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~

God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:06 am

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?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby jsmith17 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:16 am

Looks like the same argument this awesome guy made almost 4 years ago, you might be interested in how the discussion went:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185125

Yes, it's a sound argument. Haven't seen a decent counter-argument so far.
jsmith17
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:24 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:32 am

jsmith17 wrote:Looks like the same argument this awesome guy made almost 4 years ago, you might be interested in how the discussion went:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185125

Yes, it's a sound argument. Haven't seen a decent counter-argument so far.
Thanks for the link.
I read a few pages, it is on on the same topic of evil but the argument is different in the sense that I argued,

    by default, God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God, the ontological God.
    An absolutely perfect God must be absolutely good in all senses, thus exclude any evil of any sense.
    Evil exists [natural evils and human-based evils]
    Therefore the quality of such a God is contradictory, thus God cannot exists.

I have argued, the idea of God is an impossibility, i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real.
Despite the above, humans are compelled by psychological forces to believe in a God to soothe the inherent existential angst.

It is because the psychologically-forced-belief in God is based on its impossibility, that whatever subsequent argument attempts by theists to prove God exists as real will eventually exposed the underlying impossibility of God.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:05 am

As pointed out time and time again, you don't know what "absolute perfect" actually is.
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: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby demoralized » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:05 pm

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
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:15 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:by default, God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God, the ontological God.

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control. That is what makes a god, a god.

A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Your imperfect ideas of what "absolute perfect" might be, are irrelevant.


And yeah, since logic is being ignored anyway, why not a logically contradictory God being that one above all others? Maybe God really can create a stone that God cannot lift, but miraculously lifts it anyway.
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: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:11 am

God & The Problem of Evil.

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.

We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:12 am

Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.

Arminius wrote:The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called "God"); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called "panentheism"): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendeental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:29 am

James S Saint wrote:As pointed out time and time again, you don't know what "absolute perfect" actually is.
Are you claiming I don't know but you know what "absolute perfect" actually is?
Your ignorance of the idea of an absolutely perfect God is due to narrow and shallow level of philosophical knowledge.

Note this basic exercise in understanding the meaning of words;
(ref: Google Dictionary)

Google Dictionary wrote:perfect
adjective
ˈpəːfɪkt/Submit
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
"she strove to be the perfect wife"
synonyms: ideal, model, without fault, faultless, flawless, consummate, quintessential, exemplary, best, best-example, ultimate, copybook More

2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
"a perfect stranger"
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed; More

verb
pəˈfɛkt/Submit
1. make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"
synonyms: improve, make perfect, bring to perfection, better, polish (up), burnish, hone, refine, consummate, put the finishing/final touches to, ameliorate, brush up, fine-tune; raremeliorate
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"


absolute
ˈabsəluːt/Submit
adjective
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More

noun -PHILOSOPHY
1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"


The relevant meaning to absolutely perfect is related to the above, i.e.

    perfect
    2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
    synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed; More

    absolute
    adjective
    1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
    synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
    2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
    "absolute moral standards"
    synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More

    noun -PHILOSOPHY
    1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.


An absolutely perfect God is thus a Being that is absolute, perfect, total, complete, totally unconditional and unqualified to other things.

The "absolutely perfect" is reified as The Absolute, note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:35 am

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?


One criticism. See the highlighted text. The POE doesn't depend on the proposition that God is "absolutely evil". The smallest element of evil will suffice to defile absolute good.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:47 am

Arminius wrote:
God & The Problem of Evil.

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.
Not sure of your point here.
My argument is, God has to be an absolutely perfect God, thus has to be absolutely good. Evil is real. Therefore God is an impossibility.

We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.
Note you started with a logical fallacy, i.e. conflation of different senses, i.e. equivocation of conflicting senses, i.e.;

    1. Physics - empirical
    2. Metaphysics - transcendent -non-empirical.

Sticking to the same sense, i.e. empirical, you will encounter an infinite regression, who created the 'first mover'?

