It is possible for an all-loving god to allow evil, despite having the power to stop it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not if you take your own words by what they mean. All-loving excludes ill-willed; all-powerful excludes inability to act. God has no ill will, and has all the power. So there is nothing to stop him from eradicating evil and suffering. yet he does??? then he is either not benevolent, nor powerful, or else he does not exist in the first place, at least in a form of existence which have the attributes ascribed to him.

I believe it's safer to argue that god did not actually intend to put evil into this world, but rather it was a product of many of the good things he brought into the world, i.e. free will. — Isaac242

As a belief, it works, because you beleive whatever you want. But if you want us to see your point and accept it, then you have to show how all good things can eventually come up creating a bad thing, if only as a by-product.

I said "things" but since evil presupposes intention, it is humans who commit evil acts. So you have to show how people who only do good things produce eventually evil as a bi-product. Evil as a noun does not exist, it is only an attribute to actions by people. Satan exists, and he is evil (the predicate here is not a noun but an adjective), but evil as an existing, physical or spiritual, entity, does not exist, it is always an attribute to an action, to a personality, or to intention.

From what I understand, according to the Bible, Satan is the root of all evil, not God. — Emma

God created everything. That includes evil, Satan,everything. He is the origo. The bible says that too.

So what do you believe, Emma; that god did not create everything, and therefore there are things in the world which god did not create; or else that evil was created by god. there are no other choices.

Ehlmann contends the opposite: Near death (usually when old) stretches the passage of time out dramatically. You might think a day has passed when, in fact, only a microsecond has elapsed. Curious indeed. — jgill

I don't find it curious, as I have no personal evidence. I've almost died several times in my life, and in one such instances I passed out due to lack of oxygen in my brain and I came back some time later (period uncertain, as I had no perception of time when I was passed out.) Despite these experiences and this passing-out experience, I don't think I have ever had a near-death experience. So I have no data to rely on, in lack of evidence, to say whether time stretches or shrinks as perceived when near death.

On the other hand, perhaps I WAS near death and I experienced neither stretching nor shinkage, so there is that too.

j, I have the opposite, when I momentarily slumber. I figure 10 minutes have passed, when only 10 seconds have passed. This is at times when I am doing mezmerizing computer work that puts me to sleep, and I sleep for a short half hour.

(Kidding! In reality I sleep for 10-20 seconds, and in my sleep I perceive it as having slept for 5-10 minutes. Precise timing is hard to establish, as I don't carry a watch in my dreams. I am talking pure impressions, that is, how it "feels".)

what the form of such a God or being would be, how it would be shaped, and how it would experience itself. — ballarak

He would be in good form.
He'd be in perfect shape.
He would experience himself as only he could.

We know nothing, we can know nothing, about god. — Bitter Crank

I think we could know SOMEthing about god if only he or she would tell us.

But the god of this world is mum. It shows no manifestations whatsoever, and if it does, it shows it so nobody in their right mind can recognize the manifestation as his. Beyond daydreaming, of course, and imagining that this great, magnificent orderly world was created by god in his infinite wisdom (omniphilosopher).

Even god's existence is suspect. It's equally as likely as unlikely that he exists. If he exists, or not, we have no knowledge of any of his attributes.

All worry, theoretics, and speculation about the nature of god is futile.

To clarify my need of answers: I need to see either a logically sound argument why after the life state is the same as a state in GA (if that is an actual claim by you-- I can't even vouch for that, but you can), or else or at the same time I need you to present evidential claim that shows the same. Without either, your article is not a substantiated report or substantiated theory.

Hm. I got one part down... how conciousness continues in a straight line manner after perception stops.

This makes sense.

To extrapolate this phenomenon when one falls asleep, or goes under general anesthesia, into going into death, that is, detachment from the physical world, I find unsupported in my mind, in my speculative creative thougths. But the article may say something deep that proves that the extrapolation is valid.

Please, @Bryon Ehlman, could you say in a sentence or paragraph or two what it actually is that logically enables you to claim a similar perception-consciousness structure at death as at falling asleep?

I can't give you a critical response that is worthy of reading until such time as I find the answer to this. And unfortunately my ability to read is not so vast as to read through 26 pages in order to find a specific answer to this very specfic quesiton.

