A universe with God. [Archive]

View Full Version : A universe with God.

CWL

6th February 2004, 02:03 AM

Let's examine existence with God...

... on second thought, let's not. See, even if we do assume that "He" does exist (for which I personally, for the avoidance of doubt, see no evidence), he's either not omnipotent or he's quite frankly not a very nice guy. Either way, not a "God" that this heathen feels like bowing down to anyway.

Yes folks it is once again time to discuss that most interesting of arguments against the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent supreme being - I give you:

The Theodicy Problem

If one has the power to create everything, why even create such a concept as "evil"? I want a refund.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 02:15 AM

DialecticMaterialist

6th February 2004, 02:21 AM

If one is perfect, complete unto Itself, without needs or desires, why even create anything at all?

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 02:24 AM

In my experience, until someone has overcome their personal Theidiocy problem, they are completely unaffected by the Theodicy problem.

LuxFerum

6th February 2004, 03:05 AM

If god exist, then he can make illogical things.
If god can make illogical things, everything is possible.
If everything is possible, then is possible to do something that is not possible even in a universe where everything is possible.
And if that is not logical, it doesn't matter, since logic is not the ultimate true.
Therefore I won't conclude, because to reach a conclusion I need logic, but logic is outdated. But If I don't conclude it will be logical, so the only logical escape is to conclude without the logic. No, wait, that is sounding logical again.

Dammit.:mad:

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

If one is perfect, complete unto Itself, without needs or desires, why even create anything at all? What's the point in being a Creator if you don't create anything? And how could one acknowledge one's perfection if there was "nothing" imperfect to compare it to? ;)

Perhaps perfection is merely a process -- of cause and effect if you will -- by which to acknowledge that which is already perfect?

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
If god exist, then he can make illogical things.
If god can make illogical things, everything is possible.
If everything is possible, then is possible to do something that is not possible even in a universe where everything is possible.
And if that is not logical, it doesn't matter, since logic is not the ultimate true.
Therefore I won't conclude, because to reach a conclusion I need logic, but logic is outdated. But If I don't conclude it will be logical, so the only logical escape is to conclude without the logic. No, wait, that is sounding logical again.

Dammit.:mad: And what is logic without the ability to be illogical? ;)

El Greco

6th February 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's the point in being a Creator if you don't create anything?

That's the ultimate question, my friends. And probably, this is what God asked himself during one of those endless nights as he was playing chess with himself:

"WTF, if I am going to call myself a 'Creator', I'd better create something. Should I create a monoverse ? Should I create an amphiverse ? What about a universe ? Oh, that sounds good... I guess I'll create a universe."

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by El Greco

That's the ultimate question, my friends. And probably, this is what God asked himself during one of those endless nights as he was playing chess with himself:

"WTF, if I am going to call myself a 'Creator', I'd better create something. Should I create a monoverse ? Should I create an amphiverse ? What about a universe ? Oh, that sounds good... I guess I'll create a universe." So now we want to take the words away from what the words imply. Interesting game. ;)

CWL

6th February 2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The sun shines on both the good and the bad. Which in fact "is" benevolence.

Take starving children in Africa who were born with HIV for example. Do you call merely "shining" on that occurrence benevolence?!?

I say get of your lazy omnipotent a$$ and do something about it!

Thus we're allowed the freedom of choice, in order that we might "learn" from our mistakes.

Oh, I see. So the starving children in Africa chose to starve and to be born with HIV, did they? Pray tell what did they "learn" from this "mistake"?

Besides, how could we acknowledge God if we were merely automatons?
Free will doesn't explain earthquakes, illness or why good people should have to endure the evil of others.

If that is the Universe "God" has created then I freely acknowledge that he is an absolute a-hole.

Edited for typos, the occurence of which is yet another example of the imperfection of God as a creator

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by CWL
If that is the Universe "God" has created then I freely acknowledge that he is an absolute a-hole.
Come now, that's not being very charitable. Even if God did create the universe, it doesn't mean he's necessarily an a-hole. He could just be grossly incompetent.

CWL

6th February 2004, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

Come now, that's not being very charitable. Even if God did create the universe, it doesn't mean he's necessarily an a-hole. He could just be grossly incompetent.

True, true. Hence my demand for a refund. Perhaps it is time for a a recall?

"My felloow citizeens of de Univeeerz. Ee'ts time to have a Supreme Being who caerz aboot ze people. I say eet's Chudchment Day foor Governor God."

exarch

6th February 2004, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's the point in being a Creator if you don't create anything? And how could one acknowledge one's perfection if there was "nothing" imperfect to compare it to? ;)So he's merely being vain :rolleyes:

Well, if he sends me to hell, he can expect a couple of volleys of brimstone to fly around his ears, thrown by yours truly.

CWL

6th February 2004, 04:55 AM

Total Recall...

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus

Besides, how could we acknowledge God if we were merely automatons?

Why does (a) God need to be acknowledged? Particularly by the pain of it's creation?

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Take starving children in Africa who were born with HIV for example. Do you call merely "shining" on that occurrence benevolence?!?

I say get of your lazy omnipotent a$$ and do something about it!Without cause and effect how would we learn from our mistakes?

Oh, I see. So the starving children in Africa chose to starve and to be born with HIV, did they? Pray tell what did they "learn" from this "mistake"?But then again we don't know who's redeemable and who isn't? And as I understand, those who die as little children go to heaven ... because it isn't their sin.

Free will doesn't explain earthquakes, illness or why good people should have to endure the evil of others. If we had to suffer thoughout enternity at the hands of others then you might have a point. ;) But I understand that hell is only reserved for those who want to be there or, can't stand to be in heaven without "taking it out" on others.

If that is the Universe "God" has created then I freely acknowledge that he is an absolute a-hole.I think you may have taken this temporary finite world for the real thing ...

Edited for typos, the occurence of which is yet another example of the imperfection of God as a creator Yes, and without the proclivity to make mistakes? ...

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why does (a) God need to be acknowledged? Particularly by the pain of it's creation?
In addition to the previously noted fact that God (if such exists) is either an a-hole or grossly incompetent (or maybe both, who knows?), he has a self-esteem problem.

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The sun shines on both the good and the bad. Which in fact "is" benevolence.

Thus we're allowed the freedom of choice, in order that we might "learn" from our mistakes.

Besides, how could we acknowledge God if we were merely automatons?

the sun shines on both the good and the bad. Which in fact "is" benevolence.

No it is evidence of the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explainthe known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

Thus we're allowed the freedom of choice, in order that we might "learn" from our mistakes.

“allowed” can you prove we are “allowed” and who does the allowing?

May I ask and sadly have no hope that you will answer but will ask.
1-When a child is kidnapped, raped, beaten, tortured and killed was the child allowed free will and a chance to learn from their mistakes?

2- a child is born with a grave painful illness suffers and dies after a year of pain. Was the child allowed free will and a chance to learn from their mistakes? Were their parents and loved ones allowed free will and a chance to learn from their mistakes?

3- Today like every day 24000-27000 will starve to death after months of pain, were they allowed free will and a chance to learn from their mistakes?

4- an innocent man is placed in a dark hole for 30 years and tortured and dies, never again in the 30 years to see the sun shine on him. Was they allowed free will and a chance to learn from their mistakes?

My great friend stop thinking emotionally and seeking to make reality fit into your “conclusion” look at all things with open eyes not blinders.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by exarch
So he's merely being vain :rolleyes:What do you think? Does the universe in any way attempt to get us to acknowledge how "prideful" it is? ... with the possible exception of us humans of course. ;)

Well, if he sends me to hell, he can expect a couple of volleys of brimstone to fly around his ears, thrown by yours truly. Oh, you'd probably be too busy creating a rukus with your own kind.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Why does (a) God need to be acknowledged? Particularly by the pain of it's creation? Pain is often considered a blessing.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

In addition to the previously noted fact that God (if such exists) is either an a-hole or grossly incompetent (or maybe both, who knows?), he has a self-esteem problem. What are you being anthropomorphic here? Hmm ... Maybe this is why none of us wants to acknowledge that God exists?

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Pain is often considered a blessing.

Greetings my friend.

Can you give actual numbers for this? What % of the worlds population throughout time have you intervened concerning this?

What do you define as “often considered” and why, showing it is the accepted definition.

My friend you tend like many do and perhaps most have from time to time that just because you say something or want to believe it is true.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Pain is often considered a blessing.
Usually not by the pained.
What are you being anthropomorphic here?
If God's going to create mankind in his image, I'm going to use that image to judge him. If he comes out the worse for it, that does not appear to be any fault of mine.

CWL

6th February 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Without cause and effect how would we learn from our mistakes?

So who's "mistake" is HIV?

But then again we don't know who's redeemable and who isn't? And as I understand, those who die as little children go to heaven ... because it isn't their sin.

...and you know this because...?

If we had to suffer thoughout enternity at the hands of others then you might have a point. ;) But I understand that hell is only reserved for those who want to be there or, can't stand to be in heaven without "taking it out" on others.

...and you know this because...?

I think you may have taken this temporary finite world for the real thing ...

Well, duh? What else do you suggest I take it for?

Yes, and without the proclivity to make mistakes? ...

Why the proclivity to torture one's creation, that's my simple question.

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 07:00 AM

If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that he knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

If we hear of a father who knows his young child will be taken, raped, tortured and killed yet does nothing but stand by and watch and in addition allows in the killer handing him the keys and telling him have it, we rightly cheer when he is convicted in court.

But many will say when you make that father “god” that he knows best and it was best for her and a loving thing.

Fear is a powerful tool. And yet haven't you heard, "All we are is dust in the wind dude!"

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet haven't you heard, "All we are is dust in the wind dude!"

What I would give for a logical and honest responce from you. Sad I believe you are an intelagent person, but you fail to even try to show it.

exarch

6th February 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
If God's going to create mankind in his image, I'm going to use that image to judge him. If he comes out the worse for it, that does not appear to be any fault of mine.Actually, mankind created god in his image :D

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by CWL

So who's "mistake" is HIV? Do you know what makes it even more painful? Is when we find the need to blame it on someone else.

...and you know this because...?And wouldn't you like to know? ;)

...and you know this because...?And wouldn't you like to know? ;)

Well, duh? What else do you suggest I take it for?A place where things have a tendency to get mixed up until they can be sorted out later?

Why the proclivity to torture one's creation, that's my simple question. Maybe there's a reward in learning how to be patient with one another?

exarch

6th February 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What do you think? Does the universe in any way attempt to get us to acknowledge how "prideful" it is? ... with the possible exception of us humans of course. ;)There you go again, ascribing human traits to inhuman things. Why would a god, if he exists, be bothered by such silly things as emotion? Why would he be angry at all?Oh, you'd probably be too busy creating a rukus with your own kind.And what exactly is "my kind"?

(We will be having a barbecue)

El Greco

6th February 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
What I would give for a logical and honest responce from you.

Iacchus always replies with logic and honesty. It just happens that he replies not to the questions asked, but to other, completely random questions.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

What I would give for a logical and honest responce from you. Sad I believe you are an intelagent person, but you fail to even try to show it. If life were temporal, what difference does it make? You only suffer for a time and then your're dead.

exarch

6th February 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And wouldn't you like to know? ;)In other words, when someone asks you to explain yourself and your belief, all you can do is give them this proverbial "up yours". That's nice :rolleyes:

At least admit that you don't know for sure, because you only heard it from someone else, who him/herself heard it from someone else, who in turn ...
And the bible is not proof, it's also another voice that taps into another source, which in turn heard it from someone else, who heard it from, well, you get the drift.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by El Greco

Iacchus always replies with logic and honesty. It just happens that he replies not to the questions asked, but to other, completely random questions. Only because I prefer it much more to the standard, "Here it is take it or leave it" crap. ;)

exarch

6th February 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If life were temporal, what difference does it make? You only suffer for a time and then your're dead.Exactly, so make the best of it while it lasts.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by exarch

In other words, when someone asks you to explain yourself and your belief, all you can do is give them this proverbial "up yours". That's nice :rolleyes:

At least admit that you don't know for sure, because you only heard it from someone else, who him/herself heard it from someone else, who in turn ...
And the bible is not proof, it's also another voice that taps into another source, which in turn heard it from someone else, who heard it from, well, you get the drift. The truth is slippery indeed isn't it?

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth is slippery indeed isn't it?

