God & The Problem of Evil

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:07 pm

I fully understand what you mean when you say "perfect". That is why I said:
James.S.Saint wrote:You would have to have perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn't? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:26 am

James S Saint wrote:I fully understand what you mean when you say "perfect". That is why I said:
James.S.Saint wrote:You would have to have perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn't? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all
Do I need to have "perfect" understanding of myself to say 1 + 1 = 2 is mathematically perfect?

Do I need to have "perfect" understanding of myself to say the following is a description of perfect circle?
wiki wrote:A circle is a plane figure bounded by one line, and such that all right lines drawn from a certain point within it to the bounding line, are equal. The bounding line is called its circumference and the point, its centre.
— Euclid. Elements Book


The above is the same way how I can discuss the idea of an absolutely perfect God as conjured by theists [not me] which is an illusion.

As for 'myself', I believe "I" am an empirical self.
As such there can no absolutely perfect understanding of myself.
However since "I" is empirical, I can have a relative 'perfect' understanding of myself.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:40 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I fully understand what you mean when you say "perfect". That is why I said:
James.S.Saint wrote:You would have to have perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn't? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all
Do I need to have "perfect" understanding of myself to say 1 + 1 = 2 is mathematically perfect?

Do I need to have "perfect" understanding of myself to say the following is a description of perfect circle?
wiki wrote:A circle is a plane figure bounded by one line, and such that all right lines drawn from a certain point within it to the bounding line, are equal. The bounding line is called its circumference and the point, its centre.
— Euclid. Elements Book


The above is the same way how I can discuss the idea of an absolutely perfect God as conjured by theists [not me] which is an illusion.

As for 'myself', I believe "I" am an empirical self.
As such there can no absolutely perfect understanding of myself.
However since "I" is empirical, I can have a relative 'perfect' understanding of myself.

If you cannot attain perfect understanding of the perfection involved in a "perfect God", then yes, you cannot claim that you have any proof against one. It would be like saying "The most intelligent person would behave like this...", even though you are clearly not intelligent enough to know one way or another. And from what I have seen, your understanding of the general concept of "perfection" (as well as intelligence) is minimal.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:30 am

James S Saint wrote:If you cannot attain perfect understanding of the perfection involved in a "perfect God", then yes, you cannot claim that you have any proof against one. It would be like saying "The most intelligent person would behave like this...", even though you are clearly not intelligent enough to know one way or another. And from what I have seen, your understanding of the general concept of "perfection" (as well as intelligence) is minimal.

I find your thinking very st...
If the above is your argument;
If you cannot have perfect understanding of yourself, then your thesis above is worthless.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:28 am

Nice try, but even forgiving the non-sequitur ...
One can claim ignorance and easily be exactly correct, but to claim perfect understanding, especially of perfection itself, is an entirely different story.

You have not shown any understanding of perfection. Several here have shown that your understanding of it is flawed. That means that you haven't proven anything. And yes, the burden has been upon you this whole time.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:31 am

demoralized wrote:
When God is an absolutely perfect God, it cannot be both absolutely good and absolutely evil, i.e. that is a contradiction.


I don't see why an all powerful God can't exist as a contradiction

This contradiction or - let us say - dichotomy is the way most people "understand" God.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:34 am

demoralized wrote:
Arminius wrote:
The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.




Evil! Yes. :evil:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:48 am

Whether God is evil depends upon one's perspective. An "evil" means an "anti-life". On the personal level, God might be evil, anti-your-life, but that is not the same as the macro-scale of being anti-all-life ("Evil" with a cap "E").

And from the highest perspective, God cannot be Evil, else throughout the infinite universe, there would no longer be life (and never would have been any). Because of God, there will always be life in the universe .. somewhere.


And that is The Problem with The Problem of Evil - "evil" is a matter of level of perspective.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:40 pm

Prismatic 567 wrote:I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.

The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God":

Prismatic 567 wrote:My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God

That is just not true - for several reasons.

Theism did not "evolve" in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word "evolution" should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word "evolution" we should use the word "history". But that would be another topic. In any case, the "evolution" you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called "primitive humans" believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an "evolution" from "primitive" to "progressive". There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God".

