintentionally early advocates of the Many Worlds Hypothesis in theoretical physics :D. As I said to MoK:

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1

The idea of a god who is not all powerful, who sacrificed himself to become Jesus, who in turn was sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, belongs to a respectable theologian whose work I read and whose book title and name I can't remember.

I do like to write with some levity and in a jokey way. I'm not trying to make my "thought" more accessible -- I'm expressing an idea which includes the advisory that we should not take all this stuff too seriously.

I don't know whether I believe in god -- omnipotent, hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin -- or not. Most years not, some days yes. The family and institutional programming we receive early on is generally hard to overwrite. So, I used to like to read theology (a limited sample, anyway, mostly very liberal stuff). I haven't read any for maybe 20 years. Is there a Theology Anonymous group? I could get a 20 year pin. — BC

This is a fun theology (not for Jesus I guess). Good fanfiction if you will (they are all varieties of fanfiction of course). But what does it even mean to "take away sins of the world"? If we are talking Pauline sin of Adam's eating of the apple and getting kicked out of Eden, then okay.. What did this change? If god sacrificed himself for human sins, why did he need to do that perfunctory act if he could have just did it without killing poor ole Jesus- or I guess himself (?). At this point, it's like we are just interpreting poor rules made up by a Dungeon and Dragons designer on a poorly thought new early edition...

I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"? It doesn't matter if the game ends in eternal damnation/bliss, or temporary purification/purgation, or whatnot. The idea of eternal damnation or temporary (the rules of the game) don't matter here, just that THERE IS A GAME.

Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?

Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless

But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety. And GUESS WHO IS THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN THE GAME- HUMANS!! OF course! We truly are images of God, who is a reflection of us, that is.

As I said in a previous post:

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety.

Ok, I think that your view shares some similarities with Spinoza's but isn't compatible with it. After all, there is no 'real' cosmic evolution in Spinoza's view. Change is an illusory appearance that we percieve because of our limited perspective. In the highest way of seeing the world, there is no change. — boundless

Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. But for philosophical interests, I can imagine a god's-eye-view of the Cosmos, as illustrated in the image below*2 {note --- Enfernity is my mashup of Eternity and Infinity}. Of course, these imaginary metaphors should not be taken literally. :smile:

PS___ The small gray circles represent hypothetical multiverses that only an infinite-eternal God would have "time" to create. Again, not to be taken literally.


*1. Block Time or Eternalism :
In the philosophy of space and time, eternalism is an approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. . . . .
It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

I see your point here. But Spinoza would deny any kind of autonomy for human beings. He would say that if we have free will, we would have some kind of independence from God and, therefore, we would be individual substances — boundless

Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink:

*2. GOD EXISTS IN ENFERNITY

*3. GOD OUTSIDE SPACE-TIME

The juxtaposition of the multiverse versus the limited universe of the ancient Near East is amusing.

I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"?

Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?

Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless

But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety.

Ok, I see. But if suffering is literally endless, how can such an endless effort be something desirable to us? — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace.

For instance, IIRC, Kant's view was that the progress to ethical perfection is endless but I don't think that after a certain point, it involves suffering. — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot achieve a state without suffering.

This leads to me to another question. Do you think that any kind of 'dynamic progress', so to speak, necessarily involves suffering? If so, why? — boundless

Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress.

But if such a goal is utterly unachievable and suffering cannot be eliminated, why we should seek it? — boundless

We can reach a state of relative peace even if suffering is boundless.

they are all varieties of fanfiction of course — schopenhauer1

At this point, it's like we are just interpreting poor rules made up by a Dungeon and Dragons designer on a poorly thought new early edition... — schopenhauer1

It's the Great Apostolic Blunder Machine***, made of patches, work arounds, bridges to nowhere, arcana, fog machines, heresies even to the heretics, schisms and scandals, drama, mysterious goings on, holy holy holy, books piled upon books, rituals in the dark, all the way to bright shiny aluminum Christmas trees and chocolate bunnies. WTF

Why would anyone bother with it? The whole thing, though, has been powerfully inspirational to any number of very highly motivated preachers who were determined to convince us pagans that THIS IS THE TRUTH. Believe it, or else! Jews, Christians and Moslems, have gotten roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the people to more or less believe it.