No, truth is solid and can stand tall on it's own, Bull#$#@ is slippery.

Your post are examples my friend.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by exarch
There you go again, ascribing human traits to inhuman things. Why would a god, if he exists, be bothered by such silly things as emotion? Why would he be angry at all?What are you saying human beings aren't part of the universe?

And what exactly is "my kind"?

(We will be having a barbecue) Does it matter, so long as you've identified yourself as being a rabble-rouser?

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

No, truth is solid and can stand tall on it's own, Bull#$#@ is slippery.

Your post are examples my friend. Careful of the use "friend" here, sounds like you're pointing a loaded weapon at me. ;)

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Let's examine existence with God...

... on second thought, let's not. See, even if we do assume that "He" does exist (for which I personally, for the avoidance of doubt, see no evidence), he's either not omnipotent or he's quite frankly not a very nice guy. Either way, not a "God" that this heathen feels like bowing down to anyway.

Yes folks it is once again time to discuss that most interesting of arguments against the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent supreme being - I give you:

The Theodicy Problem

If one has the power to create everything, why even create such a concept as "evil"? I want a refund.

If he was omnipotent to your liking, consider that you would be more powerful than God. Why should God conform to your standard of potency? That would limit God.

Niceness? There aren't many nice people on this forum.

Of course God doesn't force you to bow down, so you have nothing to worry about on that one.

Regarding evil...

God makes perfect choices. When he creates entities who can make choices as well, they can not make perfect choices because they are not perfect like God. Why did God then create entities who themselves can create and make choices? Well, we exist, don't we? Existence is God, even if we can't make perfect choices like God.

You say "I want a refund", and you may be being smug, or being serious, or somewhere in between. I, like you, seek clarification. Redemption, to me, is the same thing as clarification.

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
If one is perfect, complete unto Itself, without needs or desires, why even create anything at all?

Why make babies? Love is creative.

Yes I know there are other reasons for making babies too.

Love is not about need/desire, but the other. You are thinking here that God desires something for himself. That is not love.

-Elliot

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Careful of the use "friend" here, sounds like you're pointing a loaded weapon at me.

Again my friend I point nothing at you, you do this to yourself.

I have great respect for you and all beings and call al friend.

.Your refusal to conduct a logical, respectful, honest and intelagent convversation/ interaction is not a reason for me not to call you friend.

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
In my experience, until someone has overcome their personal Theidiocy problem, they are completely unaffected by the Theodicy problem.

Could you expound on that? I don't see it as a problem, but as mere reality. Why should I accept that reality is a problem? Don't be clever and say something witty in return please, I ask that as a courtesy. Evil exists, that is reality, and why should that make my own personal beliefs crumble? My personal beliefs make the existence of evil necessary.

-Elliot

exarch

6th February 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you saying human beings aren't part of the universe?No, that's what you are saying, I'm merely saying that the universe itself is not human, that stars and planets aren't human, that even nature itself is not human, so why attach human traits to them, emotions like anger, compassion, etc...

For that matter, why give god such traits? He's not human either. He supposedly made humans in his image, but that would merely mean we look like god, not act like him. So howcome god acts like us then?

Does it matter, so long as you've identified yourself as being a rabble-rouser?Main Entry: rab·ble-rous·er
Pronunciation: 'ra-b&l-"rau-z&r
Function: noun
: one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people : DEMAGOGUEMain Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient timesI think all the rabble-rousers already believe they are going ot heaven :rolleyes:

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Take starving children in Africa who were born with HIV for example. Do you call merely "shining" on that occurrence benevolence?!?

I share your outrage. These starving children suffer and I think all of humanity should take responbility, outrage, and necessary steps to rectify this suffering.

This suffering, however, is not eternal suffering. It is a temporal reality of a fallen world. The creation of these souls was benevolent, and these souls have a Redeemer who also suffered.

The benevolence is not the suffering that is framed by a starting point and ending point. The benevolence is the creative act of making an immortal who can make choices. The immortal will suffer to some degree as all immortals suffer to some degree. Without the hope of redemption, this would all be borderline unbearable. The suffering of children is an abomination.

Oh, I see. So the starving children in Africa chose to starve and to be born with HIV, did they? Pray tell what did they "learn" from this "mistake"?

No, they did not choose anything of the sort. Suffering, however, demands examination.

doesn't explain earthquakes, illness or why good people should have to endure the evil of others.

Freedom means that people can inflict evil on others. If no evil can be inflicted on others, there would be no freedom.

Judeo/Christian theology holds that man's fall into sin involved the fall of the created universe as well, or, the fall of hierarchically higher entities (angels) involved the fall of the created universe as well. This is a theological point to be accepted or rejected. The theology continues that the physical universe will be rectified at some future time.

the Universe "God" has created then I freely acknowledge that he is an absolute a-hole.

You are not alone in that, and God will respect your opinion so much that he won't force you to any eternal residence (for lack of a better word). You'll have to choice to acquiesce, or to reject. God can't force you to respect him, but he will respect your decision on the matter.

-Elliot

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 08:01 AM

Could you expound on that? I don't see it as a problem, but as mere reality. Why should I accept that reality is a problem? Don't be clever and say something witty in return please, I ask that as a courtesy. Evil exists, that is reality, and why should that make my own personal beliefs crumble? My personal beliefs make the existence of evil necessary.

-Elliot
I find it interesting you ask me to expound on a sarcastic post, but I'll do my best.

I was merely saying that in my own experience(TM), most theists I have seen confronted with the Theodicy problem do not see the problem at all through ignorance. The Theidiocy problem is just that. They do not see any conflict because their only mode of reasoning is "The pastor said it, it must be true." Until they overcome that, they cannot begin to think about Theodicy at all.

It should be noted that I do not believe this is true of all theists, nor do I even venture to guess what percentage of them deal with the Theidiocy problem. I only assert that most that I have met personally are rather dense. They are also almost invariably Christians of the fundamentalist stripe.

As to your other questions, I believe, from reading other of your posts, that you do see evil as a problem. That is why you find it necessary to redefine the words so that the problem disappears.

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 08:04 AM

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 08:07 AM

I should have been more specific. I did not mean that 'evil is a problem' in that bad stuff happens and someone should do something about it. I meant that the existence of evil is a problem for the consistency of your (apparent) theology. And you redefine the terms involved (omnipotence being the prime example I have seen) to make that problem disappear.

exarch

6th February 2004, 08:10 AM

Double post

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I should have been more specific. I did not mean that 'evil is a problem' in that bad stuff happens and someone should do something about it. I meant that the existence of evil is a problem for the consistency of your (apparent) theology. And you redefine the terms involved (omnipotence being the prime example I have seen) to make that problem disappear.

The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

-Elliot

exarch

6th February 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?The problem is that you say evil has to exist for god/Jeebus to exist. Yet the very existence of evil means that either god is cruel, or not powerful enough to get rid of it. You assert that god is all-powerful, so he just doesn't care about getting rid of it, which is extremely cruel, I'd go one further and even say it's evil.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 08:28 AM

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The existence of evil is the foundation of my theology, in many ways. Without the existence of evil, there is no Jesus.

-Elliot

[sarcastic/rhetoric]Forbid that God should have created a universe without evil, so the whole Jesus thing wouldn't have been necessary...[/]..:rolleyes:

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 08:29 AM

As for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?

-Elliot
I do not believe in an omnipotent being, which is why I don't have a problem. The Theodicy problem can only be a thorn in the side of one who professes belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity and who acknowledges the existence of evil, or at least suffering since many try to distance themselves from that word.

I've seen only two ways to avoid the problem. One is to be a Theidiot, and not even understand that it is a problem. The other is to redefine the terms involved until the problem disappears. This appears to be your way.

As for limiting God, that's not what I'm doing. My terms give God infinite control. You are the one playing silly buggers with the definitions. It seems to me that you are trying to limit God (to help him escape the Theodicy problem.)

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

[sarcastic/rhetoric]Forbid that God should have created a universe without evil, so the whole Jesus thing wouldn't have been necessary...[/]..:rolleyes: Why didn't you bother to quote the rest of the post?

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by exarch
The problem is that you say evil has to exist for god/Jeebus to exist. Yet the very existence of evil means that either god is cruel, or not powerful enough to get rid of it. You assert that god is all-powerful, so he just doesn't care about getting rid of it, which is extremely cruel, I'd go one further and even say it's evil.

Evil has to exist for Jesus as God incarnate to exist.

Evil exists because God created creative beings who are not perfect. You say that God is cruel, in this way, yet your ability to say that depends on your existence.

God does care about dealing with evil. Jesus. Incarnate God.

-Elliot

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 08:33 AM

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why didn't you bother to quote the rest of the post?

Because I wasn't addressing the rest of the post...

Lets see....
Originally posted by elliotfcAs for redefining terms, terms do not limit God. Do you believe in an omnipotent being? If so, I can see your problem. If not, what is the problem?
Nope... Still don't have anything to say about that...

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And the third option being?
I provided three options.

1) Disbelief in an entity with the named properties and/or disbelief in evil
2) Ignorance or idiocy
3) Redefinition of terms

Actually, with those "or"s in there, it's 5 options. If you see the need for another option, provide it yourself.

CWL

6th February 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you know what makes it even more painful? Is when we find the need to blame it on someone else.
Quit dodging and answer the question. Is, in your opinion, your God responsible for HIV or not?

And wouldn't you like to know? ;)
Indeed. Why don't you answer instead of dodging my questions?

And wouldn't you like to know? ;)
Again, why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

A place where things have a tendency to get mixed up until they can be sorted out later?
... and your reasons for this belief of yours are...?

Maybe there's a reward in learning how to be patient with one another?
Oh, I believe there is - but it has nothing to do with any strictly hypothetical afterlives or fictional superbeings...

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

I do not believe in an omnipotent being, which is why I don't have a problem. The Theodicy problem can only be a thorn in the side of one who professes belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity and who acknowledges the existence of evil, or at least suffering since many try to distance themselves from that word.

I've seen only two ways to avoid the problem. One is to be a Theidiot, and not even understand that it is a problem. The other is to redefine the terms involved until the problem disappears. This appears to be your way.

As for limiting God, that's not what I'm doing. My terms give God infinite control. You are the one playing silly buggers with the definitions. It seems to me that you are trying to limit God (to help him escape the Theodicy problem.)

Good, I'm glad we don't have a problem then. The word omnipotence, as defined in the dictionary, doesn't mean much more than the paper it is written on.

As for redefining words, I can't help it if a definition is useless. Heck it is useless to you as well, except for these arguments about something you don't believe.

God has control over the actions he performs, and chooses not to limit the actions of other creative beings. That choice of his we may disagree with, but that does not limit the ability for God to make that choice.

-Elliot

exarch

6th February 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And the third option being?There are only two options: you either deal with the problem or you don't. If you don't, it'sbecause you don't recognise the problem. If you do, you can either figure out why it would be a problem, or you fiddle around with the settings a bit until it appears there isn't a problem (which IT people would call "a work-around"), and you revert back to the first group. You didn't fix the problem, you just ignored it and avoid bumping into it again.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
God has control over the actions he performs, and chooses not to limit the actions of other creative beings.
Are we talking about the same God here? I thought we were talking about the hypothetical creator of the universe. The guy who made gravity, which limits my choice to fly unassisted. The guy who made the Laws of Thermodynamics, foiling my every attempt at free energy. The guy who only gave me one mouth, destroying my chance of choosing to talk coherently while eating peanut butter. That is the chap you're talking about right?

CWL

6th February 2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

If he was omnipotent to your liking, consider that you would be more powerful than God. Why should God conform to your standard of potency? That would limit God.

As far as I can see this "God" person does indeed seem to be limited - to the extent of non-existence in fact...

Anyhoo, you admit he is not "omnipotent to my liking". Should I interpret that statement as an admission that there is no such thing as an "omnipotent and benevolent God"?

Well, if that is the case, what is the point of wanting such an entity to exist so badly?

Niceness? There aren't many nice people on this forum.
I beg to differ. I would say that the unpleasant people on this forum are in a clear minority. Sorry if you don't feel the same.

Of course God doesn't force you to bow down, so you have nothing to worry about on that one.

I am not aware of any "God" doing anything actually as I have yet to see some evidence for such a thing as a "God".

Regarding evil...