So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.

Also: Are human beings "evolving" towards perfection according to you?

Prismatic 567 wrote:The ... ultimate absolutely perfect God ....

Wow, "ultimate absolutely perfect"! All three words are not gradable, improvable! So, you just use them rhetorically.

Prismatic 567 wrote:Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based.

Mathematics is not physics, not a natural science - that is what I am saying. And in English spoken societies: mathematics is not a science at all.

Prismatic 567 wrote:There are degrees to objectivity.

Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity.

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the "coin") and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

Prismatic 567 wrote:Theists relied on beliefs but theirs are not justified-true-beliefs that can be rationally justified, e.g. repeatedly tested by anyone at anytime with same 'independent' results, e.g. as in Science.

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the "coin") and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

Again:

Arminius wrote:Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.


Prismatic 567 wrote:

Prismatic 567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:You are saying (in your signature) that you are "a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious"; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:

Image
Prismatic 567 and His Most Active Forum: Religion and Spirituality.

At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

What kind of logic is that?
That is a fallacy based on hasty generalization.

Note that I said "you seem ...". I just used a bit statistics and made an assumption according to that - not more. Assumption can be, but do not have to be right. My assumption is based upon statistics, thus upon likelihood. But you should admit finally that this numbers are no lies and "say" something about your posting behavior and also, at least likely, about your real preferences.

Prismatic 567 wrote:I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.

But you are not an atheist, but an anti-theist. Most of your postings have shown that clearly. An atheist (I mean a real one) says: "I do not care about theism". But you are one of those who say: "Theism is my favorite subject". And the user statistics about you confirms this clearly.

So again: Cou seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

Prismatic 567 wrote:To convince such evil prone theists ....

Do you really not know the fact that there are evil prone anti-theists and atheists too?

Prismatic 567 wrote:God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and 'defang' the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.

Your logical fallacy again.

Note that there is no proof of the impossibility of God.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:43 pm

James S Saint wrote:If everyone believed that God is tall, would that constitute a definition of "God"?

There are many things that are tall. Being tall is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being tall? Perhaps one person's idea of "tall" isn't quite the same as everyone's. Perhaps your idea of tall isn't actually tall at all.

There are many things that as perfect. Being perfect is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being perfect? Perhaps one person's idea of "perfect" isn't quite the same as everyone's. Perhaps your idea of perfect isn't perfect at all.

You would have to perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn't? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all.

The defining characteristic of God is as stated;
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Any other speculated characteristic of God is just that, "speculation", subjective opinion, poetic fancies, nothing more.

And disproving any speculated characteristic concerning God in no way disproves God.

You must prove that the defining characteristic is impossible.

Yes. And just this is what he can and will never try to do - for several anti-theistic reasons he has. He is not able to admit that he is biased. Otherwise he would accept at least stringent definitions. His distinction between "relative perfection" and "aboslute perfection" is nonsense. Something or someone is either perfect or not. Perfection is not relocatable and not gradable, not improvable!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:11 pm

James S Saint wrote:Whether God is evil depends upon one's perspective. An "evil" means an "anti-life". On the personal level, God might be evil, anti-your-life, but that is not the same as the macro-scale of being anti-all-life ("Evil" with a cap "E").

And from the highest perspective, God cannot be Evil, else throughout the infinite universe, there would no longer be life (and never would have been any). Because of God, there will always be life in the universe .. somewhere.


And that is The Problem with The Problem of Evil - "evil" is a matter of level of perspective.

