I think the problem is that the word 'effect' implies cause, and the word 'cause' implies effect...so the two words are always linked, so perhaps we should just invent as new word to represent the statement.

A switch is either off or on, so the word 'off' implies the concept of 'on', but off and on are two different states, so they do need two different words, but if cause is synonymous with effect, maybe they really represent the same concept...not sure what word could be used..'event'? A single thing.

Definitely complicates. — Josh Alfred

I think what I can condense from some of my thinking is:

if someone say that cause and effect take place; what do they mean by 'cause', and what do they mean by 'effect'?

I guess a usual attempt to define those two terms would just end up as a repetition of the original statement, eg a cause leads to an effect....

Doesn't really answer anything though.

Well, thanks for your elaboration of your understanding of cause and effect. I do think adding those factors in, most of them, kind of even complicates it more. The butterfly effect is essentially just a larger explanation for causal occurrences. Definitely complicates — Josh Alfred

I think sometimes to get to a more basic understanding of something, you sometimes have to go through divergent thinking process...and then gather ideas from that process to then put together a condensed version.

I'm not denying that cause and effect is how reality works, only trying to outline maybe that you maybe can't prove that is how things work.

well take the famous 'butterfly effect'...the idea being that a butterfly flapping its winds, leads, in a series of cause and effect paths, and in a kind of domino amplification process to tropical storms.

You can set up a computer program to supposedly simulate this process, by building some kind of computer model, where you can set your own initial conditions, you can set up the model of some kind of analogous butterfly and run the program lots of times and alter the initial behaviour of the butterfly and see how that affects the model somewhere down the line.

Problems with this are:
In the real world you can't set up the initial conditions; whether the butterfly flaps its wings or not, is part of a pre-existing reality development. Making a simulated butterfly do this or that, isn't a model of the real world.

Another problem with modelling this on a computer is that computers are digital. They operate on finitely defined variables as opposed to variables with an infinite number of decimal places.
They also operate in non-continuous development, ie they jump in steps from one moment to the next. This presumably also isn't an accurate model of reality.

With these serious problems with modelling the butterfly effect on a computer, make them of limited value, in showing cause and effect.

Yes we can see that small decisions can lead to big outcomes, in some ways of modelling things..

I also think that a dynamic model that has no beginning is hard to grasp..the idea that one thing lead to another seems very one or two dimensional...whereas the real world is more dimensional than that....having the choice between two options is very binary, but how you chose which option to take isn't binary...everything in history has lead up to the point where you make the decision between limited options, and if history has no beginning in the greater scheme of things, then maybe it is hard to define cause and effect. Maybe the outcome of your decision is partly what made you choose that option if you invoke retro-causation..

Anyway those are some of my vague thoughts on cause and effect...I do believe in freewill though.

Not at all. Anyway, I’m thinking that losing your sense of self may feel like death, in a way. They say the experience can be terrifying.

Buddhists often use phrases like ‘death on the cushion’, when referring to their meditation practice. I’ve endeavored to have such an experience but so far haven’t come close. — praxis

I've often felt that Buddhist practices are linked with death.

I think that might be attractive to some people, as for some people life is quite often suffering, so in a death process by following Buddhist practices as well as leading to a kind of deader state, also may lead to a dying of some of the suffering.

I can't recall being dead before I was born, oddly. — praxis

can you recall being 1 year old much or at all?

When man's sperm meets woman's egg, it can start a process that results in human being. — Henri

how do you know if that is the start of a human or not....both sperm and egg will have originated at some point from the same source, way back on Earth when the first cells came into being.
How did those first single cells come into being?
I can't think they came into being other than some very complex cause that would be frowned upon by a lot of materialists.
If the cause was some kind of organise process...then how did that process start, and on and on..

I think it may be possible that all life has an eternal source...and we may or may not have much access to the memories there from, but maybe we do, and it is often expressed in art, and we are in touch with it when/if we have a deep feeling about something.

if someone has free will, what does that mean?

If you say that someone's future decisions are predestined, and so the person doesn't have free will, how can you show this to be true.

If reality could be modelled on a computer, and you run the program, the computer has to model itself, which would lead to infinite reiteration, so that wouldn't be possible.

there is no way to stand outside of reality and check for determinism, by running any amount of powerful computer processes, as you would still have to model yourself and the computer.