Because the world is an unsatisfactory place (referencing the title of this thread, "Is the real world fair and just?" -- clearly not) there is religion, and...

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

-Uncle Karl-

There is a reason why religion is the opium of the people, and--dragging in chemical dependency--why giving people opium for 2000 years is a bad policy.

What we must do is change the heartless, oppressive, world. There--just like that. Simple, right? Just fix the world and people won't need religion. Good luck on that, he says to himself.

***The title of an unpopular book by John Fry.

Sheol looks a lot like the oil deposits under the Middle East. They were ahead of their time.

↪Gnomon
The juxtaposition of the multiverse versus the limited universe of the ancient Near East is amusing. — schopenhauer1

It may be amusing to you because you have seen images of Earth from above the Firmament, and no God in the picture. That's because God was standing behind the camera. :joke:

This all makes no sense, so I'll leave you to your own musings unless you want to explain your use of "against wisdom" here. — schopenhauer1

First of all, I have to say that I don't have an argument for a God who is the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning of time. All I am saying is that if there is a God who is perfect, whether perfection is bounded or boundless, in all his attributes would not create any lesser agent than God who is subject to suffering since the suffering cannot be justified. This however requires the existence of a God who can create another God and It is Just. If these two conditions (a God who can create another God and a God who is Just) do not meet then we are dealing with a variety of Gods so creations also look different depending on the type of God. For example, we can have a God who is Just but cannot create another God. So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally.

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything? — schopenhauer1

Well, that depends on the definition of God (the types of Gods as it was discussed in the last comment) that we have to agree on. The act of creation is positive if something positive comes out of suffering for example.

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1

I think that the whole, what you call God, is boundless and I have an argument for it (you can find the argument in my threads). So, any sort of agent that can be imagined exists if the whole is filled with stuff. Therefore, I agree with this part of your statement that there could be spiritual agents that for example in charge of enforcing Karma.

So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally. — MoK

All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.

That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. That is not perfect. As far as humans needing god, I can think of plenty of reasons for that:

Psychological:
The fear of death, pain, trauma, meaninglessness, and the unknown, combined with the desire to avoid punishment for wrongdoing and find justification for good deeds, are all aspects of a collective version of individual conscience. This collective conscience addresses its own issues by providing a means for individuals to repent and alleviate guilt over their misdeeds within a communal context.

Historical/cultural: The Judhites, on their return from Babylonian Exile used previous myths, traditions, and prophetic literature of a prior literate class that centered around Jerusalem to create a more systemized belief system, shaping a henotheistic system into a strictly monotheistic one...

Anthropologically: To explain natural phenomena and life's mysteries. It helps societies establish a shared set of beliefs and narratives that promote cohesion and continuity across generations.

All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.

That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. — schopenhauer1

I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. The creation of the universe does not add anything to a perfect God but it adds to existence if existence is positive. So I don't understand why a perfect God would not want to create.

I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. — MoK

You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering

Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything.

Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them.

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"? It doesn't matter if the game ends in eternal damnation/bliss, or temporary purification/purgation, or whatnot. The idea of eternal damnation or temporary (the rules of the game) don't matter here, just that THERE IS A GAME. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand why you continue to use the 'game' analogy. It is more like a training or a learning process in my opinion.
The reason why I brought Christian Universalism here (a view that lately I feel drawn to BTW), is that ultimately in that view the end result is positive*.

But anyway, for your first question... well, I don't know. Maybe a 'loving, perfect God' creates because it is an expression of its nature (this doesn't imply that God is ontologically dependent on created things but creating is an expression of God's nature...). If this is the case, then, creation doesn't come from a 'need' or a 'lack' in God but it is simply an expression of the nature of God.
But also you might ask, why such a God created a world structured like ours and not another. Well, I don't know how to answer that, to be honest. Did God create other worlds, different from ours? Well, I don't know and I don't know how a universalist might respond to that (same as before).

