Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil. — simplyG

Stunning. How do you define "perfect"? Because definitions and concepts go a priori to becoming a good citizen afterwards. I wholeheartedly want to know it, because I am realising that I am approaching evil, instead of celibacy. According to your basis, free will always pushes us to commit sins. Only in a predetermined life would we all be perfect then?

I think there is a bigger problem than this. If creation is the product of good god, then why did this god conceive of and build a system wherein bloody and abject suffering of innocent living things was written into the very act of survival? To a great extent, insects and animals torment, hunt and eat other insects and animals in order to stay alive. What kind of a cruel deity (when presumably anything might have been possible) would conceive of a vicious reality wherein predation of this kind is a foundational attribute?

Suffering is an ineluctable aspect of the world; if g/G created the world, then g/G created suffering (e.g. creatures devouring one another in order to sirvive, etc). "Thy will be done", no?

Stunning. How do you define "perfect"? — javi2541997

having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be — dictionary

My definition is something that is flawless

According to your basis, free will always pushes us to commit sins. Only in a predetermined life would we all be perfect then? — javi2541997

No free will also allows us to perform good deeds too, it's wisdom and emotional intelligence that allows one to do the right thing rather than being an evil bastard, I'm not necessarily saying free will is bad.

I'm saying bad choices are bad and that not being able to tell the difference is ignorance rather than bad. If something evil is performed deliberately and the person performing knows it's a bad thing to do then there is not contravention of free will taking place, it's the privilege of having free will

I think there is a bigger problem than this. If creation is the product of good god, then why did this god conceive of and build a system wherein bloody and abject suffering of innocent living things was written into the very act of survival? To a great extent, insects and animals torment, hunt and eat other insects and animals in order to stay alive. What kind of a cruel deity (when presumably anything might have been possible) would conceive of a vicious reality wherein predation of this kind is a foundational attribute? — Tom Storm

Good question there questioning the creators intent and laws of the jungle. He could easily make paradise, where all that exist is sheep eating grass. That would defeat the purpose of diversity and life itself, I think he just wanted to create knowing perfection would be boring so he chose imperfection instead, I don't really know.

That would defeat the purpose of diversity and life itself, I think he just wanted to create knowing perfection would be boring so he chose imperfection instead, I don't really know. — simplyG

I generally hold the view that if there is a god they are either somewhat powerless or a cunt. But who are we to use puny human logic on such complex matters? :wink: The idea that god would be happy to factor in intense suffering as an inherent attribute of their creation (in order to prevent boredom) sounds sociopathic.

The idea that god would be happy to factor in intense suffering as an inherent attribute of their creation (in order to prevent boredom) sounds sociopathic. — Tom Storm

Sounds like the Old Testament to me, yes I think the motives of such a being are hard to fathom.

What is the purpose of God anyway? can’t he just chill out for a bit and give us humans a break ? Nope some idiot wants to start a war because he wants the old times back or more land or whatever reason wars happen for, it’s always got the human element there, again the privilege of free will…but if they followed one of the commandments though shalt not kill then the world would be a slightly happier place no ? Tigers can’t read so you carry on boys …

The bible is full of contradictions I have to admit but as far as morality goes it’s got some good stuff.

Prey-predator dynamics are part of nature and what makes it wonderful imo, yes in a sense it’s cruel and as an ardent theist I must take the good with the bad, what would the cheetah eat without the gazelle which in turn eats vegetation. It’s a vicious cycle in a sense and I’d rather be a cheetah but such is nature, and empathy is not just a human attribute I’m sure some animals are capable of it too.

You also have to realise that neither the cheetah nor the gazelle had a choice that they were born as such and that the cheetah without the prey would die without it.