I don't see why there can be no objective definition of evil because we are not objective all the time.

God is our creation, not the other way around. In making that declaration, I guess I am devaluing god quite a bit, demoting him from the eternal, all powerful all knowing all present being that some people think he is. God and I are on good terms, though, especially if we don't talk to each other too often.

Evil is also our creation -- and something we can be remarkably good at (evil, that is). We are the source of evil. — Bitter Crank

every thing we experience is a process of one part of reality viewing the rest of it.
By observing reality you are affected by it, and so reality is affected by your observations..there is no way to stand outside reality, so there can be no objective position on anything...so there can be no objective definition of any word, or concept.

We do create models of things, and generate concepts. But take the scientific model of anything, like an atom. You can have a whole text book written about atoms, yet how do you connect the words on the paper, to an actual atom? You may have a model of atoms, and it may make predictions that can be tested, the predictions may be tested and provide evidence for the model of the atom, but that isn't a real connection, is it.
People may come up with a theory model for a god....and again does that connect it to any reality of a god...even if you could test for it?
So when you say god is the creation of humans, what I take it to mean is that humans have formed various models and theories of a god. But that has little bearing on whether there is or is not a god,.

Notice though that such a standpoint is irrefutable and some consider that a flaw. I don't know why as yet but it does look suspicious when someone says: "I'm right no matter what''. — TheMadFool

I like this quote that someone had on a forum in their signature:
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas

not that I know any Latin, but I know how to google...:)

This is the problem of evil. An answer that makes sense and also doesn't satisfy is that we can't comprehend God's intent or logic. — TheMadFool

funnily enough when I reach these positions after a lot of thought and taking myself way too seriously, I do find it intensely satisfying.
To realise I am naked and an atom in a reality whose complexity maybe unbounded...I am like an amoeba compared to the intelligence that is running the show.

I don't understand your question. — TheMadFool

I presume you mean the question 'what is the origin of evil?'...?

Well lets say that maybe I should have used the word 'suffering' instead.

What is the origin of processes that lead to suffering?

There usually is a consensus that there is suffering in this world, so what brought this about?

If God doesn't want suffering, then what lead to its existence?

5) Can you give any account at all of what it might mean for God to have needs? — tim wood

part of the assumption that there is a god, is that you can place that assumption anywhere, ie the assumption also logically that you are not dealing with where he came from,and that he may have always existed.
This is one problem with humans trying to build a model based upon the assumption of there being a god, in that it is kind of our usual thinking and experience that things have beginnings.
So with a hypothetical god model, there is no initial condition.
But let's say he has the power to make changes, to create, to make decisions.
What would motivate him to use this power?
Is it based upon a need?
It seems like everything we do is based upon a need..if it isn't, why would we do it?
The same seems this would be true of god, as well.
Can you explain what decision, and action that isn't based upon need, is then based on?

The question doesn't have meaning, because the word "exist" isn't metaphysically or ontologically-defined.

...at least not when it's used unqualified and absolute, without specifying a context in which you speak of something being (...and, even then, I'd avoid the word "exist", and word it another way).

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

how about this deinition of 'exist': Locatable.

does Edinburgh exist....is it locatable?

Is any game of chess not locatable...?

...at least not when it's used unqualified and absolute, without specifying a context in which you speak of something being (...and, even then, I'd avoid the word "exist", and word it another way). — Michael Ossipoff

how about this definition of 'exist'; locatable.

Does the truck, I saw this morning going along the main road exist?
Is it locatable?
Under that definition it probably does exist. I could maybe track it down if I had access to the ANPR network.
Under that definition, is any game of chess possible not locatable?

You didn't say that God is omnipotent. Not all Theists believe that God created this physical world or is responsible for its worse aspects. (I'll avoid your Biblical word "Evil"),. For example, the Gnostics don't believe it, and I agree with them.

Omnipotence is problematic, and brings contradiction.

Do you think it would be possible to make there be a logical proposition that is true and false?

Do you think it would be possible to make there be two mutually-contradictory facts?

If not, then maybe you're blaming too much on God.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

I steered clear of omnipotence.