God makes perfect choices. When he creates entities who can make choices as well, they can not make perfect choices because they are not perfect like God. Why did God then create entities who themselves can create and make choices? Well, we exist, don't we? Existence is God, even if we can't make perfect choices like God.

Where to begin...

What are your grounds for your claim that "God makes perfect choices"?

Which "God"?

How do you know that particular "God" to exist?

How do you know that particular "God" to make "perfect choices"?

What is a "perfect choice"?

Questions, questions. So many questions and so few answers...

You say "I want a refund", and you may be being smug, or being serious, or somewhere in between. I, like you, seek clarification. Redemption, to me, is the same thing as clarification.

Actually, I don't seek any clarification as to the "meaning of it all" or whatever. I am quite happy to discover what may be discovered through critical thinking and the scientific method (which is quite a lot actually...).

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

God has control over the actions he performs, and chooses not to limit the actions of other creative beings. That choice of his we may disagree with, but that does not limit the ability for God to make that choice.

-Elliot

Greetings my friend.

Please know I respect you believe this and seek not to disrespect you or your belief but top only discuses it.

God has control over the actions he performs,

I respect that is your belief so I will not ask for you to
1- Prove God
2- Prove how you know what “he” does or thinks.

But may I say if God has control over what “he’ does how does this loving father allow a child/person to suffer when he knows it will happen and yet does nothing to stop it?

It is by this thinking his fault and makes him far from being a loving father.

and chooses not to limit the actions of other creative beings.

that will not be true, “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over. The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them.

That choice of his we may disagree with, but that does not limit the ability for God to make that choice.

Of course that is a belief and to be respected but it does limit the love of this being please refer to my thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055

You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer.

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

Do you believe God has unconditional love?

CWL

6th February 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Evil has to exist for Jesus as God incarnate to exist.

Evil exists because God created creative beings who are not perfect. You say that God is cruel, in this way, yet your ability to say that depends on your existence.

God does care about dealing with evil. Jesus. Incarnate God.

-Elliot

Would have been simpler not to create "evil" at all.

Now what would Occam and his trusty old tool say about that?

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

But may I say if God has control over what “he’ does how does this loving father allow a child/person to suffer when he knows it will happen and yet does nothing to stop it?

It is by this thinking his fault and makes him far from being a loving father.

that will not be true, “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over. The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them.

Of course that is a belief and to be respected but it does limit the love of this being please refer to my thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055

You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer.

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

Do you believe God has unconditional love?

Hi Panhasiri.

I think that parents have to allow children to do things, you know?

Suffering is a necessary result of free will. If your will is independent of God, and is not perfect like God, you will experience suffering. You say God can, apparently, not allow suffering. But then that would obliterate free will.

The thesis, then, is you can't have suffering without free will and vice versa. More later.

-Elliot

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think that parents have to allow children to do things, you know?
I've heard this one before, and I always figure the people who say it don't really think through all the implications of it. True, to some extent, kids have to learn for themselves, to experience things and grow from that experience. Should a parent, then, stand idly by while their toddler plays in the street? It would be a good learning experience about objects of relatively large mass travelling at relatively high velocities. If a parent were to walk in and see their teenaged child with a gun in his mouth, should they let him pull the trigger? He has to make his own mistakes after all.

El Greco

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Suffering is a necessary result of free will. If your will is independent of God, and is not perfect like God, you will experience suffering.

What's the place of congenital diseases and random mutations in this "free-will" edition of suffering ?

Graham

6th February 2004, 09:10 AM

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by El Greco
What's the place of congenital diseases and random mutations in this "free-will" edition of suffering ?
Sins of the father (and mother, presumably). By exercising their free will to procreate, mummy and daddy are saddling you with the reprecussions of their evil, which were saddled on them by their parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

If I were omnibenevolent, that's how I'd do it anyway.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Would have been simpler not to create "evil" at all.

Now what would Occam and his trusty old tool say about that? Occam probably wouldn't have been born. ;)

CWL

6th February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Suffering is a necessary result of free will. If your will is independent of God, and is not perfect like God, you will experience suffering. You say God can, apparently, not allow suffering. But then that would obliterate free will.

Again I ask: How can earthquakes and HIV be a necessary result of free will ?!?

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
......

You say God can, apparently, not allow suffering. But then that would obliterate free will.

.....

-Elliot

Stock answer..

Perhaps you can explain why the concept of free will boils down to ' suffering ' or ' not suffering '... Or at least when it comes to a supposedly benevolent God. Can't people be free to make bad decisions, and not worship God on a full stomach and free from the threat of earthquakes, hurricanes and space heaters setting the trailer on fire in the middle of the night..

Taking God out of the picture solves the problem... i.e. Stuff happens ... Some people are good , some people are bad..

With God as the creator you need to explain why a God finds it necessary to allow all the horrible things to happen, that most of us, as his creations, would not tolerate for a moment from our fellow human beings...

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by exarch

There are only two options: you either deal with the problem or you don't. If you don't, it'sbecause you don't recognise the problem. If you do, you can either figure out why it would be a problem, or you fiddle around with the settings a bit until it appears there isn't a problem (which IT people would call "a work-around"), and you revert back to the first group. You didn't fix the problem, you just ignored it and avoid bumping into it again. But then again maybe it wasn't a problem in the first place, and you're just working yourself up over nothing? ... at least in terms of your pointing the finger at the other person.

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Hi Panhasiri.

I think that parents have to allow children to do things, you know?

Suffering is a necessary result of free will. If your will is independent of God, and is not perfect like God, you will experience suffering. You say God can, apparently, not allow suffering. But then that would obliterate free will.

The thesis, then, is you can't have suffering without free will and vice versa. More later.

-Elliot

Greetings Elliot

May I ask you give me the respect I show you and go back and answer my questions?

I think that parents have to allow children to do things, you know?

Yes I know and such parents are considered bad and lose rights and often are sent to jail. I am not sure what your point is.

Suffering is a necessary result of free will.

My friend you are avoiding answering my questions and points.

Why is suffering a necessary result of free will and what does this have to do with what I asked?

Why is the free will of the child harmed worth less then the one harmed. The child harmed was not exercising her free will he was, her will was not to be harmed.

If your will is independent of God, and is not perfect like God, you will experience suffering.

First of course God is a belief not fact. So would be God being perfect.

Now to the statement. The child’s will not to be harmed was perfect but was over ruled by the will of the one who harmed her so your statement is irrelevant and illogical.

If God was perfect “he” would have no anger nor ego, i.e. the need to be worshiped or needs placed before the happens of it’s children.

You tell your child not to be selfish yet call it perfect in a God.???

You say God can, apparently, not allow suffering. But then that would obliterate free will.

I do not believe in a God so say such a thing can do nothing in my view, we are speaking about your belief.

You believe a God can do anything yet you do not believe a God can protect the free will not to suffer by innocent beings. No being through free will desired to be killed by an earth quake.

The thesis, then, is you can't have suffering without free will and vice versa. More later.

Illogical as I have demonstrated. I have free will to choose to sit here and smile, by such no suffering.

It is my free will not to want to suffer an attack by a killer, it is his free will to kill me so in God’s plan only evil actions are worth protecting?

Please answer my questions my friend. I respect you and your beliefs let us carry on a respectful conversation.

Please do go bact to my first post to you and Answer each point and question as I have done for you. Thank you and be well.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then again maybe it wasn't a problem in the first place, and you're just working yourself up over nothing?
How is the existence of evil not a problem for the hypothesis that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity? You raising the possibility that it's not a problem and never was is all well and good, but this thread is full of posts showing how it is a problem. Can you show how it is not?

exarch

6th February 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then again maybe it wasn't a problem in the first place, and you're just working yourself up over nothing? ... at least in terms of your pointing the finger at the other person.Ehm? Nope, the problem still exists. God is all-powerful, and loves us, but he doesn't have the power to save us, his beloved children, from evil. Or he doesn't really love us at all, and can save us but chooses not to, because he likes to see us suffering. Yet he still demands we worship him, for no other reason than his own vanity most likely because those who worship him still suffer from evil, except they have stopped realising it because they have stopped thinking about it.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

How is the existence of evil not a problem for the hypothesis that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity? You raising the possibility that it's not a problem and never was is all well and good, but this thread is full of posts showing how it is a problem. Can you show how it is not? Of course I thought you were referring to dealing with someone else's problem here.

And yet either way you still have to deal with it. If there is no afterlife that's the end of it. And if there is, the truth will be sorted at that time.

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Ehm? Nope, the problem still exists. God is all-powerful, and loves us, but he doesn't have the power to save us, his beloved children, from evil. Or he doesn't really love us at all, and can save us but chooses not to, because he likes to see us suffering. Yet he still demands we worship him, for no other reason than his own vanity most likely because those who worship him still suffer from evil, except they have stopped realising it because they have stopped thinking about it. If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course. Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad. ;)

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 09:50 AM

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

If he had the power? You mean he doesn't? LOL! I'm not the one who brought it up.

Originally posted by exarch

Ehm? Nope, the problem still exists. God is all-powerful, and loves us, but he doesn't have the power to save us, his beloved children, from evil. Or he doesn't really love us at all, and can save us but chooses not to, because he likes to see us suffering. Yet he still demands we worship him, for no other reason than his own vanity most likely because those who worship him still suffer from evil, except they have stopped realising it because they have stopped thinking about it.

exarch

6th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course.So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.

Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad. ;)Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If He had the power to save us outright what would be the point? Things have to happen as a matter of course, in order to allow other things to happen as a matter of course.

Otherwise there would be no consequences, good or bad.
If you remove from God the power to save us outright, then you remove from him omnipotence, and you have successfully avoided the problem of evil. (Your God still has other problems, most glaringly lack of evidence, but he did get by this one) I can comprehend an all-loving all-knowing God who just happens to be too much of a wimp to help anyone.

I doubt that was your purpose, though, so let me reformulate a tad. Since he has the power, but perhaps not the inclination, to save us outirhgt, how is he not an a-hole?

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

I find it interesting you ask me to expound on a sarcastic post, but I'll do my best.

I was merely saying that in my own experience(TM), most theists I have seen confronted with the Theodicy problem do not see the problem at all through ignorance. The Theidiocy problem is just that. They do not see any conflict because their only mode of reasoning is "The pastor said it, it must be true." Until they overcome that, they cannot begin to think about Theodicy at all.

It should be noted that I do not believe this is true of all theists, nor do I even venture to guess what percentage of them deal with the Theidiocy problem. I only assert that most that I have met personally are rather dense. They are also almost invariably Christians of the fundamentalist stripe.

As to your other questions, I believe, from reading other of your posts, that you do see evil as a problem. That is why you find it necessary to redefine the words so that the problem disappears.

Sorry, I'm not the best at detecting sarcasm. I try to be charitable and assume people are serious until told otherwise.

Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.

Of course evil is a problem. A problem that was remedied. It is an ongoing problem that must be fought. I reject definitions of words if they don't fit what must be the reality of God. You would have God contingent on definitions. That is nonsense, words and definitions can not define or limit God; a dictionary is not omnipotent, or more potent, than God.

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God, and I won't be straw horsed into having it stuck to God, particularly by people who don't even believe in God, or believe in the possibility of an omnipotent being.

-Elliot

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God,

-Elliot

My great friend that statement is fully illogical.

What you are saying is the dictionary definition of omnipotent is wrong because it does not fit your personal desires as to how you personally want your belief ( God a non fact) defined.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Sorry, I'm not the best at detecting sarcasm. I try to be charitable and assume people are serious until told otherwise.
Sarcasm is not always frivolous.

Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.
As for the numbers, I have no idea, either, which is why I didn't speak to such. And, granted, non-theists have their counterparts.

Of course evil is a problem. A problem that was remedied. It is an ongoing problem that must be fought.
The problem is not evil. The problem is the existence] of evil. We're not talking about remedies for the ills of the world when we speak of the problem of evil. We're talking about the irreconcilability of the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator.

I reject definitions of words if they don't fit what must be the reality of God. You would have God contingent on definitions. That is nonsense, words and definitions can not define or limit God; a dictionary is not omnipotent, or more potent, than God.

The dictionary definition of omnipotent is a nice thought that does not correspond to God, and I won't be straw horsed into having it stuck to God, particularly by people who don't even believe in God, or believe in the possibility of an omnipotent being.

