Yet though, does he know why he is? If he has a conscious mind, if He Is He Who Is... — Beebert

The question of why is incoherent though. Why always refers to an external reason for something, a cause of its existence. But God is by definition Uncaused, and there can be no external reason for His existence.

But what is the cause for something uncaused? Does God know why he is? No reason you say? Is that perhaps why he needed to create? ;)

But what is the cause for something uncaused? — Beebert

The question is self-refuting (incoherent) because in asking the question you presuppose that the uncaused thing has a cause, and therefore it is not uncaused.

Every question you ask makes at least one presupposition. Is jealousy yellow? Presupposes that "yellow" could be a trait of jealousy. Are you still beating your wife? presupposes there was a time when you were beating your wife.

No I am not assuming that, I am just asking God something which I can't understand... You see, it is hard to grasp the idea of something uncaused and all-powerful, eternal, beyond all being and non-being etc. So I just wondered what God would say...

it is hard to grasp the idea of something uncaused and all-powerful, eternal, beyond all being and non-being etc — Beebert

Of course, because it is fundamentally ungraspable, it is beyond logic and the intellect.

So I still just ask simply, like a child to God if I met him: "Why do you exist?"... What would he answer?(I am not counting on an answer from you"

I think you're are falling for a bit of red-herring in your metaphysical reasoning. The acosmist's God is already excluded from the world's evil by it's definition. If you are dealing with Spinoza's or maybe even Aquinas' God (if we take the non-being of God and address it logically), the notion God must be evil because of omnipresence is rejected outright. God's omnipresence is not presence qua the world, it's otherworldly presence with the world.

The presence of worldly evil just doesn't challenge goodness of an otherworldly God. In Spinoza case, for example, the evil of the illusionary finite world cannot undermine the goodness of the Real (infinite, or "otherworldly" ) of God.

Still, I think there is a worse misunderstanding. Most of the time of I've encountered "evil=absence of good," it is has not been a claim of metaphysical or meta-ethical basis, but rather than expression of how evil outcomes occur if someone doesn't act in good way. It's usually a call to action against letting evil occur by inaction-- "all it takes for evil to flourish is for men [who would like to think they were good] to do nothing."

In that context, both good and evil are actually independently defined, with "the absence of good," that is refusing to act to bring out good outcome, being evil in-itself.

The fallacy there is that two different aspects of reality cannot be defined in terms of each other, but must rather be defined in-themselves. The experience of evil, is different than the experience of good. So defining evil in relation to good is just as false as defining good in relation to evil. It would mean to reify it. — Agustino

Maybe. I was thinking of Schopenhauer when I made that comment. Happiness, goodness, right: these are negative concepts for him, while suffering, evil, and wrong are positive.

What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God. — Agustino

And how did Abraham know it was the voice of God telling him to murder his son? Your claim that God is beyond good and evil doesn't excuse him from commanding the latter. If I were Abraham, I would dismiss the voice as that of a demon.

No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine. But God has a right to destroy all of creation if He so desires, for it is His. I don't understand why so many people insist that God must be an anthropomorphism of the human :s Why make out of God a creature like us? — Agustino

It's not the fact that God is not a human that is hard to accept, but his deliberately creating and/or commanding evil. You still haven't really explained why I should worship a God who does that.

As for why I admire God, it is precisely because He is transcendent, and thus beyond Good and Evil — Agustino

What's so admirable about that?

He has created such beautiful things as the stars in the heavens, the galaxies, each of the animals, the angels, the demons — Agustino

And, apparently, very many ugly and repugnant things.

And behold Job is protesting because he is suffering. So what? Who is he to have expectations of God and demand that life be as he wants it to be? Is he greater than God to judge God? It is God's right as His Creator to allow anything to happen to him. Job has no right to demand something out of God. How can God owe any man anything?! — Agustino

There is a rank absurdity in the idea that God endows human beings with the natural law and expects them to follow it, but who then proceeds to break it himself and berate humans for not understanding why he has done so. What the hell does he expect is going to happen?