We get back to the first point. You assume a "superhero." With that you can do whatever you want. There is no discussion of interest, significance, or merit that comes out of such things. — tim wood

In this thread, we are debating a hypothetical reality, based upon certain assumptions/axioms.
We are arguing about a model.
It isn't supposed to be like a comic where the creator of the comic can draw whatever picture they like, and create any story they like.
It is quite correct that the assumptions that the model is based upon should be clear, the rest of the model should be argued about following on from the assumptions, in a logical way.

I most likely haven't laid out my assumptions for the model in a clear way.
Perhaps we can flesh out the groundwork for the model, and the assumptions it is based upon.

Assumptions for this model:
There is some kind of god.
This god is the source of everything.
He is all knowing.
He does not want suffering, and will optimise his actions to avoid it.
He has his own needs.

Anyway, it seems like a difficult problem to set out the assumptions, but I just was hoping for a fairly loose discussion on what the origins of suffering are.
If God has always existed, and there are logical reasons for why there is suffering, then it seems to logically follow that there has always been suffering.....so maybe in assuming there is a god, we end up having assumed there is suffering...(?)....to start with, and so are no clearer about the origins of suffering... :)

Anyway if that ends up as the logical conclusion, then the existence of suffering isn't an argument against the idea the god is benevolent.

It has puzzled me for a few years, when exactly the devil is supposed to have come about...if he came about at a certain point, then did he not exist for an eternal amount of time(time in the realm if god that is)....

It appears you shall have to decide whether your God is, or is not. The "if" isn't cutting it, in your questions. — tim wood

I don't think it matter in an argument that is based upon the assumption that there is some kind of god.

Questioning God? And how do you know you're suffering? What is "suffering"? And how about that clear statement about evil? — tim wood

well perhaps for the sake of argument, we could replace 'suffering', for 'evil'.

If I try to define 'evil' I will only base the definition on suffering anyway.

How do I know when I'm suffering?

Well it is a feeling. It commonly means that something bad is happening to my body, although there are conditions where people can feel pain for no ordinary reason; it is some kind of brain or nervous system problem..

All I can say is it isn't really something I want to experience too often...That is my subjective position on pain and suffering.

From my subjective experience of other people, they tnd to follow similar lines of thought, and try to avoid pain, and this makes sense evolutionarily, as an organism that isn;t motivated to avoid pain, and dangerous situations, won't over many generations, survive as well as those organism that are motivated(by pain) to avoid or deal with dangerous situations..

Time for you to give a clear statement of what you understand evil to be. Not to be confused with evil-to-you.

If by "destructive processes that lead to suffering" you mean the storms of the world and its natural processes, then the answer is built in: it's part of the world - it is the world! — tim wood

but if the source of the universe and this world is God, then why is it built in? surely it could be possible to create a place of living without suffering.

As Terrapin pointed out, the evil is in your eye. What makes you think that just because you think something is evil, that it is evil. — tim wood

As I said I don't believe completely objective positions on reality are possible, they are always subjective.
Therefore there can be no objective definition of ''evil'.

It seems to me, from my subjective point of view, that some very bad things go on. Processes which lead to great suffering by people and animals. Again I say it is my subjective point of view.

If I see a star go super nova in the sky tomorrow, it will I guess be a subjective experience, but when thousands of astronomers observe it, and it is in the news, a lot of the world will know of it. Supernova last a few days, and can sometimes, if close enough to Earth, even be seen in the day.
A lot of the world's people will subjectively experience the supernova, and it will be generally accepted that the has been one.

The same collective acknowledgement, although subjective to the individual, I base my OP question about where do destructive processes that lead to suffering come from.

That he is error-prone, fallible, makes mistakes - and is clearly questionable

well I have no problem with that, but let us assume he is not error prone, and doesn't make mistakes...where then do processes of evil come from?

yes, right...I don't think there is such a thing as complete objectivity, there is always subjectivity in our perception, but take the experience of physical pain, for example.
I experience it sometime, like some of the times I've been to the dentist, or injured myself...headaches etc.

Some good may come of pain, but when experienced at the time, there doesn't seem to be much good about it...I assume most people feel physical pain at times.
When there is an earthquake somewhere often people are injured and killed....the injured I assume often feel pain to various degrees, some to the point of misery,

these don't seem consistent with a reality that is all good.