-Elliot
It almost appears that you are trying to say that God is, by nature, indefineable. Not a position I will argue, but I must ask: if this is so, how do you define him to be worthy of worship? How do you define him to be merciful? Just? The father of Jesus? You can't just switch off the defineability of God when it inconveniences your beliefs. We can either pin him down, or we can't.

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

that will not be true, “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over. The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them.

Of course that is a belief and to be respected but it does limit the love of this being please refer to my thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055

You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer.

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

Do you believe God has unconditional love?

I'll try to restate what I've already said.

God created/creates creative beings. For whatever reason, God feels it is important that these beings have free will. The creative beings, not being God, have the capacity to make bad choices. Without free will, the creative beings would not be creative beings, but copy machines. To consider the alternative is impossible as we are flawed creative beings. We could certainly wish that to not be the case, but then it is all a moot point. Everything would be different. Would it be better? That is a judgment call that the ultimate judge obviously doesn't accept.

As for parents...different parents have different standards. Take proms. Fornication/alcohol usually go hand in hand, with I'd say 50% of kids. Go ahead and scoff, some of you are talented at that. Anyhow, different parents will have different threshholds in judging how to handle the situation. Should you kid go to the problem? Should the kid be chaperoned from start to finish? Or do you allow anything to happen. Panhasiri, you would have your parenting decisions placed on God. If God's parenting decisions do not match yours, you would say he is not all-loving. That is fine. In response, I would say that God must not have his parenting decisions contingent on you, for that would make his choices less potent than yours.

As for all-loving. You appear to hold that having the possibility of creative beings making bad choices means that God is not all-loving. I disagree. We not only have the choice to make bad choices, but good choices as well. In addition, the temporal world is not the end-all, be-all. There is another world, and their is redemption, and there is eternal justice.

As for "forcing" of respect. I do not confuse force/allow, and I am not saying that you do either, but to be clear, allowing someone to respect you is different from forcing someone to respect you. Like all-loving, our concepts of eternal punishment differ as well I reckon. To me, eternal punishment is the accepted result for a person who does not embrace God, rejects God, continues to rebel, and refusees to repent. All of that. In that way, eternal damnation is a choice, the choice for those who do not choose to endure reconciliation (I think endure is a good way of looking at the process, I can't expound on that now as I am short of time).

Suffering then is a choice on earth, and a choice after the earthly life is over. Eternal damnation is an extension of free will. God allows us to damn ourselves in our war against him.

As for the bat analogy, I agree. God does not threaten us with baseball bats. The Hell analogies...they are pedological conceits I think, meant to scare. But they all pale in comparison to what we can not imagine, a life absolutely cut off from God's grace. God does not say acccept me or Hell. You look at it from the negative, and for good reason, as there is a history and a foundation for that in Judeo-Christain theology. These analogies you can no doubt refer to and quote are teaching aids. God is positive, however. God asks us to embrace. If we don't embrace, we will not be forced to embrace. Hell is not being hit with a baseball bat, or fire, or ice. It is a complete severance from God's grace, and that is worse than any constructed parable or analogy.

Unconditional love means there is a possibility of forgiveness or redemption or reconciliation. But that can not be forced on anyone.

As for the dictionary definition it exists. Because a dictionary definition exists, that does not mean it corresponds to the reality of God. Definitions change throughout human history of course, particularly when you examine realities like science or anatomy. You would, again, hold God to what is written in a dictionary. I don't.

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil. Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.

Unlikely that I can visit this forum again til Monday. And since I can not typically spend more than snippets of time here, I will do my best to track down responses and keep up with this. After next week I am swamped with schoolwork.

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th February 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

The problem is not evil. The problem is the existence] of evil. We're not talking about remedies for the ills of the world when we speak of the problem of evil. We're talking about the irreconcilability of the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator.

The existence of evil is a necessary result of the existence of creative beings who are not perfect.

Evil can be eradicated, I suppose, by the eradication of all non-perfect creative beings.

It almost appears that you are trying to say that God is, by nature, indefineable. Not a position I will argue, but I must ask: if this is so, how do you define him to be worthy of worship? How do you define him to be merciful? Just? The father of Jesus? You can't just switch off the defineability of God when it inconveniences your beliefs. We can either pin him down, or we can't.

I think the attempt to define God is good exercise. That is theology, innit? My thing is when I do have it out with God, I will genuflect and accept the truth as it is, not as I think it is. I'd like to believe that I have some good notions. I am doing the best I can. As for worthy of worship, as a creative being, I feel it appropriate to worship the perfect creative being who created me.

You are correct. We can't pin down God....well...God does make allowances. Jesus was crucified. Theology is not futile, I don't accept that. Ideally we are approaching Truth, even if we never achieve it, or can never prove we achieve it. If this is futility, why engage in theology or theological discussion?

-Elliot

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 11:22 AM

Unlikely that I can visit this forum again til Monday. And since I can not typically spend more than snippets of time here, I will do my best to track down responses and keep up with this. After next week I am swamped with schoolwork.

-Elliot
Have a good weekend. We'll keep the fire stoked while you're away.

Marquis de Carabas

6th February 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
The existence of evil is a necessary result of the existence of creative beings who are not perfect.

If I accept your premise that evil is a necessary result of free will, I still cannot see this as absolving God of the responsibility of creating evil. He created beings with the full knowledge that such a creation would bring evil into the world. That evil was an indirect creation hardly seems to remove the blame. If a creator exists, he is guilty for all evil in the world.

To put it another way, if I am running a chemical plant, and I know that the production of some compound is going to produce, as a necessary result, some dangerous and illegal pollutant, I will be held accountable for said production. I cannot make my chemical withou taking the blame for the (known) byproducts.

I think the attempt to define God is good exercise. That is theology, innit? My thing is when I do have it out with God, I will genuflect and accept the truth as it is, not as I think it is. I'd like to believe that I have some good notions. I am doing the best I can. As for worthy of worship, as a creative being, I feel it appropriate to worship the perfect creative being who created me.

Theology is not futile, I don't accept that. Ideally we are approaching Truth, even if we never achieve it, or can never prove we achieve it. If this is futility, why engage in theology or theological discussion?
Actually, I do think it's kind of futile, but it's fun (see sig.), but I can understand how you view it as an impotant venture. I must ask, though, how you know "the truth as it is" and what exactly you mean by "have it out with God." Do you experience God as revealing these truths to you directly, or are they things you have researched, and found evidence weighing in the favor of?

Iacchus

6th February 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by exarch
So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.Or, maybe you have Him mistaken for someone else? Well you know, there's always hope.

Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on. It's funny, but this isn't what Tricky was trying to explain to me in another thread. :D

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 12:38 PM

Greetings my friend.

I'll try to restate what I've already said.

My friend just give me the same respect I have shown you and answer my questions.

1- if God has control over what “he’ does how does this loving father allow a child/person to suffer when he knows it will happen and yet does nothing to stop it?

It is by this thinking his fault and makes him far from being a loving father.

2-Why does “he” allows the wishes to be safe and happy of the person being harmed by the being harming them or the natural disasters that harm people that he is in full control of and the beings being harmed by them have no control over?

3-The same would be said for all many illnesses that the being does not seek but this God forces on them, why?

4- You have also said God does not force you to respect him. That would not be the case in most God based beliefs as you either respect and believe in him or you will forever suffer correct?

This is like stand before your child with a bat telling them they need not respect you but if they do you will beat them to death with the bat.

5-Do you believe God has unconditional love?

Please, let us conduct a respectful interaction and conversation.

I will show you again respect and address everything you say and ask. I look forward to you doing the same.

God created/creates creative beings.

I respect you believe that.

For whatever reason, God feels it is important that these beings have free will.

1- How do you know what God feels/thinks?

I have pointed out but you ignore that we do not have a complete free will. I no matter how I wish run 100 miles an hour etc.

Also and what you have ignored when a person shoots me because he wanted to he exercise his free will but my free will to not be shot is ignored.

Does God ONLY respect free will to harm?

The creative beings, not being God, have the capacity to make bad choices.

I respect you believe that but can if you wish demonstrate many hundreds or thousands of cases in the Bible or the holy books of other God based religions where this being/God has made very evil choices.

Regardless, how is it free will for the child who is raped and killed ? Please answer.

Without free will, the creative beings would not be creative beings, but copy machines.

my friend I do believe in a form of free will as I have said, please just be honest and answer my questions.

To consider the alternative is impossible as we are flawed creative beings.

My friend please stop dancing around and answer my questions.

When a man rapes and kills a child what of the free will of the child, parents, family and friends to not have her harmed?

Does God only allow free will for evil acts?

As for parents...different parents have different standards.

what does this have to do with what I said?

Take proms. Fornication/alcohol usually go hand in hand, with I'd say 50% of kids. Go ahead and scoff, some of you are talented at that.

What does this have to do with anything?

Anyhow, different parents will have different threshholds in judging how to handle the situation. Should you kid go to the problem?

What???

Should the kid be chaperoned from start to finish? Or do you allow anything to happen.

No, they could be as your God is and allow the child go to the prom knowing that the child will drink, and park later knowing that a rapist and killer that he has full control over will rape and kill her and her date.

This parent ( god) knew this would happen allowed it to happen and helped it to happen. Is it the child’s fault in your mind?

Panhasiri, you would have your parenting decisions placed on God.

My friend read my post again slowly and you will see how you have not understood what is written.

If God's parenting decisions do not match yours, you would say he is not all-loving. That is fine. In response, I would say that God must not have his parenting decisions contingent on you, for that would make his choices less potent than yours.

My friend do you know what analogy means?

As for all-loving. You appear to hold that having the possibility of creative beings making bad choices means that God is not all-loving.

What is not all loving is allowing a child to do something or have something done to them that they have no control over or choice in when you have all the power to stop it and you are the very one who put in place the causes that will harm her.

I disagree. We not only have the choice to make bad choices, but good choices as well.

STOP, take a deep breath and read what is written.

IF a child who does not want to be raped and killed is raped and killed by a man who wanted to do this.

Her parents, grandparents etc all did not want here to be raped and killed.

It was not their choice but in your belief the killers free will comes first?

In addition, the temporal world is not the end-all, be-all.

that is your belief and irrelevant. Are you saying it is OK for some people to really suffer greatly and that is ok?

There is another world, and their is redemption, and there is eternal justice.

I will be happy to see your proof of this but find that right or wrong meaningless to this conversation.

As for "forcing" of respect. I do not confuse force/allow, and I am not saying that you do either, but to be clear, allowing someone to respect you is different from forcing someone to respect you.

Not at all. You believe God is all knowing, knowing I will be Buddhist and not believe in “him” long before I was born, as do using today 76% of the worlds population do not believe in your Christian God.

Knowing this ahead of time no matter how they live he is going to punish them for doing what he knew they would do, not believe in him or massage his ego.

I will say again, you ignored this.

An analogy for your God would be this.

A father knows his son will tell a little fib to him, he asks his child to answer already knowing he will fib. He tells him he wants him to tell the truth but it is up to him but if he fibs he is going to beat him to death with a bat.

Like all-loving, our concepts of eternal punishment differ as well I reckon. To me, eternal punishment is the accepted result for a person who does not embrace God, rejects God, continues to rebel, and refusees to repent.

how sad and evil and un-loving this god is.

His love is predicated on his ego and having beings massaging his ego. He allows them to be born knowing they will not believe in him, many never having any opportunity to even know he is a possibility. He never proves he exist and makes you just guess but knows that most never will believe in him.

He then makes suffer for all time people who he knew would not believe in him. People he knew would not believe in him who may live a year to 99 just a blink of the eye will suffer forever simply because they would not believe in him.

I have no such respect for such a being, this “God” I have only sadness for his for how evil he is.

Suffering then is a choice on earth, and a choice after the earthly life is over.

1-How did the child who was kidnapped and raped choose that?
2- How did the person hurt or killed by the hurricane, earth quake, flood etc choose this suffering?
3- How did the person who contracts the most painful illness choose this suffering.

I could go on for hours, please stop and thing about what you say.

Eternal damnation is an extension of free will. God allows us to damn ourselves in our war against him.

the child that is born into a tribe in the most distant rain forest never seen by other humans is at war with God?

Stop and think.

As for the bat analogy, I agree. God does not threaten us with baseball bats. The Hell analogies...they are pedological conceits I think, meant to scare. But they all pale in comparison to what we can not imagine, a life absolutely cut off from God's grace.