I'm saying bad choices are bad and that not being able to tell the difference is ignorance rather than bad. If something evil is performed deliberately and the person performing knows it's a bad thing to do then there is not contravention of free will taking place, it's the privilege of having free will — simplyG

I understand your point, but how can we distinguish between good and bad actions? Whatever is ethical for me and you, it could be unethical for others, and so on. If I didn't understand you wrong, I think you believe that most of our decisions depend on the blurred line of "good and evil".
Nonetheless, it is obvious that sometimes we have to make bad decisions, whether we want to or not. There is not an established principle that always making "good" decisions will lead you to a happy ending. These concepts, "goo"d and "bad", are free interpreted to people...

Yes, then you agree that the answer to thread's question is god creates suffering and therefore, that god is, in effect, indistinguishable from the devil (i.e. wholly unworthy of, or is immorsl to, worship). :pray: :naughty:

NB: Also, most living creatures are microbial parasites ((or symbionts), not "predators". The living were allegedly "created" to consume the living – cannibalesque coprophagy – to involuntarily afflict pain or injury on one another. "Creation" (aka "the best of all possible worlds") is a cosmic abattoir.

The Lord works in Mysterious Ways.

Yes, then you agree that the answer to thread's question is god creates suffering and therefore, that god is, in effect, indistinguishable from the devil (i.e. wholly unworthy of, or is immorsl to, worship). :pray: :naughty: — 180 Proof

I wouldn’t go that far, suffering is a product of creation and though God itself could indeed be perfect his creation isn’t due to the natural world unfolding in the way it does. Worship is a personal choice.

There is a generic widespread mistake in most people who try to face the problem of theodicy. The mistake is in dealing with the problem by making use of logic as the essential instrument to solve it. So, this is the mechanism: we look for some logic, according to which we will become able to get the conclusion that evil is logical, evil can be explained. The consequent conclusion of this mechanism will be that evil is acceptable, evil is fine, evil is good. As you can see, this radical wrong method contains in itself the intention to reach the conclusion the evil is good. Trying to rely on logic to solve the problem of evil is not really a very logical way, because, logically, we can also understand that logic is unable to found itself. So, why should we trust logic, especially in facing this important problem? It is much better to adopt a dynamic and rich approach, that tries to use all of our experiences and abilities, without putting a definitive conclusion in our purpose. Rather, the purpose should be dynamic. Instead of sayng "Let's find an answer to the problem of evil" we should say "Let's work continuously to find better and better, ad infinitum, ways of living this human condition of our existence".

I wouldn’t go that far ... — simplyG

:roll:

Not saying evil is good, I am however saying evil is in one sense inevitable because we’re not perfect yet. Were we able to eradicate disease and wars or other types of misfortune ourselves then we’d be close to it …perhaps God likes to delegate the nitty gritty to us…

@180 Proof does this angle help ?

So god created suffering in order to help – torture – us sufferers to strive to become "perfect"? Sounds like apologetic gibberish. :mask:

@180 ProofApologetic gibberish you call it well forgive me, there’s plenty of suffering to go round with or without god and if we can reduce it than that would be nice I’m not saying some religious principles have not been the cause of many wars but that has been a misinterpretation of gods plan for mankind.

I guess I fall into the apologetic category by your and my admissions, that’s not too bad I’m in good company.

Oh and don’t forget that life can be beautiful too, depends how you see it…always a glass half full kinda guy. The happy moments should be equally appreciated with the sad ones :)

Not saying evil is good, I am however saying evil is in one sense inevitable — simplyG

Saying that evil is inevitable is equivalent to say that it is good. Inevitable means that our world is the best possible, so, the kind of good we can afford is the one we have in this world, so, it is the maximum good we can have in this world. This means that any evil we have in this world is just part of the general maximum good we can have in this world. Evil is part of good. Evil is good.
Moreover, from a historical point of view, saying that evil is inevitable prepares a good ground for another holocaust.
Moreover: how do you know that evil is inevitable?

I raised this point in another thread. If g/G is omnipotent, either 1) g/G is a sociopath or 2) g/G is beyond good and evil.

1) This would be that g/G has some sort of agenda where he needs evil to happen to see an outcome. But if he was omnipotent, surely he could have picked a range of choices that had no evils in it.