The perspective of those who wrote the Old Testament obviously required an evil God.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby omar » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:49 pm

Hello Prismatic
I understand your argument. I simply don't accept the premises, which is why I am arguing against the premises of your argument before even addressing the soundness of your argument, because when it comes to the problem of evil it is often human hubris that leads the way, man reducing everything to an extension of himself. With that in mind (and if you want to find Biblical precedence, use Romans), lets look at the following:

Note my arguments;
1. God must be absolutely perfect - as argued.
2. Thus God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
3. Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
4. Any elements of evil proves contradiction
5. Evil exists empirically as defined logically.
6. God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist


Lets imagine having this argument when the reality of the person in question is not in doubt.
1- Omar MUST be absolutely perfect-- (it says so in my resume?)
2- So that means that he MUST be good. (good at what precisely?)
3- According to our own laws of reason, Omar cannot be perfect at everything, if they are opposites. (I get pissed off from time to time; am I not free to do so?)
4- If there is any flaw then how can he be perfect. (Look man all I said on my resume was "I am That I am". You are the ones talking about "perfect")
5- We have found flaws in Omar...
6- Therefore Omar cannot exist. (But I do! Guy that did my resume simply added too much shit)

Six, in any case, only goes as far as disproving 1 and 2, at best, so we don't know if God is perfect or perfectly good. If God is not absolute then He exists.

Note the infinite is not judging the infinite.
In this case the supposed infinite contradict itself.
As such logically the idea of God is an impossibility - via reason not the empirical.


Evil is the total lack of good just as good is the total lack of evil. Such lack is essentially a human measure, thus finite; and it is not arrived by reason but by feeling (one feels that such moment is void of any good or of any evil).

Since God is an impossibility, the question of God is a non-starter.


As conceived by some, yes, but not everybody thinks of God in such a way. Hell, I say every concept of God is a non-starter.

You missed my subtle point.
If one is a polytheist, one is likely to start off believing in many gods.
When it is highlighted to polytheist their gods are inferior they will rationally argued for a master god that is superior and dominate all other gods.
This is what happens with Hinduism where Brahman-God is the most supreme over all other gods.
My point is whatever God or gods are presented, the inherent tendency and psychological intent is to gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God when theists are cornered in some ways. No normal theists will accept any God as inferior to another.


I disagree with your conception of polytheism. In the greek pantheon you had Zeus as the most potent god and yet that did not mean that the other beings in Olympus were not treated and called "gods"- god of this, god of that, god of something else. This paternalistic view is still present in the Bible, covered only by the use of different terms. Thus you have Devil, angels, demons-- stronger than man but weaker than God. From that you can pass onto henotheism. To me theism in not the problem but monotheism. Monotheism has to deal with a multi-faceted reality with character to explain it all. Polytheism can bring (Zoroaster) twp characters to explain that multiplicity.

As I had stated the normal psychological tendencies of theists is not to accept any God as inferior to another God.
This is what drive the evolution in the idea of god from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


I think that the circumstances of people affect their conception of God. Satan was not the antagonist of God but of men...during their period of strength. In weakness and out of desperation, apologists emerge. The decline of a concept has little to do with its rationality than with the facts on the ground affecting the people who transact with these concept. As empires absorbed more and more people concepts began intermarrying, just as the people, creating a new form, not because the old concepts were inherently flawed, and recognized as such, but to accommodate the people of different backgrounds into a new whole. It is no accident that we celebrate Christmas on 25th December.

For example if you do not claim perfect omnipotence for your God, then your god is then less powerful than another which is claimed to have perfect omnipotence. In this case the God with perfect omnipotence will have the power to control your lesser perfect god to kiss its ass or do other derogatory acts. This is why all rational theists will gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God so that their God is not inferior to any God, thus all theists will end up having the same on par God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Logically there is no other rational way than ending with an absolutely perfect God.


But you do understand that omnipotence does not lead to a problem of evil. The Unmovable Mover can be conceived as Omnipotent, yet indifferent to our fates, thus, no POE.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:26 am

Prismatic 567 wrote:I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.

Arminius wrote:The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God":


Prismatic 567 wrote:My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God

That is just not true - for several reasons.

Theism did not "evolve" in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word "evolution" should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word "evolution" we should use the word "history". But that would be another topic. In any case, the "evolution" you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called "primitive humans" believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an "evolution" from "primitive" to "progressive". There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God".

So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.