I have great joys and happiness without your God. I will rather stay with people who suffer and help them then be near such an evil self centered God.

God does not say acccept me or Hell.

My friend I can help you learn your bible better if you like.

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Mark 9:43
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

James 3:6
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

You look at it from the negative, and for good reason, as there is a history and a foundation for that in Judeo-Christain theology. These analogies you can no doubt refer to and quote are teaching aids.

A teaching aid? Believe in me or die?

God is positive, however. God asks us to embrace. If we don't embrace, we will not be forced to embrace.

So you do not believe God is all knowing?

Hell is not being hit with a baseball bat, or fire, or ice. It is a complete severance from God's grace, and that is worse than any constructed parable or analogy.

I respect that is how you wish to interpret your Bible.

Unconditional love means there is a possibility of forgiveness or redemption or reconciliation. But that can not be forced on anyone.

No my friend. Unconditional be no conditions not one.

Believe in me or suffer is not unconditional.

Also again it seems you are saying God is now all knowing, that is interesting.

As for the dictionary definition it exists. Because a dictionary definition exists, that does not mean it corresponds to the reality of God.

God is a belief not a reality until proves to be such. I greatly respect you and your belief but it is not fact.

The definition is a definition of what the word means not what you want it to mean.

Definitions change throughout human history of course, particularly when you examine realities like science or anatomy.

All realities and facts.

You would, again, hold God to what is written in a dictionary. I don't.

I hold god as a myth. I hold love and respect for all beings and their beliefs but I hold God as a unproven myth just as unicorns.

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil.

Again you do not know your bible well.

I will offer you only a few examples but if you wish more I will supply them for you:

"I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, who does all these things." (Isa. 45:5-7)

The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4

Do you believe your God lied?

Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.

Then punishes them for doing what he made them do.

Be well my friend.

CWL

6th February 2004, 04:21 PM

Elliotfc and Iacchus,

You insist on explaining the existence of evil as a necessary result of free will.

I have asked you the below (very simple) question several times in this thread already, however without any reply. Please do me the courtesy of answering.

How can earthquakes and HIV be a necessary result of free will ?!?

Pahansiri

6th February 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Elliotfc and Iacchus,

You insist on explaining the existence of evil as a necessary result of free will.

I have asked you the below (very simple) question several times in this thread already, however without any reply. Please do me the courtesy of answering.

How can earthquakes and HIV be a necessary result of free will ?!?

Greetings CWL I tried the earthquake, floods, illnesses, killers etc no responce.:(

CWL

6th February 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Greetings CWL I tried the earthquake, floods, illnesses, killers etc no responce.:(

Greetings, friend.

Sometimes silence is a telling thing indeed.

exarch

7th February 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, maybe you have Him mistaken for someone else? Well you know, there's always hope.Actually, maybe YOU have him mistaken for someone else? Maybe you are worshipping a being wich you believe to be perfect and loving, but is in fact not interested in how you feel. A being that only wants to see you suffer and squirm around trying to make your idea of what god is like fit reality or your perception of that being.

Then again, you have no perception of that being, because that being cannot be percepted. He doesn't exist, and those who think they saw him just had some brain neurons misfire. I take that as the most plausible explanation over a plethora of other beliefs, most of them involving exceptions to the existing, established rules.

Originally posted by exarch
Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on.It's funny, but this isn't what Tricky was trying to explain to me in another thread. :DPlease provide a link to the supposed thread where Tricky is arguing there is such a thing as karma, so I can verify for myself whether he's merely being ironic or sarcastic or somehow joking, or is in fact dead-serious.

(Edited to fix a quote tag)

exarch

7th February 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Are there people with the "pastor said it" reasoning? I'm sure. Of course I can't speak for them. Are there millions of such? Maybe hundreds of thousands? I have no idea. This is, of course, related to people who go with the "science teacher said it" deal, "auto mechanic", "parents", "best friend", etc.I had to lift this statement out, because there is a difference between "my pastor told me" and "my science teacher told me". The difference is that being a science teacher means that if you start spreading lies (about science), you could end up losing your job, while for a pastor spreading lies, no, let's be fair: preaching "unfounded assumptions", is part of the job description.

Dancing David

7th February 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

One more thing, and this is an aside. God didn't create evil. Rather, he created creative beings who can not make perfect choices as God does. He created the possibility for non-perfect creative beings to make faulty choices.

-Elliot

Hey Elliot, I think that if you can accept the idea that the world came about in a totaly chaotic fashion, this is exactly the surmise I came to from the other direction. I say that 'evil' exists because this is an organic chaotic realm, and that there fore, evil was not intended in the design but is just an aspect of freedom of choice.

I would just say that chaotic evolution, gave freedom of choice to certain creatures.

But I feel that 'evil' was unnessecary to the construction, just an unintended consequence.

Same language different angle.

Iacchus

7th February 2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by exarch

So he's just playing with us, observing us as we croack and die all over the place, laughing at us insignificant little ants as we try to make something of our lives and our planet, even though he knows we can't. He's definitely not a loving god. He's a sick b*st*rd.And yet there's a lesson to be learned in everything.

Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.

You steal, you go to jail. If you don't get caught, you get away with it. No cosmic karma slapping us in the face later on. Hey if you want to stand out in the freezing cold buck naked that's entirely up to you, but don't tell me you won't be suffering the consequences.

exarch

8th February 2004, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Exactly. That's what the rest of us believe: there are no consequences except those we impose on ourselves or others.Hey if you want to stand out in the freezing cold buck naked that's entirely up to you, but don't tell me you won't be suffering the consequences. How do you equate the moral consequences of our actions or choices (i.e. guilt) with the physical effects of entirely different actions?

I kill a man, God sends me to burn in hell forever.
I kill a man, I feel remorse, guilt, and have nightmares years from now.

Perhaps even:
I kill a man, I go to jail for two decades (not a moral consequence, but one we've imposed on others).

But:
I kill a man, I freeze my w*nker off? :confused:

I turn left at the traffic lights and go to hell? Had I turned right I'd still be OK?

Does anyone need to explain the difference to you between moral actions and choices and physical ones? That might explain why you are not making much sense in the first place though.

CWL

8th February 2004, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet there's a lesson to be learned in everything.

Hey if you want to stand out in the freezing cold buck naked that's entirely up to you, but don't tell me you won't be suffering the consequences.

Assiduous as I am, I feel compelled to ask the same question again:

How can earthquakes and HIV be a consequence of free will ?!?

It feels like the zillionth time this has been asked in this thread. Pray tell why do the believers in an omnipotent and benevolent supreme being appear to feel the need to ignore this very simple question?

Tricky

8th February 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by lacchus
It's funny, but this isn't what Tricky was trying to explain to me in another thread. :D

Originally posted by exarch
Please provide a link to the supposed thread where Tricky is arguing there is such a thing as karma, so I can verify for myself whether he's merely being ironic or sarcastic or somehow joking, or is in fact dead-serious.

I think lacchus is trying to refer to this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870304624&highlight=retribution#post1870304624), but I am afraid he has totally misinterpreted my meaning. My point was that there are indeed social and legal consequences of your acts, but not supernatural ones. I only agreed that punishment is a factor in controlling people. This is a fact that religion siezed upon very quickly and tried to make up for the fact that it did not have the ability to actually enforce "proper" behavior, by substituting imagined punishment.

No, I have no belief in karma. It is just another attempt to feel better about being powerless in this life by imagining retribution in another life.

Or what was it one poster said?
"My fate keeps interfering with my destiny. I guess that's just my karma."

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 05:59 AM

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by exarch

How do you equate the moral consequences of our actions or choices (i.e. guilt) with the physical effects of entirely different actions?

I kill a man, God sends me to burn in hell forever.
I kill a man, I feel remorse, guilt, and have nightmares years from now.

Perhaps even:
I kill a man, I go to jail for two decades (not a moral consequence, but one we've imposed on others).

But:
I kill a man, I freeze my w*nker off? :confused:

I turn left at the traffic lights and go to hell? Had I turned right I'd still be OK?Or, what if you kill a man and it pisses off his brother and his brother comes back to kill you? That kind of sounds like karma and/or justice to me.

Does anyone need to explain the difference to you between moral actions and choices and physical ones? That might explain why you are not making much sense in the first place though. I think what I said in the beginning (or meant to say) was that God allows us to learn from our mistakes. However, that isn't to say I don't believe in karma either. ;)

Tricky

8th February 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Assiduous as I am, I feel compelled to ask the same question again:

How can earthquakes and HIV be a consequence of free will ?!?

It feels like the zillionth time this has been asked in this thread. Pray tell why do the believers in an omnipotent and benevolent supreme being appear to feel the need to ignore this very simple question?
Yes, CWL, your assiduousness is legendary.:p

But allow me to answer for the believers (or at least some of them, based on my discussions with them.) Natural disasters, diseases and such are brought on by man as punisment for them using their free will to do evil. Oh, it's not limited to punishing the evil-doer, but that's what caused it. Recall tlhe story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Wicked wicked wicked. They didn't have to be wicked, but by God they (and their innocent children) suffered retribution for using their free will to do so. Then of course, there is the whole "Noah" thing.

Some years back, when AIDS was just starting to become news, a lot of bible-thumpers suggested that this was God punishing gays and drug-users for their sin. There hasn't been much of this talk since it was found that female homosexuals have a much lower incidence of AIDS than in the general populace. They couldn't seem to abide the same logic that would suggest that God thinks lesbians are less sinful than heterosexuals.

Tricky

8th February 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, what if you kill a man and it pisses off his brother and his brother comes back to kill you? That kind of sounds like karma and/or justice to me.
But it is not karma, which is much different from justice. Karma specifically applys to your soul, not your body. I think that what you are talking about here is simple revenge, a very earthly concept, requiring no supernatural intervention.

Originally posted by Iacchus
I think what I said in the beginning (or meant to say) was that God allows us to learn from our mistakes. However, that isn't to say I don't believe in karma either. ;)
Do you not think that we could not learn from our mistakes by using our brains alone? Why do we need God's permission?

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 06:21 AM

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I think lacchus is trying to refer to this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870304624&highlight=retribution#post1870304624), but I am afraid he has totally misinterpreted my meaning. My point was that there are indeed social and legal consequences of your acts, but not supernatural ones. I only agreed that punishment is a factor in controlling people. This is a fact that religion siezed upon very quickly and tried to make up for the fact that it did not have the ability to actually enforce "proper" behavior, by substituting imagined punishment.And yet were talking about suffering the consequences of our actions now weren't we?

Originally posted by Tricky

This is what scares me about spiritual people. It is obvious that the only thing restraining them from being homocidal maniacs is their fear of repurcussions. Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because of empathy for their fellow human beings. Which one of these would you trust more? Originally posted by Iacchus

On the contrary, I think Atheists are just as much afraid of the repurcussions as anyone else, for instance like going to jail? ;)

Or, perhaps you're making the assumption that all Atheits think like you?

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

You could answer what is asked, for once.:rub: And what is it about my answer that you have a problem with?

Tricky

8th February 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet were talking about suffering the consequences of our actions now weren't we?

Yes, and I agree that people respond to the threat of punisment. If you have not the enforcement ability to actually punish people, you can always invent some deity or karmic concept to do so. It doesn't make those deities exist, but it makes you feel better.

I tell you what. I will gladly accept all of your supernatural consequences of your bad actions if you will accept all the real-world consequences of mine. Starting with this parking ticket...

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

But it is not karma, which is much different from justice. Karma specifically applys to your soul, not your body. I think that what you are talking about here is simple revenge, a very earthly concept, requiring no supernatural intervention. "Judge not lest ye be judged." So, isn't karma just another word for justice?

Do you not think that we could not learn from our mistakes by using our brains alone? Why do we need God's permission? No, because we don't get a sense of value from what we think, but rather what we feel.

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

But it is not karma, which is much different from justice. Karma specifically applys to your soul, not your body.

Greetings my friend Tricky.

Your statement would be partially right if you are speaking about Hindu and some others beliefs view of karma but not Buddhism’s.

There are different beliefs as to how karma works.

Buddhism does not believe in a soul or self. We do believe in a true nature of mind that has no individual personality/self etc.

Buddhist or Buddha’s belief in the working of Karma is it is simply cause and effect, action and more so intentional action. And while we believe it attaches to the mind from rebirth to rebirth until the mind realizes it’s true nature/full awakening it does not always arise.