2) This would be that g/G is on a level of ethics whereby "good" and "evil" does not apply to him. He's working at a "higher level". But this doesn't get around the fact that many/all of his creatures did/do/will suffer and he is aware of it. How does ethics at a "higher level" justify suffering at the "lower level", when it is perceived as suffering at this lower level? Surely an omnicient g/G would know this.

Either way, these two scenarios are quite problematic. 2 is especially problematic in that it may be the case that humans are default being used for a "greater plan", but nullifying the "don't use people as a means to an ends". If there is no "greater plan", then there is still the mystery of why "suffering" and "evil" exist in and of itself.

Also, with 2, it is oddly anthropomorphic to assume that g/G has started a game (the universe/multiverse) so that he could watch something play out. If he is truly "beyond all ethical values of comprehension", even this pedestrian interest in watching a game play out, is ridiculously anthropomorphic.

Perfection is a unity. It lacks nothing.

Creation is not a unity. All created things lack something. Creation is continuous, a process of becoming. We might ask: "if one creates a perfect thing, but it is not perfected until the process of creation is finished, is the thing thus imperfect?" "Is perfecting necessarily imperfect?"

Wouldn't it be better still if the perfect became perfect instantaneously? But perhaps the process of the imperfect being brought to perfection is itself better than such a timeless perfection?

Jacob Boheme's insight was that such a unity cannot achieve certain things that divided being can. Self-knowledge is impossible for a unity because there is no differentiation between it and anything else. Just one thing existing becomes the same as nothing existing, it's like the information held in an infinite series of just 1s or just 0s.

Eckhart says something to the effect of "the Father was born when I was born," which in context is the argument that God becomes what God is through creation. The Father is only the Father when he begets the Son. Such a creation requires differentiation, which in turn requires the lack of perfection implied by separateness.

Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God.

Towards this view, in the Biblical narrative creation itself seems to rebel from the very beginning. God calls on the Earth to "grass grass," and instead it "puts forth grass," causing the ancient Rabbis to note that the Earth was first in rebellion. The deeper meaning here might be that the speaking of existence into being through God's Word is necessarily a division of things that implies gradations of perfection.

In any event, I don't think evil, unpleasant, bad, and painful are necessarily synonyms. People can find good in things that are "unpleasant," and we see this is ascetics all the time. So there is an argument to be made that "evil" only stems from the emergence of self-reflective freedom. Bad emerges relevant to some sort of subjectivity. If everything is good, without the possibility of bad, then good becomes contentless. It is a label applied equally to all things. Thus, the creation of good implies the bad.

It's worth noting that while God deems some things good as he creates them, only the holistic unity is deemed "very good," or "absolutely good."

IMO, the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenificent, omniscient God begets paradoxes. But as Niels Bohr once said "the opposite of a truth is a falsity, but the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth."

Jacob Boheme's insight was that such a unity cannot achieve certain things that divided being can. Self-knowledge is impossible for a unity because there is no differentiation between it and anything else. Just one thing existing becomes the same as nothing existing, it's like the information held in an infinite series of just 1s or just 0s. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I believe Schopenhauer drew inspiration from Boheme. @Wayfarer can perhaps confirm that with the book he is reading on Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer was adamant that his metaphysical Will was unitary but individuated (Will and Representation), as the flipside is "objectified Will" and "individuated". However, he was careful to emphasize his system was atheistic. That is to say, there was no creator or logos or purpose for it. It just "is". However, he did not give it a positive spin, but rather thought of it as tragic as the Will-individuated is full of suffering and dissatisfaction. That seems to offer a solution around the problems I brought up above for someone planning suffering and dissatisfaction to be in the system.

Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The creation is still the output of a creator. See my problems above again.