(*also, I don't think that an universalist must say that all suffering has a 'purpose'. In my previous post, I was speaking about the concept of 'punishment' in this kind of view)

But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety. And GUESS WHO IS THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN THE GAME- HUMANS!! OF course! We truly are images of God, who is a reflection of us, that is. — schopenhauer1

Well, if oneaccepts a Personal God with Whom a person can have a relation, I would say that, yes, persons have a special relation with God - it seems obvious to me. BTW, the 'journey' is not something God needs but something that people/human need (see above).

Of course, if one doesn't accept the existence of a Personal God... but, even if this is the case, I think that religions with a personal God have a lot to teach about human beings as persons, how they relate etc.

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. — schopenhauer1

This is more or less the Spinozist solution (although, I would say that if the MWI were corrrect, it would describe an infinite mode of the Substance/God). Everything that can exist, does exist necessarily and it is a mode of God. 'We' are also modes, not really 'created things'.
Interestingly, in MWI the only thing that really exist is the 'universal wavefunction'. We, our particular world are convenient abstractions. That's why calling MWI a theory of 'parallel universes' is incorrect, BTW. At the same time, even if MWI were true, it would hardly describe 'everything'.

But as an analogy for pantheism/acosmism where the Deity is an impersonal 'source', I think that MWI is apt (of course, all analogies are limited etc).

I think that, if one adopts the view of an 'impersonal God', yeah I would think that this is a good way to get around.

Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. — Gnomon

Well, that's not Spinozism anymore IMO, lol. But of course, you still have a right to call your philosophy a modification of Spinoza's (there are after all analogies) or even say that it is 'Spinozist'.

Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. — Gnomon

Well, the problem of 'omniscence' is, indeed, a difficult one. If God (whatever S/He or It is) already knows everything, how we can avoid an 'block time' and also the conclusion that free will is a mere illusion? It's indeed a quite difficult question.

But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. — Gnomon

Einstein maintained that the distinction between past, present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one, but nevertheless considered the 'now' as the main problem of physics. If the passage of time is illusory, why we do have such a 'persistent illusion'? Our immediate experience is a strong argument against the block time, after all.

Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink: — Gnomon

So, you seem to agree that free will is an illusion, after all. And also the cosmic evolution is merely pespectival and ultimately illusory. If so, your philosophy is closer to Spinoza's than I thought before.
I thought that you asserted that the cosmic evolution is 'real', not illusory. Apparently, I misinterpreted.

If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace. — MoK

Ok. But if this peace is 'relative', as you say, what guarantee we have that we do not lose it?
Also, is this scenario desirable because suffering is less than pleasure in this 'relative peace'?

Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress. — MoK

All I see here is an assertion that change always entails 'suffering'. For instance, the reason why I believe that transience entails suffering in this world is that there isn't an unbroken continuum of pleasurable/positive experiences. Sooner or later, the 'continuum' of positive experiences will have an end, due to illnesses, other kinds of suffering, and death. On the other hand, if there were only positive experiences and the succession of these experiences would continue forever, I would say that there would be no suffering in this case. This is to say that I don't think that logically change necessary entails suffering.

You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. — schopenhauer1

It matters.

So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering — schopenhauer1

Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. That is correct that a good God wouldn't want to see suffering but even such a God might want to create a universe full of suffering if the outcome of suffering is positive and good.

Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything. — schopenhauer1

I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive.

Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them. — schopenhauer1

I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine.

Ok. But if this peace is 'relative', as you say, what guarantee we have that we do not lose it? — boundless

There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace.

Also, is this scenario desirable because suffering is less than pleasure in this 'relative peace'? — boundless

I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure.