Example in some beliefs it is believed that if you say hit someone with an ax, you will be hit with an ax. That is not our belief. We simply believe in cause and effect, an action that is harmful will bring about suffering an action helpful, non harming brings about happiness.

A negative action will only arise if the causes and conditions arise to allow it.

Karma can apply to the “body” in that things could occur as to the body causing suffering of course the suffering is in reality mind.

As to is it justice, well I guess one could say in a way it is but we do not see it as “personal” or that someone is dealing it out anyone but ourselves. Karma is simply cause and effect to us.

Just what I believe.

Be well I hope all is well in the lone star state.

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what is it about my answer that you have a problem with?

It was not an answer it was a dance http://www.eng.bahcesehir.edu.tr/compe/html_picts/animated2/dancin.gif around directly answering as is so often the case with you.

It is a simple question how is it free will if I am killed by an earthquake or someone who wishes to kill me even thought I do not desire to be killed. Does only negative free will matter to your god?

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 06:50 AM

http://www.eng.bahcesehir.edu.tr/compe/html_picts/animated2/cricket.gif

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, and I agree that people respond to the threat of punisment. If you have not the enforcement ability to actually punish people, you can always invent some deity or karmic concept to do so. It doesn't make those deities exist, but it makes you feel better.

I tell you what. I will gladly accept all of your supernatural consequences of your bad actions if you will accept all the real-world consequences of mine. Starting with this parking ticket... And as much as I despise them, I usually pay them, except for this one time ...

Parking Ticket Fiasco

I will not abide by this crap!
This is a victimless crime.
I did not do this willfully.
It was late at night -- after 9 p.m.
The signs at the entrance were not lit up.
There was no gate there.
The parking lot was not lit up.
There was no attendant there.
The office was closed.
Both myself and my passenger concluded it was okay to park.
The other cars in the lot only added to the deception.
Do the meters on the street work this late?
I could have just as easily parked there. I usually do.
What kind of racket is this!
Why should I be punished for something that was unintentional?
It was the first time I parked there -- and it will no doubt be the last!
I've gotten other parking tickets before, and I've paid them, but this takes the cake.
And what about people who are from out of town, or those who don't come to town very often?
How many other unwitting victims have you suckered into this trap?
The $14.50 is more than what I paid for Dinner!
What are you trying to discourage local businesses from operating?
This is taxation without representation, and it's extortion.
So who's the real criminal?
Damn you! Scheming and scamming hypocrites! Bloodsuckers!
Damn your bureaucratic ********!
Perhaps somebody should file a lawsuit against you, and you should be held accountable for your actions!
Les Miserables! To one and all!

P.S. At the very least I will send a copy to The Oregonian (local newspaper). And thanks for nothing!Well obviously I was pissed off and I didn't pay it. And, in spite of all their threats and warnings, they eventually dropped it.

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

As to is it justice, well I guess one could say in a way it is but we do not see it as “personal” or that someone is dealing it out anyone but ourselves. Karma is simply cause and effect to us. Except in the case where the victim wants vindication and is more than happy to return the favor. ;)

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except in the case where the victim wants vindication and is more than happy to return the favor. ;)

My friend you must read what is written and seek to understand what is said not what you wish it to say.

I was speaking about the law of cause and effect not a person and what they may choose to do.

Now how about an answer to
It is a simple question how is it free will if I am killed by an earthquake or someone who wishes to kill me even thought I do not desire to be killed. Does only negative free will matter to your god?

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

My friend you must read what is written and seek to understand what is said not what you wish it to say.

I was speaking about the law of cause and effect not a person and what they may choose to do.Yes, but the effect could be that you make somebody very unhappy which, could be the cause that they come back and kick the crap out of you! :D

Now how about an answer to
It is a simple question how is it free will if I am killed by an earthquake or someone who wishes to kill me even thought I do not desire to be killed. Does only negative free will matter to your god? As I already said, what difference does it make? Are you implying that I should feel something differently?

metacristi

8th February 2004, 07:38 AM

If one has the power to create everything, why even create such a concept as "evil"? I want a refund.

The usual theist answer is that the 'moral evil' is our creation and the existence of the so called 'metaphysical evils' (earthquakes and so on) is deceptive they making part from God's plan,not understood by us for we do not have the overall picture,necessary for the creation of a higher 'good' (metaphysical evil being warnings of God given to humans to cease being evil without interfering with their free will).The usual objection here is that when innocent childrens die in accidents or are killed the necessity to preserve free will and the necessity to punish humans for their moral evils is not an excuse for an all good Being.Why doesn't God save those kids,or at least some of them?One reply is that those childrens will go to Heaven anyway.Another one is that maybe God has saved many of them only that we do not have sufficient reasons to attribute those cases to him (indeed there are many who say,on good reason,that the fact that they survived some critical events is a 'miracle').

As a conclusion God's ways might be incomprehensible for us but this does not make him less all good.One has to prove first that our world is not the best world possible in the actual conditions if they want 'the argument of evil' to be sound.Finally this argument is as unsound logically as those which try to prove the necessary existence of a personal God...I'm afraid logic alone is never enough to settle the problem of God's existence/non existence...

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but the effect could be that you make somebody very unhappy which, could be the cause that they come back and kick the crap out of you! :D

As I already said, what difference does it make? Are you implying that I should feel something differently?

1-Again your comprehension skills as to what others post is clearly hindered by your desires rather then logical thought.

2- As I already said, what difference does it make? Are you implying that I should feel something differently?

It makes all the difference in the world to someone being honest. You make the sweeping statement that suffering or evil are due to free will.

Others and I have demonstrated that that is simply too sweeping and the proof is that when a natural disaster happens and many are killed and suffer it was not due to free will.

Nor was it the free will of the child in Fla who was kidnapped, raped and killed to have such done nor was it the desire or free will of her parents, family and friends. Please do give them a call and ask them what difference does it make?

My friend your desire to be right blinds you to reality and truth also to logic and honest conversation.

I would ask you again does your God only value free will when it is of harm to others?

YES or NO

CWL

8th February 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, CWL, your assiduousness is legendary.:p
Why does this sound like an insinuation pertaining to my backside...?
But allow me to answer for the believers (or at least some of them, based on my discussions with them.) Natural disasters, diseases and such are brought on by man as punisment for them using their free will to do evil. Oh, it's not limited to punishing the evil-doer, but that's what caused it.

So, my main thesis stands. If (and only if) God exists, he's basically an indiscriminating a-hole.

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Why does this sound like an insinuation pertaining to my backside...?

So, my main thesis stands. If (and only if) God exists, he's basically an indiscriminating a-hole. And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by metacristi

The usual theist answer is that the 'moral evil' is our creation and the existence of the so called 'metaphysical evils' (earthquakes and so on) is deceptive they making part from God's plan,not understood by us for we do not have the overall picture,necessary for the creation of a higher 'good' (metaphysical evil being warnings of God given to humans to cease being evil without interfering with their free will).The usual objection here is that when innocent childrens die in accidents or are killed the necessity to preserve free will and the necessity to punish humans for their moral evils is not an excuse for an all good Being.Why doesn't God save those kids,or at least some of them?One reply is that those childrens will go to Heaven anyway.Another one is that maybe God has saved many of them only that we do not have sufficient reasons to attribute those cases to him (indeed there are many who say,on good reason,that the fact that they survived some critical events is a 'miracle').

As a conclusion God's ways might be incomprehensible for us but this does not make him less all good.One has to prove first that our world is not the best world possible in the actual conditions if they want 'the argument of evil' to be sound.Finally this argument is as unsound logically as those which try to prove the necessary existence of a personal God...I'm afraid logic alone is never enough to settle the problem of God's existence/non existence...

Greetings metacristi

As a conclusion God's ways might be incomprehensible for us but this does not make him less all good.

Not true. I hear this often that Gods ways are the right and perfect way yet we find “his” actions when applied to men as criminal. Please read http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055 as an example.

One has to prove first that our world is not the best world possible in the actual conditions if they want 'the argument of evil' to be sound.

No, one first needs to prove “God”.

Finally this argument is as unsound logically as those which try to prove the necessary existence of a personal God...I'm afraid logic alone is never enough to settle the problem of God's existence/non existence...

It is logical to assume from the available evidence that reality, the universe arose from natural causes.

Is there a possibility that a God created all? Yes it is but I see no evidence.

Is there a possibility the universe exist in a test tube of a laboratory of a far-advanced life form? Yes but I see no evidence.

Is there a possibility the universe exist in a snow flake like Whoville? Yes but I see no evidence.

Just what I believe

CWL

8th February 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What difference does it make? When your number is up your number is up. And, upon death if the material world is all there is your suffering will cease or, if there is an afterlife, things will get sorted out at that point. What else is there to say?

"What difference does it make"?!?

So, if I pull all your toenails out with a pair of tweezers and then offer you some cake, am I worthy of worship in your eyes?

From my point of view it is simple. I see no evidence for an intelligent supreme being. There are thus no rational reasons to believe in a supreme being.

All that remains is wishful thinking, i.e. emotional reasons to believe. The fact that "God" is an obvious meanie takes care of the emotional reasons (which for the avoidance of doubt of course shouldn't influence the choice to begin with - just toying with the thought) for me aswell.

So there you have my simple viewpoint folks, and should I be wrong and sent to hell because of this, I shall certainly join exarch in chucking brimstones at the jerk who's responsible for it all. At least I shall take pride in not being an accessory to the cruel farce that existence in such case is.

CWL

8th February 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.
Yes indeed - and what could this be an indication of...?

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

Proof "he" allowed anything?

El Greco

8th February 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Yes indeed - and what could this be an indication of...?

...His supply of thunderbolts being exhausted ?

CWL

8th February 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by El Greco

...His supply of thunderbolts being exhausted ?

...Him not being hooked up to the Internet?

El Greco

8th February 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by CWL
...Him not being hooked up to the Internet?

Unlikely (http://members.aol.com/jesus316/)

Tricky

8th February 2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.
Well then, allow me to second CWL and repeat myself.

If God exists as you describe him, he is an evil tyrant, and I will oppose him and his will any way I can. Now, I dare you to send your lightning bolts, Jehovah or whatever you are calling yourself these days, because I am your sworn enemy.

(sound of crickets)

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by CWL

"What difference does it make"?!?

So, if I pull all your toenails out with a pair of tweezers and then offer you some cake, am I worthy of worship in your eyes?

From my point of view it is simple. I see no evidence for an intelligent supreme being. There are thus no rational reasons to believe in a supreme being.

All that remains is wishful thinking, i.e. emotional reasons to believe. The fact that "God" is an obvious meanie takes care of the emotional reasons (which for the avoidance of doubt of course shouldn't influence the choice to begin with - just toying with the thought) for me aswell.

So there you have my simple viewpoint folks, and should I be wrong and sent to hell because of this, I shall certainly join exarch in chucking brimstones at the jerk who's responsible for it all. At least I shall take pride in not being an accessory to the cruel farce that existence in such case is. Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

Pahansiri

8th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

Not true at all.

Upon your death when Iacchus is dead cause and effect will go on "working" in fact with "your" very body it will go on as the elaments of "your" body will again Appear in other forms.

KonTiki

8th February 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Total Recall...
(image removed)
But what about the poor inanimate objects??? :D

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Not true at all.

Upon your death when Iacchus is dead cause and effect will go on "working" in fact with "your" very body it will go on as the elaments of "your" body will again Appear in other forms. Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

Tricky

8th February 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference is it going to make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?
That is where empathy kicks in. You may have a difficult time conceiving this, but there are those of us who care what happens to the world and to our loved ones even if there is no way for us to know about it. Tell me. If you discovered for sure that there was no afterlife of any sort, would you immediately stop doing anything good that might outlast your life. After all, you wouldn't know about it, so who cares, right? I'm betting you wouldn't. It is a funny thing about caring. You don't even have to be rewarded for it. Just doing good is reason enough. Have you never heard the phrase, "virtue is its own reward"?

Sure, it would be nice to be rewarded for doing good by getting karma points or by getting into heaven or whatever spiritual lottery you subscribe to, but isn't that the wrong reason for doing good? Isn't that essentially selfish? Yeah, atheists/materialists are a little bit selfish because they do things for the sole joy of feeling good about them. They don't do things that they would only do if they thought they were going to get some post-life reward. I believe a person who does good without expecting reward to be more moral.