Why the question, if God is who and what you think He is? What does the existence of your question imply about (your ideas of) God?

I dunno; you tell me.

Well I personally think the God hypothesis is fine.

If you start from the position that there is a God, and that he is the source of reality, then it follows that he must have at least some good about him, or life in the universe would be hell; not even a crumb of good, or beauty.

Examples of good, are a piece of toast with marmalade, in the morning, with a cup of tea..whilst listening to some beautiful music.

Examples of bad, or generally processes of destruction that lead to a level of misery...information of which is often available in the news media.

So if God has some good in him, then where did all the destruction and misery come from, is the subject of the thread.

so in this frozen state, what actually would be experienced?
If you died with a clock in the room, that clock wouldn't move.....seems as though there would be nothing to experience, no way to even think about anything.

I think an argument for an actual afterlife, can be linked to the OP referenced idea in that you can't go from being conscious to being nothing;; there would be no continuity.

what seems real to me, is things like pain.

direct experience, which may be hard to deny.

Night dreams are similar to being awake; they seem to have similar rules. When you are asleep, different parts of the brain are active, or not so active, I gather...it seems to me, that 'night' dreams are a class of dream, which is set in the context of the waking model...this doesn't contradict what you said...it makes it no more 'real' to be awake; just a different set of rules to how the system works.
I have had thousands of flying dreams in my life, and have tried a few times to fly in a waking state....yes, I actually tried to throw myself at the ground, and miss...didn't work, but thanks for the idea Douglas Adams....I actually do think it might be possible to fly when awake, but you have to know how to....like Neo in the Matrix, he uncovered the key to play with the rules of the system.

I think the word 'real' does get thrown about a lot, without much of an attempt to define it. As I said, it seems that pain is real though...pain is a mystery...if you consider how you might try to bring about the experience of pain by some kind of AI....or pleasure ever...well consciousness itself really..just how would you go about doing it?

I have a theory about pain though..it may be an intrinsic part of the system, relate to malevolence..maybe pain is the awareness of everything bad that ever happened to any conscious being, and evolution utilized access to it in order that organism may realise that something was wrong; that the organism was in danger, and could then act to defend itself..

Maybe pleasure is the same, but in reverse..you become partially aware of all the good things that have happened in the system.

Pain though, doesn't provide any evidence that we are just in a kind of dream.......the pain might be real, to the person, but the reality of a rock that is kicked mean nothing unless you can say what you mean by 'real'.

No. The only ones that exist in some form are the ones that people are currently playing, currently thinking about, or the past ones that are recorded in some manner where the record is still extant.

It must be possible to calculate all of the possible moves, though, since there would be a finite (but ridiculously huge) number of them.

What if say there is a mathematical problem, that doesn't have a proof, like the Fermat maths thing years ago....he was said to have written a simple proof for that problem, but that the proof was lost.
If there is a proof to some mathematical situation, but it hasn't been discovered, does it exist?

Say there is an amazing proof for the Pythagoras' right angle triangle thing, but it hasn't been discovered(I know there are many proofs).....if it is discovered tomorrow, did it always exist? Did it exist today?

no I don't believe I am being naive. I know people can be corrupt at all levels, from a second hand car salesman to the king of NewYork, or whatever, but the whole system is emergent imo...no one is actually in control...I think it can be based upon a subtle guiding of narrative, subtle threats to people's interests, and lives...a reporter, or editor might not be being 'controlled' by someone, but there are influences on their actions, maybe even subconsciously...subliminal messages in the media, that weren't put there deliberately, they just appear, and go unnoticed..subtle assumptions are spread in the telling of as movie story for example.

As I said, evolution itself is an emergent process, and look at the complexity of the systems, biology that come about...how much more complex is society....there are people with some power, but the whole thing has a momentum that no one really has much say in.

I believe that a lot of systems are emergent.
They start off somehow, and evolve; evolution being one of the emergent processes. Life starts at a point and quite often becomes more complex, and interconnected. Intelligent species evolve with the ability to communicate, and form philosophies and systems of thought and understanding.