If everything is good, without the possibility of bad, then good becomes contentless. It is a label applied equally to all things. Thus, the creation of good implies the bad. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is why Schopenhauer seems relevant here again. "Good" in this metaphysical sense of "unity" (no individuation, binaries, etc.) would be some sort of Nirvana-like state, not "good" in the hedonic sense. However, to posit an alternative, I could say that there could have been a possible world where everyone was hedonically happy, and never suffered and knew it by way of some self-aware feeling that they felt good. Or alternatively again, there could have been a possible world where people could change the degree of hardship and change it back so that they had the opportunity for less optimal conditions to "overcome" something, but if this was too much, they could switch back, etc. If this is preposterous, it is because yeah, it doesn't exist. It's a "utopia". But, this is not our reality. Rather, our reality has suffering, dissatisfaction, and evil as either hedonically true (contingent for each person's experience) or metaphysically true (it's built in, in some Schopenhauerian sense of "suffering"). Either way, it doesn't lead to the "best possible world". And thus I bring you back to the problems I brought up.

I raised this point in another thread. If g/G is omnipotent, either 1) g/G is a sociopath or 2) g/G is beyond good and evil.

1) This would be that g/G has some sort of agenda where he needs evil to happen to see an outcome. But if he was omnipotent, surely he could have picked a range of choices that had no evils in it.

2) This would be that g/G is on a level of ethics whereby "good" and "evil" does not apply to him. He's working at a "higher level". But this doesn't get around the fact that many/all of his creatures did/do/will suffer and he is aware of it. How does ethics at a "higher level" justify suffering at the "lower level", when it is perceived as suffering at this lower level? Surely an omnicient g/G would know this.

Either way, these two scenarios are quite problematic. 2 is especially problematic in that it may be the case that humans are default being used for a "greater plan", but nullifying the "don't use people as a means to an ends". If there is no "greater plan", then there is still the mystery of why "suffering" and "evil" exist in and of itself.

Also, with 2, it is oddly anthropomorphic to assume that g/G has started a game (the universe/multiverse) so that he could watch something play out. If he is truly "beyond all ethical values of comprehension", even this pedestrian interest in watching a game play out, is ridiculously anthropomorphic. — schopenhauer1

Or alternatively again, there could have been a possible world where people could change the degree of hardship and change it back so that they had the opportunity for less optimal conditions to "overcome" something, but if this was too much, they could switch back, etc. If this is preposterous, it is because yeah, it doesn't exist. It's a "utopia".

R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.

The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances interacts with how they promote, or destroy other's freedom. There is the distinction between "learning to desire that which is good," and the second order volition aspect of "being able to desire what you want to desire." But these two only become mutually reinforcing in a social context of we "desire to want the good," and can make those desires effective.

The creation is still the output of a creator. See my problems above again.

IDK, that's like, if roads are good, saying that the road pavers not-build roads all the places there aren't roads and that this is a bad act. Or if numbers are good, and God only emanates the natural numbers, then God is somehow acting by not emanating the reals.

Granted, this makes more sense in a Neoplatonic vision of emanation cosmology. Plantinga has a pretty good proof on the idea that if there is an infinite number of possible worlds, such that for any world there will always be an infinite number of worlds that are worse and better than that world, it doesn't follow that any creation is act of creation is thus a contradiction of goodness. I personally have never found that sort of religious philosophy particularly interesting, so I forget the details, but I recall it being convincing.

The concept of good wouldn’t exist without the concept of bad, as simple as that, hence god is not the issue.

Even if utopia was possible where nothing bad happened and only good then how would badness be known if all that was known and happened was good ?

In a world where no bad or evil acts happened then that world would not have the world evil in their dictionary hence a metaphysical argument has to be provided regarding the issue of evil which @Count Timothy von Icarus has given @schopenhauer1

R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.

The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances interacts with how they promote, or destroy other's freedom. There is the distinction between "learning to desire that which is good," and the second order volition aspect of "being able to desire what you want to desire." But these two only become mutually reinforcing in a social context of we "desire to want the good," and can make those desires effective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, clearly the utopia doesn't exists in this world; manufacture whatever scenario you want to make it a utopia- what you are reiterating is simply that this world isn't coming close to a utopia anytime soon, or perhaps can never reach thus, even in possibility (though perhaps in theory). That is to say, whatever the case in the future (which looks bleak regarding utopia), utopia was not created as we speak. All the suffering leading to utopia then must be justified in the light of the people being "used" as pawns to reach the supposedly good terminus.