------------------------

Assuming that after the life comes a state similar to being asleep or under general anesthesia, would indicate to me that in that state there is no perception, no thought, no consiousness, IF we take the example of general anesthesia (GA) as the state similar or same as the state after the life. The article rightfully mentioned that under GA the person has no memory of being in it, no perception of being in it, no conscious awareness being in it. So in a way that is how most people imagine death. Absolute nothingness for the consciousness, since either it does no longer exist, or else it goes -- accroding to your claim -- into a timeless perceptionless existence.

I ask you: if there is no difference between how some imagine death, and how we experience anesthesia, then what is the significance of the life after life? I believe your thesis is that we go into the same or similar state, as time stops, experience stops, and consciousness stops. How is it different from consciousness getting expired? This is another thing I need to know, and am too occupied otherwise to read through the article in search for its answer.

If there is no difference between loss of consciousness and an expired consciuosness for the person whose consciousness is lost or expired, then how can you or anyone else claim that it's this way or that way? Furthermore, I find it curious, until you show me otherwise, barring the reading of the entire article, that you find it so obviously true that the experience of the consciiousness IS so-and-so and NOT such-and-such (I mean, different from so-and-so, so to speak). Without any evidence reported of state of consciousness after death, any and all theories are equally suspect, and on the same level of acceptability as every other. To make a point, which I think you are making, that after the life something is definitiely so, you need more evidence than the other theories, and I am not sure if you do supply that evidence.

So it is even more important for me to know on what ground you think it's valid to claim that the experience of the conscious after the death is the same as in GA, because you need to show two things now: 1. The logical inevitabiltiy that after the life experience and GA are equivalent or nearly so; and 2. The evidence you need to supply why we should rather believe this than any other theory of consciousness as it presents after death.

You're absolutely right. Einstein's theory of specific relativity was pure philosophy at first, which got to be scientific knowledge after its predictive nature was shown. Newton's theory of gravity was at first mere philosophy. Maslow's theory of needs in a pyramid form is still not science but philosophy.

I think philosophy is that branch of thinking, which connects reality to knowledge, but supported by less evidence than scientific knowledge.

In this sense, philosophy has no business in meddling in quantum theory. Quantum theory is a science, because it makes predicive results possible. Philosophy is really hard pressed to make even remotely accurate predictions.

The difference between quantum theory and philosophy is the same difference as between any branch of science and philosophy.

That quantum theory is weird, and so is philosophy, is not enough to establish strong connections or identicality. It's like the numbers pulled in lottery draws are completely random, therefore a completely random selection of numbers must win the first prize every time. But much like that is based on false logic, so is the notion that weirdness is an indication of similarity.

The reason I chose my moniker was this following mental exercise I have made up:

God must be an atheist because to be a theist, one must have faith in a god. Faith excludes knowledge. But god does have knowledge of his own existence (Cogito Ergo Sum). Therefore he lacks faith in himself, as he has knowledge of himself. Those who lack faith in a god are atheists. Since god lacks faith in himself, he fits the definition of an atheist.

Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality? — Chris1952Engineer

Thanks for asking. No, it does not imply that.

I promise to send in an article if it does not get published in any other currently peer-reviewed journal in two years, concluding with the end of 2022.

Provided I live that long, and this site does, too.

The more intelligent and insightful an article, the smaller the audience. — Nuke

Quantum mechanics at work. "The smaller a volume of space is, the more energy it contains."

Both are counter-intuitive, and yet absolutely true.

Hello,

First off, I appreciate this objection as a ramification of the problem of evil. I truly have not thought about the problem of evil in this way before. By saying this I mean, I have not thought that we as “inept creatures” dishonor God and in so doing present a problem for the truth of the Christian God since it is reasonable to assume such a God would not dishonor himself. I want to begin by addressing your citing of the Old Testament. You quote, “God created…. and he saw that it was good.” I claim that everything God had created was indeed good. Notice that at the point where this quote takes place in Genesis 1:31, God had created man in his own image and had even spoken purpose over man “Be fruitful and increase in number…” in order for man to live according to the will God had for him. However, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground…” I believe the order and use of words is crucial in this part. I believe when the Bible says “God created man in his own image” in Genesis 1:27 it does not mean God physically formed man in the flesh just yet. I would go as far as claiming that by “created”, the Old Testament refers to the creation of the soul, prior to the formation of the flesh. And so, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God forms man out of dust. And I believe I good indication that this formation does indeed talk about forming in a physical sense, is the fact that it mentions “dust”, which is a physical element.