True, both non-theists and theists are believers but while non-theists rely on objective Justified True Beliefs, theists rely on psychologically driven unjustified and unverifiable beliefs [faith-based].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:55 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
An absolutely perfect God has to be absolutely good which discount any possibility of evil.
When you open up for a God to be absolutely evil, would any normal moral person accept someone's claim their God will commit evil, e.g. genocides of humans, force people to eat shit and whatever evil one can think of.

The fundamental of critical thinking is a logical contradiction is absolutly false.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:58 am

felix dakat wrote:One criticism. See the highlighted text. The POE doesn't depend on the proposition that God is "absolutely evil". The smallest element of evil will suffice to defile absolute good.
Accept your point. It is implied in my statement.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:12 am

Arminius wrote:Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.

Arminius wrote:The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called "God"); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called "panentheism"): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.
Ultimately whatever God is presented in pantheism, that God has to be an entity, i.e. a Being with agency. The fundamental basis of the God of pantheism I argued is psychological albeit of a lesser degree compared to the common theists. When we push the pantheists for their ultimate meaning it [Being with agency] will be reduced to an absolutely perfect Being/God.

Some pantheist who do not dig deeper compare their God to something like "energy" [Physics] (which is pervasive and has potential) or they are hoping scientists will discover some physical empirical elements that they can equate with their intended God.
Because such a God is affixed with an empirical foundation, it will succumb to infinite regression.

In this case, the only way out of infinite regression is to resort to the non-scientific and reason out [without evidence] an absolutely perfect God, which inevitably must be absolutely good, thus no evil. Since evil exists, God is an impossibility to be real.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:33 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:by default, God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God, the ontological God.

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control. That is what makes a god, a god.

A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Your imperfect ideas of what "absolute perfect" might be, are irrelevant.

And yeah, since logic is being ignored anyway, why not a logically contradictory God being that one above all others? Maybe God really can create a stone that God cannot lift, but miraculously lifts it anyway.
As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control.
This is very limited!
An Ontological God which is absolutely perfect [complete, total and unqualified] will have the 'highest' control which no higher control can be conceived. This statement reflect completeness and absoluteness so that there is no room at all for any 'smart alec wannabe' to argue for.
Beside to assign God with only the quality of "control" is again limited. In this case, it can mean in control of absolute evil.

Throughout history, the various ideas of God had been countered and bashed by smarter and smarter rational non-theistic critical thinkers which impinge on the psychological security and comfort of the theists,

Thus the term 'absolutely perfect God' [ontological] is coined [by the smarter theologians] with the coverage there is absolutely no possibility of any room for anyone to counter it in whatever ways. But they are ignorant of the catch that turn around to kick their ass.

The reality is the idea of God is fundamentally driven by psychological factors where even rubbish [by pure reason] can soothe the existential crisis, so what we have is GIGO.
Whatever ideas of God are presented it eventually MUST end up with an absolutely perfect God due to GIGO. This argument is also presented by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:48 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:As pointed out time and time again, you don't know what "absolute perfect" actually is.
Are you claiming I don't know but you know what "absolute perfect" actually is?
Your ignorance of the idea of an absolutely perfect God is due to narrow and shallow level of philosophical knowledge.

Presumptuous, childlike, and the exact opposite of the situation (typical for you).

    1) I said nothing about me knowing, only that you obviously do not, and could not know.
    2) Any ignorant ass can claim that everyone else is ignorant. Such is the way of ignorance - not knowing, but being stupid enough to presume anyway.
    3) You have proven yourself on many occasion to the be "philosophically naive" person that you accuse others of being (also very typical of the naive and ignorant postmodern children).
    4) Logic is currently beyond you, so any argument with you is pretty pointlessly like arguing with a dog or cat.


Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:by default, God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God, the ontological God.

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control. That is what makes a god, a god.

A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Your imperfect ideas of what "absolute perfect" might be, are irrelevant.

And yeah, since logic is being ignored anyway, why not a logically contradictory God being that one above all others? Maybe God really can create a stone that God cannot lift, but miraculously lifts it anyway.
As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control.
This is very limited!
An Ontological God which is absolutely perfect [complete, total and unqualified] will have the 'highest' control which no higher control can be conceived. This statement reflect completeness and absoluteness so that there is no room at all for any 'smart alec wannabe' to argue for.
Beside to assign God with only the quality of "control" is again limited. In this case, it can mean in control of absolute evil.