Also: Are human beings "evolving" towards perfection according to you?
I wonder where you get the idea God is sharing his power with a son?? In the case of the NT God is still supreme overall but merely delegating power to Jesus in one sense.
I have stated, in the NT, God is not explicitly claimed as an absolutely perfect God.
However, later theologians [e.g. St. Anselm] who understood the dilemma argued the Biblical God is an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God than which no greater perfection can arise. This is to ensure the Islamic God [or other God] as claimed is not one-up on the Christian God. Ultimately all ideas of God has to be on par as an absolutely perfect God such that not one is giving away any grounds.

Note sure if you are a Christian, if you are a Christian and if you do not claim your God is an absolutely perfect God, then your god is inferior to Allah and Allah can easily command and control your God to its ass.

So the rational choice for any theists [who understand the dilemma] is to claim one's God is an absolutely perfect God so that one's God will not be dominated by another God who claim itself as an absolutely perfect God.

So an absolute perfect God is imperative and all theists when they are in the know will have no choice by gravitate to an absolutely perfect God.
But the catch is an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:44 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note sure if you are a Christian, if you are a Christian and if you do not claim your God is an absolutely perfect God, then your god is inferior to Allah and Allah can easily command and control your God to its ass.

If that is the case, then The God, as defined below, must be "absolutely perfect";
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

And now you have stated that The God is also known as Allah and is perfect.

But how would you know whether he is perfect one way or another?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:02 am

omar wrote:Hello Prismatic
I understand your argument. I simply don't accept the premises, which is why I am arguing against the premises of your argument before even addressing the soundness of your argument, because when it comes to the problem of evil it is often human hubris that leads the way, man reducing everything to an extension of himself. With that in mind (and if you want to find Biblical precedence, use Romans), lets look at the following:

Note my arguments;
1. God must be absolutely perfect - as argued.
2. Thus God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
3. Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
4. Any elements of evil proves contradiction
5. Evil exists empirically as defined logically.
6. God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist


Lets imagine having this argument when the reality of the person in question is not in doubt.
1- Omar MUST be absolutely perfect-- (it says so in my resume?)
2- So that means that he MUST be good. (good at what precisely?)
3- According to our own laws of reason, Omar cannot be perfect at everything, if they are opposites. (I get pissed off from time to time; am I not free to do so?)
4- If there is any flaw then how can he be perfect. (Look man all I said on my resume was "I am That I am". You are the ones talking about "perfect")
5- We have found flaws in Omar...
6- Therefore Omar cannot exist. (But I do! Guy that did my resume simply added too much shit)

Six, in any case, only goes as far as disproving 1 and 2, at best, so we don't know if God is perfect or perfectly good. If God is not absolute then He exists.

I presume 'Omar' is a human being.
The basic premise is humans [empirical] cannot be God [transcendent].
So your whole syllogism above is corrupted and conclusion false.

Note theists claim their God exists as real and is self-sufficient, independent and created humans.
I had argued, to claim God exists, inherently, God must be an absolutely perfect God.
An absolutely perfect God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
Since evil [natural and human-created] exists,
Therefore God is an impossibility due to the contradiction.

You insist 'evil' is conditioned by humans and their interpretation.
However it is the same for the idea of God which is conditioned by humans and their interpretation.

Note a supplement (i) to my arguments;
    i. Theists [Humans] claim God exists as real.
    1. then God must be absolutely perfect - as argued.
    2. Thus God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
    3. Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
    4. Any elements of evil proves contradiction
    5. Evil [experienced by humans] exists empirically as defined logically.
    6. God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist

The element in 5 which is experienced and concluded by humans is consistent with the human-based premise in (i).

For example if you do not claim perfect omnipotence for your God, then your god is then less powerful than another which is claimed to have perfect omnipotence. In this case the God with perfect omnipotence will have the power to control your lesser perfect god to kiss its ass or do other derogatory acts. This is why all rational theists will gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God so that their God is not inferior to any God, thus all theists will end up having the same on par God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Logically there is no other rational way than ending with an absolutely perfect God.