It seems contradictory to say that something is defined "in-itself" and that it has no independent existence. You say good and evil have no existence apart form the "Law". This is not to define good and evil "in-themselves" but rather in terms of the "Law". To attempt to define them "in-themselves' would seem to constitute the kind of "subversive reification" you referred to earlier.

What is meant by a natural or moral law from God? Look at the nature... We know the Church Fathers(most of them) were pathetically wrong in claiming that there was no death before the fall, that the earth is 5000-6000 years old, that before the fall the lion was friend with the sheep etc. Nature is cruel, period. At least if one has a "christian moral conscience". Nature is indifferent, wasteful, just as much destructive as creative, murderous, etc. Christians says this is because of the fall, which we know is a big fat lie. That is, Christian theologians have(knowingly or unknowingly) wanted to blame the whole cosmic tragedy on mankind. A wolf killing a sheep? Man's fault. A shark eating a fish? Man's fault. A snake eating a mouse? Man's fault... So does God wants us to go against this "morally beautiful" nature he created? We nature as a work of art and sure, it might be said to be beautiful. But moral? ... Nature itself is then beyond good and evil. So we shall be anti-nature... But it is obvious: The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple... Aha! No cell-death either then? What about the apple then? We know for sure that this view is wrong. Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolves, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin?

It seems contradictory to say that something is defined "in-itself" and that it has no independent existence. You say good and evil have no existence apart form the "Law". This is not to define good and evil "in-themselves" but rather in terms of the "Law". To attempt to define them "in-themselves' would seem to constitute the kind of "subversive reification" you referred to earlier. — Janus

You are right. It is.

They have no independent existence, therefore they cannot be defined in-themselves. But then neither can they be defined in terms of each other (since each has no independent existence).

And how did Abraham know it was the voice of God telling him to murder his son? — Thorongil

I don't know what experience he had.

Your claim that God is beyond good and evil doesn't excuse him from commanding the latter. — Thorongil

Why not? God is His own standard. How can God be judged by the Law?

If I were Abraham, I would dismiss the voice as that of a demon. — Thorongil

Well I'm tempted to say I would have done the same, but then I don't know exactly what experience Abraham had when God commanded him to do so...

There is a rank absurdity in the idea that God endows human beings with the natural law and expects them to follow it, but who then proceeds to break it himself and berate humans for not understanding why he has done so. What the hell does he expect is going to happen? — Thorongil

How can God break the Law? :s If God is His own standard, whatsoever He does is right.

And, apparently, very many ugly and repugnant things. — Thorongil

From your perspective (full of will). I remember in Schopenhauer's 3rd book of the first volume of WWR he describes the denial of the will that is sometimes achieved by a painting of a natural disaster, or of a vast empty desert symbolising death.

What's so admirable about that? — Thorongil

It's the glory of transcendence, of freedom, of infinity - of that which transcends this reality in all ways, but which nevertheless incarnated and came down amongst us to lift us unto Him.

What's so admirable about a God one holds in his pocket, who is just another element inside one's head rather than exceeding one's head?

What is meant by a natural or moral law from God? Look at the nature... We know the Church Fathers(most of them) were pathetically wrong in claiming that there was no death before the fall, that the earth is 5000-6000 years old, that before the fall the lion was friend with the sheep etc. Nature is cruel, period. At least if one has a "christian moral conscience". Nature is indifferent, wasteful, just as much destructive as creative, murderous, etc. Christians says this is because of the fall, which we know is a big fat lie. That is, Christian theologians have(knowingly or unknowingly) wanted to blame the whole cosmic tragedy on mankind. A wolf killing a sheep? Man's fault. A shark eating a fish? Man's fault. A snake eating a mouse? Man's fault... So does God wants us to go against this "morally beautiful" nature he created? We nature as a work of art and sure, it might be said to be beautiful. But moral? ... Nature itself is then beyond good and evil. So we shall be anti-nature... But it is obvious: The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple... Aha! No cell-death either then? What about the apple then? We know for sure that this view is wrong. Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolfs, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert

I don't have much time now, but I basically disagree with this and agree with the Church Fathers.