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

That is where empathy kicks in ... Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

Tricky

8th February 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?
Yes, this is the major point I was replying to. It will make a difference, even if you are not aware of it. To require that you be around to hear the nice things they say about you is ultimately egotistical and selfish.

Originally posted by Iacchus

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness?
That strikes me as anthropocentric and arrogant. Of course, there are many definitions for "experience" and "consciousness". May people think that lower creatures, such as plants, do not have consciousness. Does that mean they don't "experience" sunlight?
Originally posted by Iacchus
Indeed, how would we even know we were here? And of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?
Wrong. Depends on how you define them. See above.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!
It indeed would be something. It would violate many established laws of physics. And while it might be interesting to speculate on such things, it is in no way established that consciousness survives the death of the brain. Quite the opposite. First of all, you have to establish what consciousness is. You might use one of the dictionary definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?consciousness) like;

1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
Now, try to establish which of these definitions can be definately shown to exist without the presence of a human brain. You might believe that some do, but you cannot show it. Thus, the survival of consciousness after death is utterly speculative, and indeed violates most of what we know to be true about consciousness.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would answer this question, since you have ignored my previous statements on it.

"Is it more moral to do good for the joy of doing good or to do good in hope of some reward?"

RussDill

8th February 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

why do you assume consciousness has to go anywhere? Where does a dream go when you forget it?

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

why do you assume consciousness has to go anywhere? Where does a dream go when you forget it? Why do you people insist on being so dense!

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, this is the major point I was replying to. It will make a difference, even if you are not aware of it. To require that you be around to hear the nice things they say about you is ultimately egotistical and selfish. How so? Are you saying that as spirits we would be "listening in" on conversations about us? ... As if we didn't have anything better to do, like get on with our spiritual lives?

That strikes me as anthropocentric and arrogant. Of course, there are many definitions for "experience" and "consciousness". May people think that lower creatures, such as plants, do not have consciousness. Does that mean they don't "experience" sunlight? Arrogance? Give it up!

Actually, I think everything that's alive experiences consciousness to some degree, beginning at the cellular level, otherwise we couldn't even extend our awareness down to our little toe.

Wrong. Depends on how you define them. See above.I hate to tell you this, but unless you "know" that you're here, you are aware of nothing, including reality.

It indeed would be something. It would violate many established laws of physics. And while it might be interesting to speculate on such things, it is in no way established that consciousness survives the death of the brain. Quite the opposite. First of all, you have to establish what consciousness is. You might use one of the dictionary definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?consciousness) like;Do you mean to tell me "you" don't know that you exist?

Now, try to establish which of these definitions can be definately shown to exist without the presence of a human brain. You might believe that some do, but you cannot show it. Thus, the survival of consciousness after death is utterly speculative, and indeed violates most of what we know to be true about consciousness.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would answer this question, since you have ignored my previous statements on it.Do radio waves exist outside of a radio?

"Is it more moral to do good for the joy of doing good or to do good in hope of some reward?" But what are morals, and where do they come from?

Yes, this is one of those questions we need to ask ourselves if we're to transcend the whole affair.

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

why do you assume consciousness has to go anywhere? Where does a dream go when you forget it? Yes, where does it go? And weren't you conscious when you were dreaming? Who, or what were you, in relation to the others in your dream? And where did they go?

RussDill

8th February 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, where does it go? And weren't you conscious when you were dreaming? Who, or what were you, in relation to the others in your dream? And where did they go?

They are now in the past. Also, the only concious being in my dream was me. Just like who I was 10 years ago. Are you a different person than you were 10 years ago? Where did that person go?

RussDill

8th February 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do you people insist on being so dense!

I definately would have to say I feel that way about you sometimes. So closed minded to even asking the question about natural probability.

Tricky

8th February 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
How so? Are you saying that as spirits we would be "listening in" on conversations about us? ... As if we didn't have anything better to do, like get on with our spiritual lives?
I'm saying nothing of the sort. It is you that is making that contention. You are saying that after death, your consciousness somehow appreciates what you have done in life, or else, what would be the point of it? I am merely pointing out the selfishness of such a position. You want your deeds to be appreciated after you are gone. Can't you be satisfied that they are rembembered by those who are left alive? Why must you invoke a spiritual something to indulge your own ego?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Arrogance? Give it up!
What else could you call it? You say that consciousness is the only thing that allows us to experience reality, but you are asserting this never having experienced any other reality or consciousness than your own. You are totally unable to relate as to how a rock might experience reality, because you are a human who thinks that human experience is the best kind.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, I think everything that's alive experiences consciousness to some degree, beginning at the cellular level, otherwise we couldn't even extend our awareness down to our little toe.
Why stop there. Why not rocks? Why not air? Is it DNA that gives something consciousness? Can you even define what you mean by "consciousness"? How can begin to describe the metaphysical properties of something you can't even define in the physical world?

Originally posted by Iacchus
I hate to tell you this, but unless you "know" that you're here, you are aware of nothing, including reality.
I can well understand why you would hate to tell me that, because it means nothing, and you hate being so shallow.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean to tell me "you" don't know that you exist?
I mean to tell you I can tell you what I mean by "exist" and I can tell you what I mean by "consciousness". By my definitions, I do exist and I have consciousness. You don't seem to be able to get a handle on either of these terms. That is why I am trying to help you clear up the clutter in your own mind.

If you say "consciousness survives death", then you must know what it is that survives death. Is it the ability to think? That would be a pretty neat trick, since there are no thinking entities yet discovered which have no brain. Is it the ability to perceive? That would be equally neat, since there are no things yet discovered that can perceive without the use of sensory apparatus. You sound like you are proposing something that goes against everything we have yet discovered, and you do this utterly without any evidence, other than your own feeling that "it must be so." Pardon me if I am less trusting of your intuition than you are.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do radio waves exist outside of a radio?
Yes, and it can be shown that they do. It is rather easy to prove. Does souls exist outside of the body? You say so, but you cannot show that they do. You offer no proof. I would not expect you to believe that radio waves existed unless I could show you the evidence for them. Yet you expect us to simply take your word for it.

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what are morals, and where do they come from?
What a guileless dodge. It doesn't matter where morals come from. Use your own morals. I assume you have some. Would you like it if I rephrased the question? Let's try.

"Based on your own moral code, which is more moral: Doing good for the joy of doing good or doing good in the expectation of reward."

Now can you give me a straight answer?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, this is one of those questions we need to ask ourselves if we're to transcend the whole affair.
I have often asked myself (and others) that question before, and I have come to an answer that I find satisfactory, although subject to modification. I'm guessing you consider the question rhetorical. Let's not try to use this diversion as an excuse to sidestep my question, shall we? If you have any morals, then you should easily be able to answer my question.

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

I definately would have to say I feel that way about you sometimes. So closed minded to even asking the question about natural probability. Yes, you have natural probability on the one hand (the mechanics) and that which is transcendant on the other (full functionality). So why the incessant need to speak about everything but that which is functional?

Iacchus

8th February 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm saying nothing of the sort. It is you that is making that contention. You are saying that after death, your consciousness somehow appreciates what you have done in life, or else, what would be the point of it? I am merely pointing out the selfishness of such a position. You want your deeds to be appreciated after you are gone. Can't you be satisfied that they are rembembered by those who are left alive? Why must you invoke a spiritual something to indulge your own ego?I'm saying after death we reap the rewards of this life, good or bad. And that my friend is called Karma.

What else could you call it? You say that consciousness is the only thing that allows us to experience reality, but you are asserting this never having experienced any other reality or consciousness than your own. You are totally unable to relate as to how a rock might experience reality, because you are a human who thinks that human experience is the best kind.Yes, and where have I been all my life, if not conscious?

Why stop there. Why not rocks? Why not air? Is it DNA that gives something consciousness? Can you even define what you mean by "consciousness"? How can begin to describe the metaphysical properties of something you can't even define in the physical world?Why should I even conjecture about the "fact" -- hmm, or perhaps not? -- that I exist?

I can well understand why you would hate to tell me that, because it means nothing, and you hate being so shallow.What do you need somebody else to verify it for you?

I mean to tell you I can tell you what I mean by "exist" and I can tell you what I mean by "consciousness". By my definitions, I do exist and I have consciousness. You don't seem to be able to get a handle on either of these terms. That is why I am trying to help you clear up the clutter in your own mind.Please don't refer to an "I" if you can't ascertain what that "I" is.

If you say "consciousness survives death", then you must know what it is that survives death. Is it the ability to think? That would be a pretty neat trick, since there are no thinking entities yet discovered which have no brain. Is it the ability to perceive? That would be equally neat, since there are no things yet discovered that can perceive without the use of sensory apparatus. You sound like you are proposing something that goes against everything we have yet discovered, and you do this utterly without any evidence, other than your own feeling that "it must be so." Pardon me if I am less trusting of your intuition than you are.Yes, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Realize it or not this is what you're asking me. And like I said, can radio waves exist without a radio?

Yes, and it can be shown that they do. It is rather easy to prove. Does souls exist outside of the body? You say so, but you cannot show that they do. You offer no proof. I would not expect you to believe that radio waves existed unless I could show you the evidence for them. Yet you expect us to simply take your word for it.Yes, but "you" are the freakin' radio! ... So why don't "you" learn how to "tune in?"

What a guileless dodge. It doesn't matter where morals come from. Use your own morals. I assume you have some. Would you like it if I rephrased the question? Let's try.

Based on your own moral code, which is more moral: Doing good for the joy of doing good or doing good in the expectation of reward

Now can you give me a straight answer?."As I have stated above, and elsewhere, I believe in Karma and, that everybody receives their just reward, including those who feign to do good for the wrong reasons.

I have often asked myself (and others) that question before, and I have come to an answer that I find satisfactory, although subject to modification. I'm guessing you consider the question rhetorical. Let's not try to use this diversion as an excuse to sidestep my question, shall we? If you have any morals, then you should easily be able to answer my question. I don't know about you, but I do things because I enjoy doing them. ;)

El Greco

9th February 2004, 12:26 AM

And so, after about 1000 posts Iacchus is exactly where he was when he came here. Do you see any change, any indication of a slight variation, any signs that he is not talking to a tree or a wall ? I don't.

Iacchus

9th February 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by El Greco

And so, after about 1000 posts Iacchus is exactly where he was when he came here. Do you see any change, any indication of a slight variation, any signs that he is not talking to a tree or a wall ? I don't. Consciousness exists expressly for perceiving, and hence defining reality. Without it, there would be no reality for us.

So when the body dies, and our consciousness departs, where do "we" go?

CWL

9th February 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do you people insist on being so dense!

Why do you insist on ignoring direct quetions put to you?

The main question of this thread has been brought to your attention many times now (by myself, exarch, Tricky et al.) only to be blatantly ignored by you.

I'll give it one more go:

As described by you, "God" is an evil and indiscriminating tyrant. Why is such a concept, in your reasonable opinion, worthy of worship?

Please make a serious attempt at replying.

exarch

9th February 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know.I doubt it, but how about it doesn't go anywhere? It just ceases to exist when the brain ceases to operate.

If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?But you are conscious in this realm, unless when you are knocked out, in which case you are unconscious in this realm.
And perhaps you think you are conscious in a different, dream realm when sleeping. That is just your brain moving into another state of consciousness and making you think that.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?I disagree. Consciousness alows us to experience the concept "self". Experiencing reality does not require consciousness.

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!What makes you think consciousness "moves on" after death at all? What possible reason do you have to think that consciousness, and indeed perception of reality, don't simply end when the body and brain stop functioning. Do you think a computer still processes information after you pull out the plug? Why do you think your brain is any different?

Why would you think you remain conscious after dying when there is no possible reason to believe such an absurd notion?
It's most likely everything just goes dark and that's the end. Brain stops, they dump you in a hole in the ground and you become worm-food. It ain't pretty, but that's the great cycle of life :rolleyes:

Tricky

9th February 2004, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm saying after death we reap the rewards of this life, good or bad. And that my friend is called Karma.
Not according to Pahansiri, who knows a great deal more about it than you or I. (See his earlier post on the subject). According to him, karma affects you in this life as well. Also, others who discuss karma say nothing about "rewards". They merely refer to it as a continuation of your "soul's" learning process.