Gyahd. You really can't even see that what you proclaimed and what I proclaimed are the same damn thing?!?!?
Geeezz... :icon-rolleyes: #-o
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: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:03 am

James S Saint wrote:Gyahd. You really can't even see that what you proclaimed and what I proclaimed are the same damn thing?!?!?
Geeezz... :icon-rolleyes: #-o
How can my definition be the same as yours when you stated;

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control.
I would not accept a limited point like "God has highest control" especially when I have introduced the concept of "absolute perfect God" which you had condemned.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:58 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:
God & The Problem of Evil.

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.
Not sure of your point here.

I have just referred to the topic of this (your!) thread: God & The Problem of Evil (see above).

Prismatic567 wrote:My argument is, God has to be an absolutely perfect God, thus has to be absolutely good. Evil is real. Therefore God is an impossibility.

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

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.

Prismatic567 wrote:
We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.
Note you started with a logical fallacy,

No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).

And I know that you are going to go on with it.

Q.E.D.:
Prismatic567 wrote:i.e. conflation of different senses, i.e. equivocation of conflicting senses, i.e.;

    1. Physics - empirical
    2. Metaphysics - transcendent -non-empirical.

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call "non-empirical".

Prismatic567 wrote:Sticking to the same sense, i.e. empirical, you will encounter an infinite regression, who created the 'first mover'?

True, both non-theists and theists are believers but while non-theists rely on objective Justified True Beliefs, theists rely on psychologically driven unjustified and unverifiable beliefs [faith-based].

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.

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:

Prismatic567.jpg
Prismatic567 and His Most Active Forum: Religion and Spirituality.
Prismatic567.jpg (115.16 KiB) Viewed 439 times

At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:45 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.

Arminius wrote:The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called "God"); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called "panentheism"): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.
Ultimately whatever God is presented in pantheism, that God has to be an entity, i.e. a Being with agency. The fundamental basis of the God of pantheism I argued is psychological albeit of a lesser degree compared to the common theists. When we push the pantheists for their ultimate meaning it [Being with agency] will be reduced to an absolutely perfect Being/God.

Some pantheist who do not dig deeper compare their God to something like "energy" [Physics] (which is pervasive and has potential) or they are hoping scientists will discover some physical empirical elements that they can equate with their intended God.
Because such a God is affixed with an empirical foundation, it will succumb to infinite regression.

In this case, the only way out of infinite regression is to resort to the non-scientific and reason out [without evidence] an absolutely perfect God, which inevitably must be absolutely good, thus no evil. Since evil exists, God is an impossibility to be real.

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy! (See above.)

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 mostly is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby demoralized » Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:24 am

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.



demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:19 am

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:My argument is, God has to be an absolutely perfect God, thus has to be absolutely good. Evil is real. Therefore God is an impossibility.

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

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.

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

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.

The NT is not explicit in stating God is an absolutely perfect God but the greater theologian thinkers are naturally refining the idea of God as an absolutely perfect God. Note St. Anselm's and Descartes' presentation of the ontological God.

The path towards an ultimate absolutely perfect God is inherent in the idea of God as driven by a very primal existential impulse as it is only rational no theists will accept their God to be inferior to the God of others.
My argument is based on this ultimate point.

No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).
And I know that you are going to go on with it.
Yours is very short-sighted and is proven wrong as above.
QED.

The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call "non-empirical".
Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based. Note Kant's proof on this.

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.
There are degrees to objectivity. Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity. 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.

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:
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.
A medical doctor would likely spent most of his working hours with sick patients. Would that make the doctor a sick person? It is the same for anyone who is fighting evil acts, they cannot be evil rather they are good.

It is only semantics, I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.

At present I [adopting a Boddhisattva's vow of compassion] have very strong intentions to counter theism because part of it is very malignant with its contribution to terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone theists who are inspired by certain evil laden words of their God [illusory].