I would appreciate to hear your reply later and see what you mean by agreeing with the fathers (which I guess an orthodox is ALMOST forced to do?). You agree that the Earth is 6000 years old for example? That no dinosaurs existed and died before human beings came to earth? The Christian religion has hesitated on accepting evolution as a scientifically established fact. Though it is as close to a fact as one can come and should be accepted without a christian losing faith. Christ was first of all Truth. A christian shouldnt lie. However, the philosophical interpretations that has been given of evolution has failed to see the importance of duration and hence missed the very uniqueness of life. So you have all right to question materialists.

Here Agustino, from Tao Te Ching to you: "Value relativity. If we were able to escape the beliefs we live by and see
human life from the perspective of the Dao, we would understand that we
normally view the world through a lens of value judgments -- we see things as
good or bad, desirable or detestable. The cosmos itself possesses none of
these characteristics of value. All values are only human conventions that we
project onto the world. Good and evil are non-natural distinctions that we need
to discard if we are to see the world as it really is."

Tao Te Ching — Beebert

That's not from the TTC. Sounds more like a commentary - unless you're using a very weird and commented translation.

All values are only human conventions that we
project onto the world. — Beebert

Warmed over Hume. I prefer Aristotle & Plato.

"The marks of human experience are value judgments
and planned action. The marks of the Dao are freedom from judgment and
spontaneity"

The marks of human experience are value judgments
and planned action. The marks of the Dao are freedom from judgment and
spontaneity — Beebert

That's an interpretation of it, not the actual text. The actual text never says that, ALTHOUGH, it is true that the TTC does say that:

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

§36

The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple — Beebert

Actually, Augustine did say there was animal death before the Fall. But the ancients had different ideas about animals than we do. With the benefit of fields like evolutionary biology, ethology, and so on, we are now able to know that a vast magnitude of seemingly pointless suffering and death occurred before humans came on the scene. Thus, even if the Church Fathers granted that animals died before the Fall, the moral problem of animal suffering and death not only remains, but has grown ever more potent in light of modern scientific developments.

There is one possible explanation that is offered by certain of the Church Fathers, which is that the world, prior to human beings, was corrupted by Satan and his minions, who fell before humans did. CS Lewis and, from what I can tell, von Balthasar, take up this view in modern times.

Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolves, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert

Very well said. These are questions that I still haven't seen any Christian adequately answer. And it's not that I have ruled out there being good answers to them in advance. I would dearly love to find them and have earnestly searched, but no cigar so far.

Why not? God is His own standard. How can God be judged by the Law? — Agustino

Because he gave us the law and, more importantly, expects us to follow it. Imagine if I had a child and told him that it was good to eat vegetables and that he must eat vegetables or else I will punish him, but I then refuse to eat vegetables myself and rebuke the child for questioning why I refuse to do so. That wouldn't endear the child to me, just as God breaking his own moral law doesn't endear him to us. Being omniscient, he would already know this, and so it would appear that God does things that he knows in advance are counterproductive at getting people to believe in him and trust him. For how could you trust a God who says to do one thing and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that?

Look at what I wrote in my dialogue long ago:

Believer: [...] Is it not supremely arrogant to assume you know more than God? Are you so rarely wrong in your words and deeds that you are confident of not being wrong or simply ignorant in the present case?
Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.

How can God break the Law? :s If God is His own standard, whatsoever He does is right. — Agustino

There's that voluntarism rearing its ugly, morally repugnant head again. I would direct you to the following verse:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20.

From your perspective — Agustino

Right, which is the one he gave me. "The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect."

I remember in Schopenhauer's 3rd book of the first volume of WWR he describes the denial of the will that is sometimes achieved by a painting of a natural disaster, or of a vast empty desert symbolising death. — Agustino

Not sure the relevance of this.

It's the glory of transcendence, of freedom, of infinity - of that which transcends this reality in all ways, but which nevertheless incarnated and came down amongst us to lift us unto Him.