But you do understand that omnipotence does not lead to a problem of evil. The Unmovable Mover can be conceived as Omnipotent, yet indifferent to our fates, thus, no POE.
Omnipotence do not directly lead to evil as it can lead to good as well.
Note my P1 above, 'then God must be absolutely perfect,' which include therein the quality of omnipotence leading to God must be omni-good thus cannot be evil in any way.
Since evil exists, therefore God is an impossibility.

Note my reply to Amininius above;

    I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
    This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.

The very idea of God existing as real is cracked and shattered by the many researches that demonstrated the idea of God also arise from mental sickness [epilepsy, schizophrenia, etc.], brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens and other psychological basis. e.g.



Now that I have proven "God is an Impossibility" it will lend more credibility to trace the idea of God to its psychological base roots.

In addition, Eastern spirituality has already understood the same existential crisis and sickness that trigger the idea of God and they approach this psychological problem based on non-theistic approaches which has been very successful and without the negative baggage of evil elements in their doctrine to inspire evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:48 pm

You are confusing many things here again. We are not saying that we need or want a God or something like that. We are just saying that your premises and your conclusions are false. So we are not arguing religiosuly, but logically.

You have proven nothing.

What you are doing is nothing else than advertising destruction, thus nihilism.

Why are you not simply saying: "I do not believe in God, and if others do, then I do not care". That would be at least an honest statement. Then - and only then - you could justifiably claim to be an atheist. An atheist is not interested in theistic issues. You are obviously more interested in theistic issues than theists. So you are either a theist who deneies cynically to be one or an anti-theists who confuses anti-theism with atheism, likely also because of cynical motives.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby gib » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Here is one argument for the 'Problem of Evil' and thus a contradictory God;

    Humans can be both good and evil but it make no rational sense for a God to be both good and evil. Note this argument;

    Whatever God or gods are presented, a God by default ultimately has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God - a Being than which no greater can be 'conceived.*'
    * thought of and reasoned.

    If a person accept a non-absolute God then that god is opened to be subordinated and inferior to another superior and Absolute God as claimed by other believers.

    If say a Christian claims his/her god is not absolute but a Muslim claims his/her God is absolutely perfect God [actually as claimed in the Quran], then it is implied the Christian God is inferior to Allah.

    When one accept one's god as not-absolute and perfect, it open up an inferiority gap where anything goes. A Muslim will claims the Christian God being inferior is kissing the ass of Allah and it can be any thing derogatory as Allah dominates the Christian God.

    Therefore it is only rational both the Christian and Muslim must claim their God is absolutely perfect as an ontological God thus giving no gap for the Islamic God to dominate the Christian God and vice-versa.

    Besides Christians versus Muslims, all other theists [deists, pantheists], when faced with the above dilemma, have to claim their God to be an absolutely perfect God or an ontological God so that it refer to the same on-par-God, ontological and monotheism

So I'll repeat;
Whatever God or gods are presented, a God by default ultimately has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God - a Being than which no greater can be 'conceived.*'
* thought of and reasoned.

When God is an absolutely perfect God, it cannot be both absolutely good and absolutely evil, i.e. that is a contradiction.
When a God must be absolutely perfectly good, how can it allow evil* [empirically evident] to exists.
Evil in this case is natural evil [as normally perceived] and human-based evil.

Views?


Let's apply your argument to things that actually exist:

All armies that exist must be perfect, otherwise a stronger army would defeat a weaker army. Therefore, every army that exists must be absolutely powerful and cannot be defeated by any other army.

^ Make sense?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8480
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:06 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Prismatic 567 wrote:I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.

Arminius wrote:The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God":


Prismatic 567 wrote:My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God

That is just not true - for several reasons.

Theism did not "evolve" in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word "evolution" should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word "evolution" we should use the word "history". But that would be another topic. In any case, the "evolution" you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called "primitive humans" believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an "evolution" from "primitive" to "progressive". There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call "the idea of an absolutely perfect God" to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The "change" you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is "theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God".

So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.

Also: Are human beings "evolving" towards perfection according to you?

I wonder where you get the idea God is sharing his power with a son?? In the case of the NT God is still supreme overall but merely delegating power to Jesus in one sense.