The whole thing is founded on needs, eg for food, water, and later clothes, housing..systems emerge that fulfil these needs, and defend them, which leads to power structures, but I always like to think of the way that so called powerful people still have the same original basic needs. They are still just ordinary people, not Super Man, and the people around them may defend their interests, but they may also undermine them, and at some point kill them, or take away their power...so these people only have limited powers in the end, and no one is immortal...

Tribes arose, leading to kings, and at some point, people nearer the base of the power structure wanted more power, which lead gradually to the emancipation of ordinary citizens...during this hand over, or apparent hand over, systems of information dissemination gradually evolved as well.
Along came the printing press and I read the two first thins to be printed were the Bible and pornography(writing I suppose)...the Bible once translated to English, instead of being in the hands of religious authorities, lead to the unifying in how English was spoken across the country, and lead to higher literacy levels.
And along comes news papers; must have started as one or a few pieces of paper, and along comes advertising. News organisations evolve to survive, they depend on advertising, they depend on readers......anyway news organisations are made of people, who still have the same basic needs as a squirrel, ie they need food and water, and not to be killed.

From the lowliest reporter to the editor, they all have the same fears and needs; to belong to a society that will look after them; to have food and shelter, and after that a quality of life,...if you think anyone in a news organisation is purely interested in reporting real facts, and an honest narrative, you have to look at the context of their reporting, ie the person's needs....if reporting a single thing which upsets the editor, because it upsets the owner, or someone powerful, then that person will tread very carefully...personally they may see value in reporting honestly, personal for the meaning of their own existence, and life; and also as it may actually appeal to the readers/viewers...but they have to be careful. And so a system of media control emerges, mainly due to money in eg advertisers....there is spun some sort of multie threaded narrative which is supposed to benefit the rich and powerful, it can benefit ordinary people as well as the ongoing functioning of society is in their benefit.

I don't really like the 'puppet master' term, as I think things are more emergent and subtle than that....the rich and powerful still have their basic needs, any one of them who stirs up too much trouble will be in danger...remember the media can spin a narrative that suits bringing down one of the rich and powerful any time they like...some rich people are fine being all benevolent and talking sense..this makes the rich look good, and spins into the narrative that all is good with the world...with their glories leaders..

Various conspiracy theories can make the rich and powerful look good, eg the 9/11 hoax stuff, as it has the consequence of making the powerful look almost superhumanly competent...and also on the other hand making conspiracy believers, or people who doubt that democracy is real, look a bit unhinged.

No, democracy, or the word, and whatever way people mostly view it, is the wool that is pulled over people's eyes to stop them seeing the truth(Morpheus :p )...the matrix of narratives.

when I think of art, I think about the context it is made in.
If made by humans, you have an artist who is a product of his upbring, his physiology, who is a member of a species which evolved from single cell organisms a billion/s of years ago. And then you have the question of how those cells came into being. I believe in a supernatural origin for those first cells, so then the history of the artist goes further back, perhaps indefinitely...back to God, and I tthink God does not have an objective perspective, how could he when he really can't be sure what it would be like to be born in Africa with HIV and end up as a drug addict, or be born into a rich familiy in some part of the world.

I think God is in the process of evolving, evolving his ideas perspective, and it is a story that has no beginning, as far as I can see.

So I think an artist is in quite a situation....he/she paints, writes, sculpts etc what the will, and to whose end, how can anyone be sure?

Can an artist really create what they want? Are there consequences? Can an artist go into Hyde Park at midnight, and say, or paint what they want? Will there be drunks, will their art be mocked, will they be attacked?
Safe to paint away in their room//studio, but then if they show their stuff to the world, will there be consequences..will the alpha male progeny not approve? Could they become social outcasts?

What is at stake when you make art? Can moral insight come unhindered in such a complex situation.

I think art which gets people to feel what some things are like, the reality of some situations....morality then might spring from that in the viewers mind. I don't really think complex morality can be taught; people have to come to their own conclusions.

The law is there to keep some semblance of order, quality of life; it is better than the alternative I assume, most of the time.

If you tell someone that murder is wrong, is that moral teaching? Does it naturally lead to the person believing that murder is wrong?

As for beauty, comedy etc...it's a sort of whatever gets you through the night, and on a planet like this, that isn't trivial, and doesn't exclude things from being art, or developing as a person.