All I see here is an assertion that change always entails 'suffering'. For instance, the reason why I believe that transience entails suffering in this world is that there isn't an unbroken continuum of pleasurable/positive experiences. Sooner or later, the 'continuum' of positive experiences will have an end, due to illnesses, other kinds of suffering, and death. — boundless

Yes, we cannot avoid suffering if perfection is boundless.

On the other hand, if there were only positive experiences and the succession of these experiences would continue forever, I would say that there would be no suffering in this case. This is to say that I don't think that logically change necessary entails suffering. — boundless

Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is!

Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. — MoK

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!?

I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive. — MoK

Same critique as above.

I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine. — MoK

But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things?

I don't understand why you continue to use the 'game' analogy. It is more like a training or a learning process in my opinion. — boundless

That's the GAME then.. training, learning, etc. It doesn't have to look like Chess or Monopoly or Basketball! It's an obstacle course of choosing between options, and sometimes the game puts participants in vicariously tragic positions, despite seemingly good decisions. So, it's a game of obstacles, suffering, learning, etc.

The reason why I brought Christian Universalism here (a view that lately I feel drawn to BTW), is that ultimately in that view the end result is positive*. — boundless

Same critiques as MoK's then:
Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!?

But anyway, for your first question... well, I don't know. Maybe a 'loving, perfect God' creates because it is an expression of its nature (this doesn't imply that God is ontologically dependent on created things but creating is an expression of God's nature...). If this is the case, then, creation doesn't come from a 'need' or a 'lack' in God but it is simply an expression of the nature of God.
But also you might ask, why such a God created a world structured like ours and not another. Well, I don't know how to answer that, to be honest. Did God create other worlds, different from ours? Well, I don't know and I don't know how a universalist might respond to that (same as before).

(*also, I don't think that an universalist must say that all suffering has a 'purpose'. In my previous post, I was speaking about the concept of 'punishment' in this kind of view) — boundless

God's nature? That makes it seem like God himself is following a rule he cannot escape. There goes the all-powerful part. Again, do you see why this God looks very human to me? And as with my question to MoK, are we talking the Biblical/Abrahamic God or some personal notion?

There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace. — MoK

An unending challenge is not IMO a state that we should hope, but I'm going to leave at that.

I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure. — MoK

Well, in any case, your conception of 'relative peace' cannot be a real 'peace'. If we have to continue to struggle to maintain it, it inevitably involves suffering.

Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is! — MoK

Well, at least hypothetically/logically I think that it isn't true. I can imagine an interrupted continuum of neutral and/or positive experiences. At least I do not see a logical impossibility here.

Well, that's not Spinozism anymore IMO, lol. But of course, you still have a right to call your philosophy a modification of Spinoza's (there are after all analogies) or even say that it is 'Spinozist'. — boundless

I don't make any claim to be a "Spinozist". That would be absurd, since I have never read any of his work first hand, and I don't regard him as my Guru. I merely identified with his break from traditional religion without rejecting the logical necessity of a non-empirical preternatural First Cause of some kind. Since my "critic" did claim to be a Spinozist, I just noted that my personal worldview seemed to be generally compatible with Spinoza's, yet making allowance for advances in historical and scientific understanding since he wrote his "radical enlightenment" manifesto. :smile:

Well, the problem of 'omniscence' is, indeed, a difficult one. If God (whatever S/He or It is) already knows everything, how we can avoid an 'block time' and also the conclusion that free will is a mere illusion? It's indeed a quite difficult question. — boundless

I don't waste much time trying to imagine what Omniscience would be like. Since I have no direct or scriptural "revelation" to go by, I can only guess that Block Time might be something like omniscience.