There are some regions, for instance in South Italy, Spain and Portugal, where Christians believe more in the Mother of God than in God himself.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have stated, in the NT, God is not explicitly claimed as an absolutely perfect God.
However, later theologians [e.g. St. Anselm] who understood the dilemma argued the Biblical God is an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God than which no greater perfection can arise. This is to ensure the Islamic God [or other God] as claimed is not one-up on the Christian God. Ultimately all ideas of God has to be on par as an absolutely perfect God such that not one is giving away any grounds.

Note sure if you are a Christian, if you are a Christian and if you do not claim your God is an absolutely perfect God, then your god is inferior to Allah and Allah can easily command and control your God to its ass.

To those henotheists, that's the point anyway. So, in reality they are not monotheists, but henotheists, because they always believe, if they are true believers, that their God is more powerful than the God of the others, which means that they acknowledge, recognize, accept the God of the others as the God of the others (!), which would be a contradiction, if they were monotheists.

Prismatic567 wrote:So the rational choice for any theists [who understand the dilemma] is to claim one's God is an absolutely perfect God so that one's God will not be dominated by another God who claim itself as an absolutely perfect God.

So an absolute perfect God is imperative and all theists when they are in the know will have no choice by gravitate to an absolutely perfect God.
But the catch is an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.

Where did I "argue for" my (?!) "God"?

Again and again: You have proven nothing. Your statements show your nihilistic attitude towards others' values and likely and unconsciously also your own values.

Not God is an impossibility, but the "proof that God is an impossibility" is an impossibility. And this impossibility is just the reason why humans or most humans have always believed in gods. It is a success story just because of the impossibility that gods are impossibilities, regardless whether they are perfect or not, regardless wether they are absoute or not. So your kind of God is possible too.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:32 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Let's apply your argument to things that actually exist:

All armies that exist must be perfect, otherwise a stronger army would defeat a weaker army. Therefore, every army that exists must be absolutely powerful and cannot be defeated by any other army.

^ Make sense?
I differentiated 'perfection' between the empirical and the non-empirical.
I had argued the idea of God must ultimately be absolute perfection with perfections that are relevant to its essential qualities, e.g. omnipotence, and omni-whatever.

Only God by default ultimately must be absolutely perfect, else it will be dominated by another.

Armies are empirical based.
Being empirical based and conditional, there is no way an army can claim absolute perfection which is totally unconditional.
How can we establish an definition of a perfect army? It is in terms of total number of men, weapons, power of weapons and these keep changing in accordance to conditions, thus cannot be totally unconditional.
Therefore at best every army will claim they can do the best and wish to be superior but they cannot claim absolute perfection in every which way.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:49 am

Arminius wrote:Again and again: You have proven nothing. Your statements show your nihilistic attitude towards others' values and likely and unconsciously also your own values.

Not God is an impossibility, but the "proof that God is an impossibility" is an impossibility. And this impossibility is just the reason why humans or most humans have always believed in gods. It is a success story just because of the impossibility that gods are impossibilities, regardless whether they are perfect or not, regardless whether they are absoute or not. So your kind of God is possible too.
I have proven by reason and default, God is an Impossibility.

I understand at present theists are believing in all sort of forms of God based on ignorance. But when they aware of the dilemma they are believing in a lesser powerful God, they will gravitate to an absolutely perfect God which no other gods can dominate it. Point is when they avoid this inevitable domination by others, they MUST end up with an absolutely perfect, which rationally is an impossibility.

I understand believing in a God even if it impossibility has benefits to theists but this is primarily psychological benefits to deal with an existential crisis.

I'll repeat the following posted in the other thread;

The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.
While there is the above main pro and other secondary benefits from theism, it is double-edged and has its terrible negatives of evils when SOME evil prone theists commit terrible evils when inspired by the evil laden words of God in some holy texts.
At present humanity already has alternative non-malignant approaches [from Eastern spiritualities] without evil laden elements in its doctrine to deal with this terrible angst.
Thus if we have foolproof non-theistic alternative why should we settle for theistic approaches that has negative side effects.