What's so admirable about a God one holds in his pocket, who is just another element inside one's head rather than exceeding one's head? — Agustino

I had no idea I was speaking to this man:



Now I know why @Beebert has been so exasperated. I still love ya' Agustino, but I can't abide by your theology.

I guess explanation is only for physics and metaphysics.

Toward God, the Principle of Good, the good-ness of what is, gratitude is all that's possible or needed.

Michael Ossipoff

"Principle" sounds too un-alive or impersonal.

"Good-ness" is better. I think we all agree that good intent is felt, and is there.

Michael Ossipoff

There's that voluntarism rearing its ugly, morally repugnant head again. I would direct you to the following verse:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. — Thorongil

You're wrong here. I do not reject the Law, all I do is diminish its sphere of application to creation, not Creator. Good isn't evil and evil isn't good - but those concepts can only be applied to creation (including nature), not to God. You are committing a category error when you apply them to God.

The Law in my conception applies as harshly and with the same iron-like nature as the Law applies in your conception, only that mine is limited to Nature and creation in its application, while yours has been lifted even above God Himself - as if God's creation (the Law) can raise itself above its Creator!

Right, which is the one he gave me. — Thorongil

And was corrupted by the Fall :P

Not sure the relevance of this. — Thorongil

The relevance of that is that when the effects of sin disappear in the denial of the will, then you see the world aright.

I had no idea I was speaking to this man: — Thorongil

How quaint that I disagree the most with that man ;)

Now I know why Beebert has been so exasperated. — Thorongil

>:O But quite the contrary, I always took his side when it came to Calvin.

Because he gave us the law and, more importantly, expects us to follow it. — Thorongil

Yes, you are a creature, so that is true.

Imagine if I had a child and told him that it was good to eat vegetables and that he must eat vegetables or else I will punish him, but I then refuse to eat vegetables myself and rebuke the child for questioning why I refuse to do so. — Thorongil

Your child belongs to God first and foremost, and only then does he or she belong to you. Your reasoning of course fails because you and your child are both creatures under one and the same God, and are therefore on an equal footing. The child can absolutely question you, but you cannot question God. The gap between creature and Creator is of the essence. The relationship parent-child is only analogical with the relationship of man or woman with God. It is fallacious to apply the same kind of reasoning to both of them.

That wouldn't endear the child to me, just as God breaking his own moral law doesn't endear him to us. — Thorongil

Yeah, that may be true, if it was possible for God to break his Law in the first place.

Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.

As corrupted by the Fall*

If evil is the absence of good and evil exists, then God cannot be omnipresent, because God is good. S — Agustino

Your basic error is to believe that 'evil is real'. That is precisely what 'the doctrine of privation' denies 1.

But in order to make this intelligible, there has to be some understanding of the notion that 'what exists' - i.e. what appears to the senses - is unreal, in some fundamental way. It exists, but it is not what it appears to be. Which means, you have to recognise the difference between what exists, and what is real. Were one to be awoken from the spell of the apparent reality of evil, then it wouldn't appear real to you - in other words, it would lose its hold - because you would know it as mere appearance, and not reality.

It is because you believe that evil is real, that the Devil has purchase. 'Look here, sonny - behold my powers.' Remember the Temptation of Christ - 'all the powers' that He was offered, and so on. And then He said: 'get thee behind me Satan'.

We could surely deny that evil really exists, but that would be equally problematic. — Agustino

It seems to me that everything we call 'evil' is the work of men (forgive the sexist nomenclature). Where we see evil, certainly we should seek to remedy it, as far as we can. But to believe that it has any true reality, is surely to forego the possibility of liberation, which is 'awakening to the good that has no opposite'.