Regarding Free Will, I can only agree with Einstein's comment on past-present-future Time --- that it's a "stubbornly persistent illusion" --- which 99% of humans accept as a pragmatic assumption. :joke:

Einstein maintained that the distinction between past, present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one, but nevertheless considered the 'now' as the main problem of physics. If the passage of time is illusory, why we do have such a 'persistent illusion'? Our immediate experience is a strong argument against the block time, after all. — boundless

Since, unlike Einstein, I am incapable of imagining omniscience, I would say that an ever-changing world is not an illusion but an empirical Fact of human understanding. To deny real world Change might be a sign of dementia, or of extreme Idealism. Why do we persist in such an illusion? Because it makes sense to our senses. Only philosophers waste time trying to imagine non-sense. :cool:

So, you seem to agree that free will is an illusion, after all. And also the cosmic evolution is merely pespectival and ultimately illusory. If so, your philosophy is closer to Spinoza's than I thought before.
I thought that you asserted that the cosmic evolution is 'real', not illusory. Apparently, I misinterpreted. — boundless

Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. Relative to mundane human understanding it's an undeniable verity. Since I have almost 8 decades of personal experience, I can't deceive myself that Aging & Death are figments of imagination. From my imaginary personal perspective, Death looks like a skeleton in a black hoodie holding a mean-looking scythe. :wink:

That's the GAME then.. training, learning, etc. It doesn't have to look like Chess or Monopoly or Basketball! It's an obstacle course of choosing between options, and sometimes the game puts participants in vicariously tragic positions, despite seemingly good decisions. So, it's a game of obstacles, suffering, learning, etc. — schopenhauer1

Ok, I see. Well, normally we do not call, say, school as a 'game'. But, if you want to use that word, ok.

Let me rephrase your question, then: why God created this 'learning process' (or 'learning 'game'' if you prefer)?
An answer might be: "well, considering that we are created as finite and imperfect rational beings, the 'learning process' (again, you can use the word 'game') is what is needed to such a being to be able to know God"

So, at this point, you can make the following question: "why did God created us in the way we have been created, as finite and imperfect rational beings that need such a learning process in the first place?".
Well, actually, I am not sure how to respond to that. But again, is it really important to have an answer to that question? Let's say that we can't find an answer. Does this invalidate the hypothesis 'creator, personal God'?

In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1

Because that, maybe, it's part of what humans really want? For instance: what do you think that is the most basic desire? What do you think would the best hypothetical state of affairs to you? See, for instance this post or this other post.
Given that our present state of affairs is not the 'best', the search of a final, positive state might be what is really important.

God's nature? That makes it seem like God himself is following a rule he cannot escape. There goes the all-powerful part. Again, do you see why this God looks very human to me? And as with my question to MoK, are we talking the Biblical/Abrahamic God or some personal notion? — schopenhauer1

Yes, I was thinking about a Personal God.
Anyway, God's nature is not an imposed 'rule'. So, I cannot see how God would be following a rule, if God's activity is not constrained by something external.

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? — schopenhauer1

We are curious creatures so we are wondering why life looks like this. I don't think that there is any sort of suffering that leads to a completely negative end whether you believe in a God or not who is in charge of enforcing Karma. For a moment think that there is no God. Think of a situation in which a child is born with cancer. Both the child and relatives suffer in such a situation. What is the human response to such a situation? We try to find a medication to cure the child. So our overall state of life improves with time as we face challenges and sufferings.

In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1

The same answer as above.

But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things? — schopenhauer1

We can discuss other sorts of Gods as well. I am open to discussion. I however have problems with Abrahamic God.

Well, in any case, your conception of 'relative peace' cannot be a real 'peace'. If we have to continue to struggle to maintain it, it inevitably involves suffering. — boundless

Well, I mentioned that if perfection is boundless then we cannot possibly reach the state of absolute peace but relative one. There is nothing we can do about it.

Well, at least hypothetically/logically I think that it isn't true. I can imagine an interrupted continuum of neutral and/or positive experiences. At least I do not see a logical impossibility here. — boundless

Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this.