IDK, that's like, if roads are good, saying that the road pavers not-build roads all the places there aren't roads and that this is a bad act. Or if numbers are good, and God only emanates the natural numbers, then God is somehow acting by not emanating the reals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

, it doesn't follow that any creation is act of creation is thus a contradiction of goodness. I personally have never found that sort of religious philosophy particularly interesting, so I forget the details, but I recall it being convincing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't understand your argument, so I won't answer. You'd have to clarify. You said:

Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, so the "not-god" part (the relevant part for us because it's the part that's um, "not perfect" and thus I guess is "not good") is still something an omnipotent g/G brought about, so I don't think your answer fits though I see you are trying there.

The mistaken idea that because wickedness exists in the world means that god does not exist seems slightly flawed despite the numerous times atheists keep banging their heads against it. It would be a contravention of the act of creation itself to restrict human free will to do only as they are told i.e good.

The issue is that once free will is granted to human beings some of them abuse it by committing horrific or evil acts.

But it’s also this very capacity that allows one to do good too such as helping mankind make life easier for each other and improving their overall condition by granting them the volition to do so otherwise we would simply be well to do puppets on a string only doing good because we have no choice.

So it’s precisely this choice good or bad that makes the world interesting …think of the many scientific discoveries that can be used for good and for bad.

R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.

The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

IIRC, this idea (re: Bakker's Neuropath) goes back about two decades earlier (at least) to George Alec Effinger's notion of cybernetic augments (re: "daddies" & "moddies") in When Gravity Fails and Iain M. Bank's genengineered "drug glands" in his early Culture novels Consider Phlebas and The Player of Games. Decades earlier, adjusting oneself to suit or despite circumstances biochemically / physiologically also is explored, though differently, in both Ursula Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness (re: "changing sex back and forth") and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (re: "soma drug"). I think the "neuro app", however, is the most likely version of this idea to manifest as feasible tech. :nerd:

Then his power is limited. Or he is not the kind of being we usually take him to be: all good, all powerful, etc.

Or we could have the wrong ethics - his are far beyond the ethics we understand.

Or he just doesn't care.

The fall of creation happened before the physical universe was created. Life in the fallen universe is imperfect because perfection is spiritual, not physical. Perfection is life made free of evil.

I think the "evil as absence" theory works if your starting point is Neoplatonic emanation because the lower hypostases, of which the physical world is the lowest, have no causal powers. But I agree that it is unsatisfying in the more compelling metaphysical contexts we have access to day. That is, I think Augustine's explanation is interesting because it is consistent, but it isn't compelling.

Personally, I tend try to think of it in terms of emergence. God, or if you are an atheist, some event sets forth the "rules" through which the universe evolves (such rules need not be causal players, just descriptions of how nature evolved). God, or the event, determined the initial conditions for evolution. But then, at some point, intentionality emerges because, well, here we are. Good and evil don't seem like coherent concepts unless intentionality and subjectivity exist, so they emerge within intentionality.

We can always tie everything back to ultimate causes, and in this way we can say "God authors evil," or "the universe fundementally produces evil." But it's in the immanent unfolding that everything interesting happens and that the very intentionality that defines evil exists.



:up: ...but fairly terrifying in Scott's hands lol.

I suppose it's a gradation though. We already accomplish some of this when we grab a coffee to improve our focus. If we ever get very specific functioning apps, I imagine we will look back at the application of system-wide medicines, with their huge side effects, to deal with mental illness on par with using leeches and bleeding people back in medieval medicine.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean and how you arrived at that. Citations?

Lucifer and the angels were spiritual, not physical beings. They descended into 'veils of matter' (Origen). The fall led to physical existence.