Besides the technicality and timing of when God calls his creation good, I also want to address the fact that it is also not until Genesis 2:7 that God “breathed into his [man’s] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” God calls his creation good before he brings man to life, and even before he forms him. Not only that, but also from Genesis 1:28 until 1:30 God speaks about the purpose He has for man, “Be fruitful…, fill the earth and subdue it…, I give you every seed-bearing plant, etc.” However, man is not yet formed at this point. So, it must be that God is speaking to a part of man that is not its physical form yet (whether you call it mind or soul I leave up to you). It is not after God had formed and breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7), and until Genesis 2:16 that God speaks to man in his physical and live form and the first thing He says is “You are free… but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” My point here is the following: By the time God tells man he is free and also tells him what he must not do, God had already spoke to man the purpose He had for him (Genesis 1:28-30). So, while man has freedom to follow God’s command or not, God had already spoke man’s purpose into his soul. God did create man good, but it was not until after man was formed, given life, and given freedom that we may call man “evil-doer”.

Just offering an interpretation of the Old Testament here. Please let me know what y’all think! (kindly pls) Pleasure talking philosophy with yall :D — Joaquin

To call this sensible, one must believe in the bible. Otherwise it's mere superstition, and tales written by dilettantes a long time ago, which can be and must be discarded as irrelevant to reality.

I, for one, do not believe the bible; even just one word in it. So please forgive me, but the hermeneutics within your post sound to me like idle mind exercises, which I do not wish to participate in.

One of the main reason for my not believing the bible is the fact that 1. to believe it, you must interpret it, that is, go away from its text to make sense of it; and 2. by doing so, there are different, non-congruent explanatory interpretations, which not only cause confusion, but supply a proof for the nonsensical content of the bible. If I need to interpret, and whether I use logic or not, how can it be interpreted in more than one way, if the bible says the truth? There is only one truth. Truth can't be two different things at the same time and in the same respect, yet the bible demands analysis, which yields differing results. And if it does not says the truth, then why believe in it?

Looping back, it seems to me as though God is definitely responsible for ALL of our attributes, but He cannot be responsible for what He does not give us. — Joaquin

1. Humans are capable of evil doing. (True or false?)
2. An ability to do evil is an attribute. (Joaquin, you deny this.)
3. An ability to do evil is due to the lack of an attribute. (Joaquin, you assert this.)

My answer to 2 and 3: the way a creation is made, makes all its or his actions performed by it or him due to an attribute.

A computer can't eat a bowl of soup. It is not its attribute.

A human is not capable of doing good. Doing good is an attribute that is lacked by humans.

But a human is capable of doing good. So it is an attribute to be able to do good.

To be able to do the opposite of good is not a lack of an attribute, because the only attribute to lack has been accepted as having been given.

Therefore the ability to do the opposite of good is an attribute.

--------------------------

Your argument fails, I beleive, because doing evil is not the lack of an attribute, since humans are capable of doing good. To do something which is not due to a lack of something, is due to the presence of an attribute.

Therefore evil or the opposite of good in man's actions is an attribute god has given to humans.

Therefore, Q.E.D., god is ultimately responsible for all evil, sinc god is the origo, the alpha, the creator of everything existing, including attributes.

I definitely agree that philosophy is not supportive therapy. It is love of wisdom, but why does that only "partly depend on finding the truth''? — Jack Cummins

Because some truths have not been found. So it does not depend on the end result of finding the truht, it depends mostly on continuing the quest of trying to find the truth.

All knowledge is based on faith. — Keenan

A priori knowledge is not based on believing your senses. So there is some knowledge that is not based on faith.

"Many know, manier don't, that to beleive is stronger than to know."

Belief and faith are somewhat different. Belief does not necessarily involve a supernatural element. Faith in a god does.

God may or may not exist. It is not proven or disproven, and therefore individuals are at liberty to beleive either way, and nobody can ask them to do the opposite.