So you see, even those who believe in karma have no consensus as to what it is. That is because there is no evidence for it existing. But it sounds to me like you are expecting a post-life payoff for being good. Even if this were true, you would be accepting bribes for your good behavior. And that, my friend, is hardly admirable.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and where have I been all my life, if not conscious?
Not in logic class, that's for sure. ;) But as I say, you are using your own definition of consciousness. Suppose that to a plant, consciousness means photosynthisizing. To them, you have been unconscious all your life.

By no, you have not been conscious all your life. Were you conscious when you were a zygote? Has your consciousness increased since you first came to exist? Has that increase in consciousness paralleled the development of your brain? That should give you an idea of where consciousness (by human definition) comes from.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why should I even conjecture about the "fact" -- hmm, or perhaps not? -- that I exist?

I'm not asking you to conjecture on it. I'm asking you to define it. Once you have done that, it will be obvious as to whether or not you meet the criteria. I know you refuse to do this because you don't want to be pinned down and forced to acknowledge your own lack of logic, but we're not going to let you wriggle away so easily.:D

Originally posted by Iacchus
What do you need somebody else to verify it for you?Verify gobbeldygook? How would one do that? With more gobbeldygook?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Please don't refer to an "I" if you can't ascertain what that "I" is.
LOL. This to a person who insists on "souls" when you can't even ascertain what a soul is. But your misdirection is noted.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Realize it or not this is what you're asking me. And like I said, can radio waves exist without a radio?
And like I said, yes radio waves can exist without a radio, and I can prove it. And no, I am not asking you about chicken-and-egg. I am asking you how this consciousness-after-death works. It is your suggestion that it exists, so it is up to you to give evidence. But don't feel bad about your inability to do so. No one ever has. Reasonable people would take this as evidence that it doesn't exist.

And by the way, if you wonder which came first, radio or radio waves, I assure you it was the waves. We have giant radio telescopes picking up waves that were emitted from stars many millions of years before life on earth (and certainly before radios) came to exist.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but "you" are the freakin' radio! ... So why don't "you" learn how to "tune in?"
Yes, this "radio" analagy has been made and demolished many times. Radios and radio waves are physical things. They can be measured, created, analyzed etc. In this, the soul bears absolutely no relationship to radio waves. We can transmit radio waves and every one with a radio will hear the same thing. This is not true of souls. It is a bad analogy. Like mentally unbalanced people, you are hearing voices in your head. So why don't "you" learn how to tune them out before you go crazy?

Originally posted by Iacchus
As I have stated above, and elsewhere, I believe in Karma and, that everybody receives their just reward, including those who feign to do good for the wrong reasons.
And I see you have chosen once again to evade the question. Is this because you know that to answer it would put you in an untenable position? Instead you reply with a restating of your little fantasy.

Let's see if I can make it a yes or no question to help you even more.

Are people who "feign" to do good for the purpose of obtaining karmic rewards less admirable than those who do good only for the joy of doing good?"

A simple yes or no will suffice. Are you capable of that?

Originally posted by Iacchus

I don't know about you, but I do things because I enjoy doing them. ;)

As do I. But I don't expect some undefined reward for my undefined soul in some undefined afterlife. The simple enjoyment is enough for me. Why not for you?

Pahansiri

9th February 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do you people insist on being so dense!

Translation:

" stop asking me to explain what i say, I can't so I will attack you for asking and not just following me as your savior" [Iacchus ]

:p

Pahansiri

9th February 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

Greetings .

Again you manage to say something that has nothing to do with what you said

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

And what I responded

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Not true at all.

Upon your death when Iacchus is dead cause and effect will go on "working" in fact with "your" very body it will go on as the elements of "your" body will again Appear in other forms.

But you do open with Yes, but

So at least you do recognize your statement was wrong and admit it and that is a great step forward.

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go?

What is consciousness? Show it to me when you show me self or soul ( not soul as in being able to sing and dance) which you have yet to attempt.

Here is a good short site about Buddhism view on this topic http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

By the way you still have not Answered ( along with a host of other things) does your God only value free will of people with evil intent/will?

exarch

9th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Well, being the only one who hasn't commented on this yet:Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do you people insist on being so dense!From Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm):2 a : marked by a stupid imperviousness to ideas or impressions : THICKHEADED b : EXTREME [dense ignorance]So who has been displaying dense ignorance here? Who is just swallowing all the gobbledegook about the unfounded assumptions of souls and presumed supernatural states of consciousness? who is ignoring the lack of evidence and insists in believing weird, fantastic claims, trying to make up excuses why they aren't fantastic claims? Who is believing in a supreme being because someone he respected once told him he should?

It's not Tricky, CWL, Pahansiri or me :rolleyes:

Think man, think!!

I guess he isn't thinking with his brain, he's thinking with his consciousness, and that's why it all goes wrong :D

Graham

9th February 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, this "radio" analagy has been made and demolished many times. Radios and radio waves are physical things. They can be measured, created, analyzed etc. In this, the soul bears absolutely no relationship to radio waves. We can transmit radio waves and every one with a radio will hear the same thing. This is not true of souls. It is a bad analogy. Like mentally unbalanced people, you are hearing voices in your head. So why don't "you" learn how to tune them out before you go crazy?

We cannot, however, transmit radio waves without a medium in which to do it - a fact which, I think, offers a much better refutation of a poor banalogy.

Do radio waves exist in a vacuum, Iacchus?

The answer is no.

Now ask yourself why and then apply that thinking to brain patterns / consciousness.

Graham

exarch

9th February 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Graham
We cannot, however, transmit radio waves without a medium in which to do it - a fact which, I think, offers a much better refutation of a poor banalogy.

Do radio waves exist in a vacuum, Iacchus?

The answer is no.

Now ask yourself why and then apply that thinking to brain patterns / consciousness.Check your sig, then check your post, then slap your forehead as you remember stars emitting radio waves, old TV and radio broadcasts from 50 years ago currently moving out into space, ... :nope:

The answer is yes.

It's still a bad analogy though, since radio waves are like light, they don't stick around. One moment you see them, the next second they're 300'000 km away. If souls would do that it would be really bad :D

Tricky

9th February 2004, 07:00 PM

lacchus, I have made the question so simple that even you can answer it. All it takes is a yes or no. Instead, I see you have run away to make other vacuous statements on other threads. After all, I am only asking your opinion, not a statement of fact. Are you fearful of stating your own opinion in a straightforward fashion? If not, then answer the question.

Originally posted by Tricky
Are people who "feign" to do good for the purpose of obtaining karmic rewards less admirable than those who do good only for the joy of doing good?"

Yet, I predict you will not answer it, at least not in a straightforward fashion. If you have the courage to reply at all, I suspect you will waffle and make more vacuous statements. And I think I know why.

It is because you are afraid. You are terrified of death, so much so that you invent the most elaborate fantasies to pretend that you won't "really" die. That somehow, somewhere you will continue to exist. Because you fear the darkness. You fear the loss of your mind. You fear the end.

Come, young one. Be brave. Know that when you die others will follow. Do the best you can to make their way easier, and then let go. Don't cling pitiously to some ever more flimsy thread of hope that somehow that magnificent mind of yours will continue to exist. Quit crying for your God to save you. Save yourself by making the only life you can be sure of count for something important. You still have plenty of time to do so. Stop wasting it.

Graham

10th February 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Check your sig, then check your post, then slap your forehead as you remember stars emitting radio waves, old TV and radio broadcasts from 50 years ago currently moving out into space, ... :nope:

The answer is yes.

It's still a bad analogy though, since radio waves are like light, they don't stick around. One moment you see them, the next second they're 300'000 km away. If souls would do that it would be really bad :D

I knew there was reason I had that in my sig.

:hb:

CWL

11th February 2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Why do you insist on ignoring direct quetions put to you?

The main question of this thread has been brought to your attention many times now (by myself, exarch, Tricky et al.) only to be blatantly ignored by you.

I'll give it one more go:

As described by you, "God" is an evil and indiscriminating tyrant. Why is such a concept, in your reasonable opinion, worthy of worship?

Please make a serious attempt at replying.

Brave Sir Iacchus ran away...

I'll try Tricky's method (although it hasn't produced any results either) with simple yes or no answers.

Let's start real simple.

Iacchus, is in your opinion the "God" you talk about responsible for HIV and earthquakes? "Yes" or "No"?

El Greco

11th February 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by CWL
I'll try Tricky's method

The only method that would get you some results with Iacchus is lobotomy.

Iacchus

11th February 2004, 05:14 AM

Okay guys listen up. If by chance they were able to write the Bible, so that it was completely literal and hence verifiable -- which isn't to say it isn't already, i.e., in the spiriual sense -- is this the only way you would accept it? Because if it is, I'm afraid you would have accepted nothing, except that which is obvious. In which case I would suggest there's not much point in reading it, except perhaps like a dictionary, and I honestly don't think it was intended that way. Indeed, the last thing you will have learned is anything spiritual ... and talk about destroying something in the process!

So really all you've accomplished is to confirm yourselves in your lack of faith. Big deal. :p

At least the Bible thumpers, as guillable as they are who, insist on a literal translation themselves -- how strange? -- have a sense of faith about it which, is more than I can say for you people here -- "trolls."

In case anyone's interested I've reposted this as a new thread, A Literal Bible? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35315) But please, don't expect me to reply to your insisting that there's something to be discussed, when in fact there isn't, Okay?

P.S. If you would like to understand what the Bible says, I recommend that you start reading it, not so much with the intent of proving it, but rather the spirit inquiry. And hey, if you don't understand something, leave it at that. Either put it down or find some other part to read. It doesn't have to be answered at that moment -- if at all. The main thing being that you don't be too hasty in drawing conclusions about it. In which case you might actually learn something. ;)

CWL

12th February 2004, 08:01 AM

Iacchus, is in your opinion the "God" you talk about responsible for HIV and earthquakes? "Yes" or "No"?

Iacchus

12th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Iacchus, is in your opinion the "God" you talk about responsible for HIV and earthquakes? "Yes" or "No"? As a God of consequences (cause and effetct) yes. Of course if man is endowed with free will, then it's just as much our responsibility (HIV) as it is God's or, at least it's tantamount that we feel that way.

El Greco

12th February 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by CWL
"Yes" or "No"?

You're making it far too complicated.

CWL

12th February 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
As a God of consequences (cause and effetct) yes. Of course if man is endowed with free will, then it's just as much our responsibility (HIV) as it is God's or, at least it's tantamount that we feel that way.

When you say "responsibility" do you mean "cause"? "Yes" or "no"?

CWL

13th February 2004, 03:26 AM

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002KE4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

CWL

13th February 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by CWL

When you say "responsibility" do you mean "cause"? "Yes" or "no"?

Is the above question really so difficult to answer?

Marquis de Carabas

13th February 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Is the above question really so difficult to answer?
I see you can't get away from asking these complex yes-or-no questions. :D

CWL

13th February 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

I see you can't get away from asking these complex yes-or-no questions. :D

Well, I had better stop. It appears El Greco is right. Far too complicated for the poor guy.

Iacchus

13th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Well, I had better stop. It appears El Greco is right. Far too complicated for the poor guy. Does anyone know what the word "entrapment" means? :D

exarch

14th February 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does anyone know what the word "entrapment" means? :DYes, but it doesn't apply in this case.

The more approriate term in this instance would be overextending yourself. Or digging your own grave.

And if you don't understand what I mean: You're making wild claims and telling us we're wrong without providing even a shred of evidence to support your case, and by extension, your credibility.

Tricky

14th February 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does anyone know what the word "entrapment" means? :D
Yes.

(see how easy that was?)

CWL

17th February 2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes.

(see how easy that was?)

Ha! Trapped!

You've been caught providing an honest and explicit answer.

(I can't believe you fell for that one Tricky.)

Tricky

18th February 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Ha! Trapped!

You've been caught providing an honest and explicit answer.

(I can't believe you fell for that one Tricky.)
Dang! I knew I should have studied law instead of all that science BS.

CWL

19th February 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Dang! I knew I should have studied law instead of all that science BS.

True, true. After all, didn't you know, science is after all "just another alternative viewpoint".*

Now with the Law there is only one firm viewpoint - that someone may owe you money! Given your obvious inaptitude in all matters legal, I suggest you seek the advice of competent counsel right away.

(I shall PM you a formal retainer letter with my hourly rates and a full disclaimer for any advice that I may give, legally binding in any and all jurisdictions.)

_______________
*NB: Sarcasm.