It is because of the terrible evils, terror and violence from believing in an impossible God that we must convince theists their beliefs are groundless.

Suppose you meet a theist and he insist on killing you because you are from a different religion and he believe his God [to him is real] has granted him sanction to kill. But if that theist is convinced with argument that the God he think is real is actually false and impossible, then he will have no theistic basis to kill you.
This is the advantage of why the truth 'God is an impossibility' is good for humanity because it will prevent all theistic based evils.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:38 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Again and again: You have proven nothing. Your statements show your nihilistic attitude towards others' values and likely and unconsciously also your own values.
I have proven by reason and default, God is an Impossibility.

You have proven nothing other than your own inability to prove anything.

And you have been given detailed explanation as to why. You have not been able to refute anything said against your feigned proofs.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby gib » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:32 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I differentiated 'perfection' between the empirical and the non-empirical.


Why?

Prismatic567 wrote:I had argued the idea of God must ultimately be absolute perfection with perfections that are relevant to its essential qualities, e.g. omnipotence, and omni-whatever.

Only God by default ultimately must be absolutely perfect, else it will be dominated by another.


What makes omni-[whatever] "essential"? In polytheistic religions, there are many gods who don't have all (or any) of these traits. And they are not always dominated by the most powerful god of the pantheon. True, Zeus was the most powerful of the Greek gods, and therefore in a sense "dominated" over the others, but clearly the other gods enjoyed a significant degree of freedom--enough so that cults of human beings could worship them as they would any other god. <-- This also goes to show that lesser and greater gods can form alliances with each other, just as lesser and greater armies can form alliances. Furthermore, even if the most powerful god was to wipe out all lesser gods into extinction, being the "most" powerful does not have to mean "all" powerful. The one surviving god may still bear certain imperfections.

Prismatic567 wrote:Armies are empirical based.
Being empirical based and conditional, there is no way an army can claim absolute perfection which is totally unconditional.
How can we establish an definition of a perfect army? It is in terms of total number of men, weapons, power of weapons and these keep changing in accordance to conditions, thus cannot be totally unconditional.
Therefore at best every army will claim they can do the best and wish to be superior but they cannot claim absolute perfection in every which way.


And in what way is this not so for "unempirical" gods? It's true that in terms of abstract concepts--like being all knowing--one can imagine a sort of limitless ability--such that for anything that can be known, an omniscient god would know it--but this is partly a consequence of not knowing, and not caring about how one would know, how omniscience is possible (just as you would be free to entertain the idea of an all-powerful army if you didn't think you had to understand what that would mean in terms of weapons, money, political support, number of soldiers, etc.--an all powerful army would just mean: capable of defeating any other army).

And besides, there's still a difference between being capable of imagining an all knowing god and the necessity of a god being all knowing. There's no reason to suppose that just because you can conceive a greater god, that this or that god must be that greater god.

^ Are you bringing Anselm's argument into the picture?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8480
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:46 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I differentiated 'perfection' between the empirical and the non-empirical.

Why?
Because the term 'perfect' is used in a variety of sense.
Achieving a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is empirically possible. Such an empirical perfection is different from ideal perfection, e.g. perfect circle which is still empirically related.
Perfect in relation to an ultimate God means 'absolute' total, unqualified, and the likes. Such an ideal and absolute perfection cannot be real [empirically and rationally].

Note I have produced the range of the meaning of 'perfect' in an earlier post. Check the dictionary.

Prismatic567 wrote:I had argued the idea of God must ultimately be absolute perfection with perfections that are relevant to its essential qualities, e.g. omnipotence, and omni-whatever.