I don't make any claim to be a "Spinozist". That would be absurd, since I have never read any of his work first hand, and I don't regard him as my Guru. I merely identified with his break from traditional religion without rejecting the logical necessity of a non-empirical preternatural First Cause of some kind. Since my "critic" did claim to be a Spinozist, I just noted that my personal worldview seemed to be generally compatible with Spinoza's, yet making allowance for advances in historical and scientific understanding since he wrote his "radical enlightenment" manifesto. :smile: — Gnomon

Ok!

Regarding Free Will, I can only agree with Einstein's comment on past-present-future Time --- that it's a "stubbornly persistent illusion" --- which 99% of humans accept as a pragmatic assumption. :joke: — Gnomon

Ok, what worried Einstein, however, is that such an illusion seems so 'persistent' that it strongly suggest that change is real and not only perspectival? As I said before, I stopped to dis-believe in free will and the supposed illusory nature of change, when I decided to take what my experience suggested to me at face value. Of course, I am not saying that I am necessarily right. But, after all, science is an empirical subject and in order to refute something that experience so strongly suggest there must be a 'sufficient evidence'. To date, I don't think I found one.

Since, unlike Einstein, I am incapable of imagining omniscience, I would say that an ever-changing world is not an illusion but an empirical Fact of human understanding. To deny real world Change might be a sign of dementia, or of extreme Idealism. :cool: — Gnomon

I disagree. One can say that change is illusory and at the same time admitting that he experiences change. I can still experience an optical illusion even if I suspect or know that my experience isn't veridical.

Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. Relative to mundane human understanding it's an undeniable verity. Since I have almost 8 decades of personal experience, I can't deceive myself that Aging & Death are figments of imagination. From my imaginary personal perspective, Death looks like a skeleton in a black hoodie holding a mean-looking scythe. :wink: — Gnomon

But note that as I said, something can 'feel' very real but at the same time can be illusory.

For instance, in a dream I might go to a city. At the level of the dream, I went to that city and I had that experience. But the experience was illusory.

So, the experience of change might be 'dream-like' but for us can seem real.

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1

Sorry I think I misinterpreted your questions. But I won't edit my previous post because I am actually curious to see your answers to my questions that I made before about the 'basic desire' and the best hypothetical state.

Anyway, well... I am not sure how to respond to these questions and also I am not sure how they are related to the point I was making. I was merely saying that at least in the 'universalist' view, all the suffering might be seen as part of a non-ideal process that was necessary to complete in order to arrive to a result that we 'really' want. This doesn't imply that every instance of suffering is seen as a necessary of the process... in other words, a learning process is necessary but this particular process we experience isn't inevitable (unless one is a rigid determinist, I guess).
Sorry in case if also this answer is unstaisfying.

Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this. — MoK

Ok, fine. But the 'relative perfection' you mentioned earlier didn't sound as something desirable, something to seek etc if it is a constant struggle.

Ok, fine. But the 'relative perfection' you mentioned earlier didn't sound as something desirable, something to seek etc if it is a constant struggle. — boundless

Well, the state of relative peace is better than nothing. The better you understand life it becomes easier to achieve relative peace.

Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. ---Gnomon

But note that as I said, something can 'feel' very real but at the same time can be illusory. — boundless

Is there a downside to accepting that "feeling" of change in the objective world and the practical effects of willful behavior? I feel older and wiser than I did at 18. Am I just naive, or deceiving myself that I can be an agent of change in the world? When I imagine that I'm driving my car to the grocery store, was that destination destined by God or Fate 14b years before I was born? If my free agency is a mirage, will I go hungry waiting for the world to bend to my will? :snicker:

PS___ My personal experience of change is not "dreamlike", but realistic. By contrast, my dreams are dreamlike and unrealistic.

Henri Bergson on Evolution :
Bergson begins with the entity we know best : the Self. “The existence of which we are most assured and which we know best is unquestionably our own”. Then he discusses Evolution : “ Change is far more radical than we are at first inclined to suppose. For I speak of each of my states as if it formed a block and were a separate whole”. Yet, “The truth is that we change without ceasing, and that the state itself is nothing but change ”.
Creative Evolution from a post I'm currently working on