However, any claim about the NATURE of god is pure fantasy. And insisting on the believability of the fantastic claims abou the nature of god is stating nothing more than mere superstitons.

Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.

Is there such a thing?

Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.

So something is eternal. Some call it God.

I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists. — leo

"There is nothing that never changes" can't be true if this is truth.

So you end up with a neat, beautiful paradox, not with a proof that something eternal exists.

Is Ch'an Buddhism more about observation and using logic to determine the nature of the world? — TiredThinker

You are using a comparative without an object. Is Ch'an Buddhism more about observation and using logic, than WHAT? Your sentence screams for an anchor to which you are comparing Ch'an Buddhism.

Right you are.

We've been under the same impression around here. Except some of us would not think that physics can explain the "why" at all, flaws or no flaws. In fact, some of us believe that there is no satisfying answer to the "Why"... some of us think it's a fallacious question.

I am an atheist. I believe there is no god. I allow the possibility of the existence of a god or some gods, but to claim any knowledge of the nature of god is mere fabrication. God never revealed itself; its existence is just as doubtful as its non-existence. The scriptures are old mythologies written to tame the masses to a behaviour which pleased the ruling class. No scripture has ever been written which does not restrict and limit natural human behaviour, precisely because they were societal tools to create establishmentaliarism. There is not much spiritual in teaching religion; it is almost all political.

the fitness for survival of an idea would be largely determined by it being painful or pleasurable — Pop

The idea of a loving and omnipotent god. Survived and spread like wildfire from day one of its inception.

It is a great way for biological systems to self organize, but in a world of eight billion people and growing, I feel, it is not going to work. — Pop

Fornicating is still the most pleasurable activity... not idea creation. Hence the overpopulating of the planet. Which in turn causes all our global ecological troubles. NO amount of ideation and idea creation without violence will reverse this process. The pleasure difference is way too biassed toward sex over idea harmonization.

The theory sounds sound. Most voters can't tell the location of Australia on the map.

Nuff said.

Philosophy is love of wisdom, and as such, it depends partly on finding the truth. The truth can be ugly, and there are sayings about that. Philosophy is not psychology, and definitely not supportive therapy. I philosophize because I am compelled to. If it's ugly, so be it... as long as it sells me the truth. Wishing for higher ideals to win is an anthropomorphic wishful thinking, and as such, it is a valid philosophy too, as long as it digs out the truth.

Well, this implicates the good will. If I am to help myself, am I allowed to hurt others, and still be moral? — god must be atheist

This gave me to deeper thoughts: Why is it good to be moral? Why is it important for us to prove to others we are moral? Why is it that all of us make moral measuring sticks that favour ourselves, our philosophies, our world and political views?

What is it about morality that all winners want it to be by their side?

What's the importance of being ernest, of being moral?

Come to think of it, I wonder if the definitions I have given could be extended to include actions to hurt or help oneself as well. — Tzeentch

Well, this implicates the good will. If I am to help myself, am I allowed to hurt others, and still be moral? Or the other way around.

If you think, @Nils Loc, that my bull-example or analogy of what philosophy is, I patterned after the quote below. I carried the joke and the analogy to a different field of biological and social similarity to philosophy. That's all. I wasn't trashing anything or anyone. I responded with a jokular joke to another previous joke.

Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas and shits all over them and also enriches the soil.
— unenlightened

I think this has to be the quote of year... Though perhaps one could even say that "Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas, chews over them again and again like it chews its cud, digests them, and shits them out thus enriching the soil to grow new ideas." — Roy Davies

I’m interested in the nature of ideas. I have a theory that ideas can be modelled as organisms and evolve according to the process of survival of the fittest. From a cognitive science point of view, this makes some sense because an idea is taken into someone’s mental framework if it fits in some way with what they already believe. So, if we consider human minds to be the environment in which ideas breed and grow, then I wonder what the measure of fitness is for an idea? — Roy Davies

Interesting proposition. Ideas are not reproducing by themselves; it is the mind that makes similar, but not identical, replicas of an idea when it progresses it in a line of thought. So if you insist that it's an evolution, of an organism, ideas are, then I suggest that ideas are parasites that completely depend on their hosts for survival, and their transmission from host to host happens by way of language and communication of thought.

