Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Puck]

Using terms like "good" and "evil" is a bit meaningless when brainwanking about a "higher being".

Good and evil doesn't exist. Things just ARE. After things are perceived by the (narrow) human mind, they need to be put in drawers, labeled as such. But a truly enlightened state of mind sees no difference in the value of "good" and "evil" events.

Let's try a dwarf fortress analogy. The player is the godlike being.  Now whether your dwarves finish that megaproject unharmed or whether they kill themselves in a spectacular way while trying, that doesnt really matter all that much. Both will entertain you, the godlike being.

And if anything, if there really is a god somewhere, it's probably just watching it's enormous antfarm -the universe-, looking for the next clumsy bastard to wipe himself out in a comical and nuclear way. (Not because god is cruel, but because an enlightened state of mind will probably just perceive without judging. Pain is information. Pleasure is information. With the right state of mind, all information is equal in tastiness.)

Whether god exists or not, however, is a completely different (and undiscussable) matter. The best you can do, really, is get yourself into a religious trance, by whatever means are legal where you live, and hope for the best. Take care, you might end up on the funny farm.

I for one still say "god exists" and "god doesnt exist" is basically the same thing. A very basic and funny mystical principle that is hard to put in words.

[LegoLord]

See, making us perfect things that could do no "evil" would be denying us free will.  Having free will kind of makes us imperfect.  And yes, "evil" does not really exist.  And if "good" exists, then the only things that can define it are either the lack of it or the presence of some sort of opposite.  If there was no lack of "good" (or if there was no "evil") we would not know what "good" is.

[Puck]

Or like Cmdr. Spock put it so eloquently:

"Without the darkness, would we even be able to see the light?"

Cheese on!

[Cyx]

Puck, I was talking about the christian God. If a higher being existed, I do think he would likely be as you described him. But if the christan God existed and was good, then "good" and "evil" wouldn't be just perspectives anymore, they would be absolutely right or wrong and they would exist beyond humans.

LegoLord, I think my first point applies here. God is omnipotent, so he makes the rules. We wouldn't see what good is without the lack of it, but it's because God made us this way; I'm sure He doesn't have this kind of limitation. Also, why make us free enough to do what we want but blind enough not to do what we should ? And if free will is the ability to do what God, which knows everything, doesn't want us to do, I don't see why it is so important to him. Then there's the problem of everything that has nothing to do with us humans: If an earthquake causes great pain and torment, it is a bad thing for God. He knows everything, he can do anything and he is good, so if the earthquake exists, God allowed it to, yet there isn't any free will in the equation.

[Yanlin]

I'm with the gnostics here. God is an evil bastard.

[LegoLord]

Okay, look.  If no one ever did anything wrong, it would be because doing wrong would be impossible.  There is an inability to choose.  If presented with two options, both of which would have negative consequences, we would be unable to do anything, even if, say, one option would save the world, for instance.  If we can't do wrong, then it doesn't just mean we can't have the option to do wrong, but that we can't have any options at all.

As for the earthquake, that's just physics and chemistry, the laws of the universe (or rather a side effect of them).  They are constant, and if an omnipotent being was messing around with them all the time, that would limit our choices (we would have no defined phyics or chemistry; can you imagine how much worse things would be if that were the case?)

[andrea]

note: below there are random thoughts. if you want to ofllow a logical line, skip this post.
(don't even try to do that!)

maybe the problem is: what do we call God? different people have different ideas about it.

is a God who just created space, time and matter/energy, and wrote the laws of the universe and just a second after creation stopped caring or even existing possible?

if science advanced so much that we could write a single law that explained everything, since it created everything and it knows everything, would it be God?


what did i say in the above part of the post? whatever... lets go ahead.

i have several other thoughts i might share.

1) atheism is a religion, because it is based on faith. you have no proof God doesn't exist. you just believe it doesn't exist.

2) if a perfect God created an universe, with good laws that made everything work, why would he break these laws all the time? i am sure an omnipotent and all knowing being could easily work in his own rules.
it is like a parent that, while smoking a big cigar, says to the child :" don't smoke, it is bad!"

2b) if God is omnipotent and all knowing, and so can make laws for the universe that allow Him to program it to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, then does a post creation God have a purpose? he could exist only to break his own perfect universe, or he would make a broken uiverse just to give himself a reason to exist.

note: God here most times if not all isn't meant as christian God. it is any God that may or may not exist, may or may not have been thought by human mind.

more may come later... maybe i'll think of something else, or i'll remember buried knowledge and ideas i forgot.

[Cyx]

If God made us "like he should have", we would be able to do something evil for the greater good of course. But if he made the universe like he should have, we wouldn't have to. Because there would be no evil to do.

If no one ever did anything wrong, it would be because doing wrong would be impossible.

Or because everybody would be wise enough not to. God hasn't done anything wrong. Yet he is free, isn't he ?

And an earthquake is not just physics and chemistry, it's pain and suffering, too. God could prevent it. He could mess with the physics and chemistry and make us not notice it, he could have made the Earth a better place. Plus, natural catastrophies tend to limit our choices, too. By death. So, he predicted the earthquake and all the wrong it would do, yet he let it happen. Why ?

[LegoLord]

But then you couldn't not be wise.  And could you be born with wisdom?  Where would that wisdom come from?  You wouldn't have any experiences from which to gain it, so it would have to be a carbon copy of someone else.  Que lack of choice.

We didn't just spring into existence as we are now; we evolved from something between a monkey and a human.  That is how I believe a god would make people, because science has found no other logical conclusion than evolution.  So saying that we would instantly be created as perfect beings is impossible, by the very laws of the universe that it is proposed an omnipotent being would create.

[Puck]

Because there would be no evil to do.

There is no evil to do, in the great scheme of things. Pain and suffering is nothing but chemical reactions and nerve impulses. Chemistry and physics.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of god. I'm just saying this whole good/evil thing has nothing to do with the whole argument. Try a different approach.

[andrea]

there might be an huge difference between our good and evil, and God's good and evil.

[Cyx]

Yes we could not be wise. But we wouldn't. As I said, God is free, yet he does only good things, and could be evil if he wanted. Look at the world around us: all the virtuous people that know God exists and is good, they all do good things everytime it's in their power. They could do evil things, but it wouldn't be good. Do they chose not to ? If you argue yes, then freedom can be attained without evil, were we all made virtuous.

Your last conclusion is what I'm trying to explain actually. It's impossible. God has no reason, being good, to create a universe where it is impossible for perfect beings to emerge without evil. Thus this imperfect universe cannot be the creation of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and perfect God - and this is what the problem of evil is about.

Puck, again you're kind of right, but I'm trying to see it from the religious point-of-view. What you said about pain can be applied to all emotions and sensations. One could argue that everything we are is chemistry and physics, even down to the consciousness itself. But if God exists, we've got a value beyond all that, because we've got souls and He loves us and we love Him, and sadness is actually a bad thing and happiness is actually a good one because He watches us and listens to us. God makes everything valuable and meaningful, that's why the idea is so popular. I doubt my vision of the "average" or "official" christian point-of-view is wrong, but feel free to correct me if it is.

[andrea]

yes, should be about that.

[LegoLord]

Whether we have souls or are just run by chemical reactions, the way we are does not change.

[Puck]

Bein run by chemical reactions does not exclude having a soul, does it?

And whether a creator does care for their creation or not leaves no clue about the existence of the creator at all.
You can only take some wild guesses about the skill level, the intentions or the personality of the creator, but in the end you can't really learn anything conclusive.

So I think the whole suffering/good/bad thing doesnt really add to the whole argument.