Only God by default ultimately must be absolutely perfect, else it will be dominated by another.


gib wrote:What makes omni-[whatever] "essential"? In polytheistic religions, there are many gods who don't have all (or any) of these traits. And they are not always dominated by the most powerful god of the pantheon. True, Zeus was the most powerful of the Greek gods, and therefore in a sense "dominated" over the others, but clearly the other gods enjoyed a significant degree of freedom--enough so that cults of human beings could worship them as they would any other god. <-- This also goes to show that lesser and greater gods can form alliances with each other, just as lesser and greater armies can form alliances. Furthermore, even if the most powerful god was to wipe out all lesser gods into extinction, being the "most" powerful does not have to mean "all" powerful. The one surviving god may still bear certain imperfections.
I understand there are a range of gods within polytheism.
Note the point I brought up, i.e. the idea of God is inherent and has naturally evolved from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Those who are into polytheism are in a way ignorant and grabbed what that came and by cultural and traditions many are still stuck to it at present.
Given the rational choice, theists will rationally adopt a progressively greater God that will ultimate be an absolutely perfect God. This is why 5.4 billion theists are believing in a monotheistic God and the progress will ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.

I have stated, an absolutely perfect God is the ultimate because when cornered no theist will accept their God to be dominated by another. The theists' natural progression to avoid one's God being dominated will lead one to an absolutely perfect God with an optimism that such a God is real. No theists will concede to accept their God has to kiss the ass of another.

And in what way is this not so for "unempirical" gods? It's true that in terms of abstract concepts--like being all knowing--one can imagine a sort of limitless ability--such that for anything that can be known, an omniscient god would know it--but this is partly a consequence of not knowing, and not caring about how one would know, how omniscience is possible (just as you would be free to entertain the idea of an all-powerful army if you didn't think you had to understand what that would mean in terms of weapons, money, political support, number of soldiers, etc.--an all powerful army would just mean: capable of defeating any other army).

And besides, there's still a difference between being capable of imagining an all knowing god and the necessity of a god being all knowing. There's no reason to suppose that just because you can conceive a greater god, that this or that god must be that greater god.

^ Are you bringing Anselm's argument into the picture?

Btw, if any theist were to postulate an anthropomorhic God, which is empirically based, I agree such an empirically based God is empirically possible. But such possibility would be extremely negligible. To prove such a God, all one need to to bring the verifiable and justifiable evidence. The limitation of the empirically-based God is there will always be a greater empirical God than the one that is claimed.
So whatever empirical God a theist claim, another will claim another empirical God is greater and this culminate in an infinite regression.

To avoid an infinite regression and kissing the ass of another God, it is only logical that the smarter thinker theists had introduced an absolutely perfect God than which no other God can be greater in perfection.
Yes, I am bringing in St. Anselm's definition of an ontological God into the picture.
There is no other way for a thinking theist to get out of the above dilemma of infinite regression and having to kiss the ass of another God than to resort to an absolute perfect God.

When a theist claims;
"my God is a Being than which no greater in perfection can exists"
it give no room for another God to dominate it nor command the lesser god to kiss his ass.
Ultimately all educated and thinking theists will end up with an absolutely perfect God [the default definition of what is a God].

But I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real, i.e. empirically + rationally real because absolute perfection [as argued] is impossible to be real.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:14 am

And you still haven't described what perfection (of any type) looks like.

How could you know?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25591
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:57 am

James S Saint wrote:And you still haven't described what perfection (of any type) looks like.
How could you know?
I introduced the dictionary meaning of perfect and its range of meaning.

In addition I have introduced the following perspective of perfection which you responded as;
viewtopic.php?p=2684613#p2684613

    1. Empirically existing = observable.
    2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know.
    3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable.
    4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory).

In the case of 1. Empirically existing = observable, we have example of a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test, a so-claimed perfect woman, etc.

In the case of 2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know, a perfect circle as observed where measurements conform to quality of a perfect circle.

In the case of 3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable, an ideal perfect circle which can only exist in numbers and thought but never empirically.

4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (e.g. contradictory or rationally impossible). This is the absolutely perfect God which can never be observable empirically and logically impossible to exists as real empirically and rationally. Such a God is a logical resultant to stop an infinite regression.

I have demonstrated why the idea of God must ultimately be an absolutely perfect God and not any other lesser God to avoid being dominated and having to kiss the ass on another greater or ontological God.

I have already covered the full range/continuum of 'what is perfect' from the empirical [qualified] to absolutely perfect [unqualified].
What views of 'perfect' can you present and argue against the above?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users