To convince such evil prone theists their God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and 'defang' the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.
The majority of theists must also be convinced of the impossibility of God as they are indirectly providing moral support for the evil prone theists hiding beneath the skirts of the majority's belief in theism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby omar » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:42 am

Hello Prismatic,

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


I think that this is simply an opinion, and one that lacks imagination. Ever heard of Yin/Yang? The other issue here is the way in which something IS good or evil. Are we defining good in an empirical way? Is it an objective thing? Or is it a perception? And then there is the problem of the observer, the judge: How can the finite judge the character of the Infinite? No matter the reach of our concepts and generalizations we are still judging from our own WTP, thus our judgment is never impartial about reality.

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.


That is false outside of a very precise form of monotheism. If I am a polytheist, then my gods are stratified, probably, by levels of greatness, and thus not ever god has to necessarily be perfect. Then there is the standard of perfect and how it is applied. The perfect hammer is not perfect at every task, but perfect at its purpose, or hammering. Thus gods are perhaps perfect not because nothing greater can be thought of or conceived but because it fulfills its purpose, its nature. Perfect Omnipotence is not necessarily tied to our well-being (with every "evil" being defined as damage to such well-being), but conceived as such by our will to power, to borrow Nietzsche's concept.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:54 am

omar wrote:Hello Prismatic,

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


I think that this is simply an opinion, and one that lacks imagination. Ever heard of Yin/Yang? The other issue here is the way in which something IS good or evil. Are we defining good in an empirical way? Is it an objective thing? Or is it a perception? And then there is the problem of the observer, the judge: How can the finite judge the character of the Infinite? No matter the reach of our concepts and generalizations we are still judging from our own WTP, thus our judgment is never impartial about reality.
Ever heard of the Tao?

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

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.

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


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.


That is false outside of a very precise form of monotheism. If I am a polytheist, then my gods are stratified, probably, by levels of greatness, and thus not ever god has to necessarily be perfect.

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.

Then there is the standard of perfect and how it is applied. The perfect hammer is not perfect at every task, but perfect at its purpose, or hammering. Thus gods are perhaps perfect not because nothing greater can be thought of or conceived but because it fulfills its purpose, its nature. Perfect Omnipotence is not necessarily tied to our well-being (with every "evil" being defined as damage to such well-being), but conceived as such by our will to power, to borrow Nietzsche's concept.
You missed my point.
Note the links I provided re the meaning of 'perfect' which is synonymous with 'absolute'.

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.
Thus a God per-se despite the variations in form MUST ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.
Thus perfect and absolute are inherent in the definition of a God.

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.

This is how Islam which came later and with advantage of hindsight proclaimed in the Quran, the monotheistic one and ONLY perfect God without exception.
Not to lose out, St. Anselm [1033AD] of Christianity came up with the Ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

Actually I have already explained the above 'Why' many times but you have not read it.
I suggest you read the whole of this thread for knowledge sake.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:26 am

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.
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: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God & The Problem of Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:03 am

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.
You have ignored this post where I highlighted my intended meaning of 'perfect' which is synonymous with 'absolute' and other stated meanings.
viewtopic.php?p=2685408#p2685408
then you insist,
JSS: "I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all."

Read the above post again so to understand what I meant by 'perfect'.
I did not invent my own meaning of 'perfect' but refer to that from the dictionary, how can I be wrong.

Note in the other thread 'God is an Impossibility'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
I presented to major categories of perfection, i.e.

    1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection

In the above you merely talked about relative perfection which is not relevant to the point while my focus is on 'absolute perfection', i.e. the perfection of all perfections.

Note this point in my earlier post;

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.


* In this case, if 'omnipotence' is qualified in anyway, then it is less than perfect omnipotence.
Note the meaning of 'perfect' = unqualified - see above meaning.
viewtopic.php?p=2685408#p2685408

God as defined generally by theists [not me] is attributed with certain essential qualities.
Point is these qualities must be stretched to the point of absolute perfection, i.e. unqualified, otherwise one's God would be an inferior God who has to kiss the ass of another.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users