I would also like to hear your Christian reply to the following, WITHOUT talking about God has having his own standards this time, even if that is true. Because that helps not, it only makes things worse since God becomes terrifying and strange. We have to talk from a human perspective about this;

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intention could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of the truth? Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? But perhaps he is a god of goodness notwithstanding and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack the intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse! For then he was perhaps also in error as to that which he calls his 'truth', and is himself not so very far from being the 'poor deluded devil'! Must he not then endure almost the torments of Hell to have to see his creatures suffer so, and go on suffering even more through all eternity, for the sake of knowledge of him, and not be able to help and counsel them, except in the manner of a deafand-dumb man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to fall on his child or his dog? A believer who reaches this oppressive conclusion ought truly to be forgiven if he feels more pity for this suffering god than he does for his 'neighbours' for they are no longer his neighbours if that most solitary and most primeval being is also the most suffering being of all and the one most in need of comfort. All religions exhibit traces of the fact that they owe their origin to an early, immature intellectuality in man they all take astonishingly lightly the duty to tell the truth: they as yet know nothing of a duty of God to be truthful towards mankind and clear in the manner of his communications. On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could.

48. deus absconditus: the "hidden/concealed god."

- Nietzsche, Daybreak aphorism 91

The only kind of God the Nietszche comprehends is a potentate. He knows absolutely nothing of the 'divine darkness', the Way of Unkowing. Stick with Weil, you'll be far better off.

That doesnt matter. You now gave precisely the answer I did NOT ask for as I said. I would like Another reply to what Nietzsche said there than "He doesnt know the divine darkeness". How is it that most for example only comprehends comprejends divine potentate (something else than that the bible doesnt seem to talk THAT much about). And with the reply you gave; Everything becomes exceptionally subjective it seems to me.

For example he says about the Divine darkeness/the hidden God: "On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could."

I don't want to drag the thread into a discussion of Nietzsche. What I mean by 'potentate' is that N. depicts 'God' as a kind of universal ruler or potentate, the CEO of the Universe. There are, of course, many who do that, but I think it is entirely and calamitously mistaken.

The 'divine darkness' is a reference to what is called 'apophatic mysticism', one expression of which is a book called The Cloud of Unknowing, which was written by a Christian monk, and is still in print - it's a perennial title (and one I would recommend). N. would have no way of comprehending or finding his way into that kind of understanding, because what is required is relinquishment of self and inner silence and stillness, which is about as far from Nietzsche as it is possible to get.

Yes I see... The problem is for me though : We all cant become monks. And the bible (especially the old testament and definitely Paul in his letters) certainly seems to suggest that God IS a kind of universal ruler or potentate, the CEO of the Universe... I can't read in anything else to that. So then the question becomes: Why Christisnity(which also has these handicapping threats that make me feel that it is impossible to develop spiritually in any Healthy way whatsoever ) and not buddhism or the hinduism explained in The Upanishads and Baghavad Gita?

And the bible (especially the old testament and definitely Paul in his letters) certainly seems to suggest that God IS a kind of universal ruler or potentate, the CEO of the Universe — Beebert

There's your problem. The magnificent organising power of the Roman empire congealed around a revolutionary popular religious movement and endowed with a titular authority. Pity the gnostics didn't have more of a look in, in the first place; things might have turned out differently.

(The word 'Jupiter' is derived from the Sanskrit 'Dyaus-Pitar', which means, literally, 'sky father'. That, I'm sure, is what a lot of people believe in (or disbelieve in). And at a certain stage of cultural development that might be a perfectly suitable image - but we have to get beyond that. We've been out there, now, and it's mainly empty space.

Another name for God was the tetragrammaton - YHWH - which has now, regrettably, been phoneticized as 'Yahweh'. The original intention of the tetragrammaton was to convey the unknowability of the divine, because the name could literally not be spoken, it was un-sayable.)

So then Nietzsche proclaiming God is dead (the patriarch/cosmic ruler type) was a good thing I guess?
"The magnificent organising power of the Roman empire congealed around a revolutionary popular religious movement and endowed with a titular authority. Pity the gnostics didn't have more of a look in, in the first place; things might have turned out differently."

So, how does this fit into the bible, Where God often seems to be perceived as this Authoritarian ruler?

"(The word 'Jupiter' is derived from the Sanskrit 'Dyaus-Pitar', which means, literally, 'sky father'. That, I'm sure, is what a lot of people believe in (or disbelieve in)."

Even people like those who wrote some of the books of The Old Testament and Saint Paul etc?