But you still are trashing threads no doubt — Nils Loc

I am not trashing threads. It's true I say my opinions straightforwardly, provokatively and with a lot of emphasis. I never "trash" (to use your word for the impression you get of what I do) threads without a cause or without an undue opinion. I am much against god-worship much like others are much for god-worship. You can't blame me for that more than I can blame the god-worshippers for their god-worship. It's not god-worship I trash, but the religions that surround the god-worship. Religions are out-dated, antiquated, and useless for today's philosophers, for most of the god-gaps have been filled by scientific knowledge. But philosophically speaking, god-worship is just as valid as non-. However, to tie god's existence, image, and qualities to words of ancient people and to beleive them, is stupid, because there have been too many discrepancies uncovered proving why that is wrong, both in a priori and in empirical knowledge.

That's A. B. is that I have not voiced a "trashing" opinion lately. Depends, of course, on how you define "lately". The trend is toward non-"trashing".

Erm... I don't think I have a higher ratio of deleted posts than most others. If I were "trashing" without justification, my posts would be deleted at a higher rate than normal.

Sort of contradictory don't you think!!!! — Sir2u

I don't know what you are referring to. Where is the contradiction? I am not pretending to be stupid. I really see no contradiction. I don't have a good rote memory. Why is that conradicting three congratulatory exclamations? Or you think having a Jewish and a German conglatulatory exclamation is a contradiction, when said side-by-side? I really don't know what prompted you to say there is a contradiction there.

But you still are trashing threads no doubt due to your anger. Are you PUI? — Nils Loc

What's PUI?

Genes are selfish like dogs are selfish. To call a dog selfish is an analogy because a dog has no self to conserve. — Nils Loc

But surely you can call a shellfish selfish. Or a shelf-ish piece of furniture shelfish. Or a selfish person when you are drunk shelfish.

EDIT: Maybe this is what you referred to as "trashing threads" in your post to me? Here I am not intending to trash... instead, make a play on words. It's not germane to the topic, so you can ask the mods to delete this post. Mine here is an innocuous fancy of word play. To say I am trashing your post is a misinterpretation. If not of the fact, at least of my intention.

Philosophy is like a bull that asks ideas out, entertains them, has a few drinks with them, dances with them in the dark, then f them brutally, without any regard whether it was good for the idea as well or not.

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?

I think it depends on what side of the Lotus Flower you find yourself sitting on.

It can be both, and it can be neither, at the same time and in the same respect.

Buddhism IS like that.

Or maybe I'm mixin' it up with Zenism. Or Jesusism.

This is not how probability calculus works. — TheMadFool

You are absolutely right. Because there is no such thing as "probability calculus". Probablity and statistics are in the finite numbers branch of mathematics, not in the branch of Calculus.

Anyone who knows anything about how to calculate probabilities, knows this.

So how come YOU call ME ignorant?

why bother collecting the stamps? — Srap Tasmaner

Apples fell on people's heads for tens of thosuands of years before one looked at that stamp and said, Hey, this makes sense if you use this hypotheses.

The science of new endeavour starts with looking at strange stamps, and putting them together to form a full set. Nobody hands you a full set from the other side of nature. This is why the Bible is false, for instance.

But forbidding of looking at strange stamps or denying yourself the paractice, will forever deny you the possiblity of collecting a full set.

I am, personally, abhorred by supernatural claims, they scare me, I think they come directly from the Djinnes that ride mad aryan capricorns on your chest around where your heart is, when you have a nightmare. (One day I will photograph that and publish it at the New England Journal of Medicine. I already have a photographer lined up, Bigfoot, but he is not getting the concept. As of yet.)

The rhetoric you gave, Srap, I think is limping a bit. In fact, there is no scientific explanation agaisnt researching supernatural claims. The results are all negative, and that should deter us only in the financial aspect of research, not in the scientific aspect.

because we know that time passes when no physical change occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we know that time passes when nothing happens? How do we know that time passes when things happen?

If we accept that time passes when nothing happens, then we can equally claim that time never passes, and motion and change are increments piled on top of each other, so to speak, without time getting involved at all.

... And if you would rather lie... then would you rather lie in velvet, or in white satin?

Opening posts' question: Do People Have Free Will?

Some people do, some people don't.