As far as evolution without God, well lets start a thread on irreducibly(sp?) complex systems.
On the topic of who created God... well most inteligent design people will argue the idea that if something has a begining, then it was created, therefore if the universe as we know it had a begining (the big bang), then something created it.
However since time is a function of the universe, anything before the creation of the universe is outside of time, which puts it into an infinite state. Therefore the cause of the big bang has to be timeless (without a begining, and therefore no creator), and capable of abstract causality. Because if you have a timeless infinite environment all states are equal, so if you have the conditions to start the big bang, then those conditions always existed in that state and the universe is actually infinite in existance and thus ruling out the big bang. The only way the big bang works is if the thing that created it was timeles, and capable of creating a universe without any causality....
So something that has always existed and can just make things go POOF! and its there without any real cause.
Does your head hurt yet?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chaz_King: Karl.. the answer is that the catepillar had actually been torturing flowers and other plants by slowly eating them and killing millions of bacteria and other cells slowly through a proccess called "Digestion".
The ants were actually the liberators of a place called "The Lawn", and seeing as the rebelion took place with mob justice, the only thing left to do was to loot the riches that were left behind so they could take some extra food home to their controling wife that they all answer to.
It was a fleeting moment in ant history that will probably be forgotten in the history books behind such things like the great burning of "yesterday" when a giant being managed to focus a sun ray in order to kill off half of the population of one colony, not to mention when the giants decided to use chemical weapons on unsuspecting civilian ants on an nice summer day.
It completely ruined the picnic.
This is, put jokingly, exactly what I believe. Not that the caterpillar was necesserily bad, but truly, to an advanced superior being like our Heavanly Father, our human sized dramas and sufferings, our wars and pestilences, hopes and dreams must be something like the saga of the caterpillar and the ants, and the interesting and amazing thing is that He cares deeply about our choices and the outcome. So, in emulation of Him, I believe that we should care about the caterpillars, (and about the Sphex Wasp, who lays eggs in her prey who hatch and eat it alive from the inside out -- this is the prototype for the horror-of-nature story).
Even in evolution, the world changes by personal choice. Evolution proceeds by choices of individuals. A creature has to adopt a lifestyle before it can evolve to become adapted to it. This is the metaphor of the fall. Some time millions of years ago, our first ancestor decided to eat meat, to pick one example. Because of that choice, and the choices of those who came afterward, we are now adapted to eat meat (there are essential amino acids which we have to get from eating protein) and thus are the sins of the fathers visited upon the sons for umpteen generations.
Human technology has advanced now to the point where we don't have to eat meat anymore. We have a choice again. (I'm sure that it's not true in many times and cultures. I'm sure that it's very hard to get enough protein under the circumstances in which most humans have lived (for instance, during the ice ages) for most of our history.)
At one point in history, taking slaves was a mercy. It was a way to make the slaughter of vanquished enemies unnecessary. At any stage, we have the morals we can afford. The point of our development is for us to advance, and accept higher and higher morals at each level, and strive always for more.
Eventually the lion will lie down with the lamb. We will be advanced to the point that we can make most of the brutality and suffering of nature unnecessary. This is our job, here in Middle Earth. We have to do it ourselves, it is our appointed task, and the way that we shall learn and grow. But of course, we will have help when we least expect it from the Valar, and from Eru, the One.
Don't you see? It's all metaphors, but it describes the literal truth which we are not yet capable of grasping fully. The fall is an exact description, in parable form, of what happened.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: to beverly (boy, does this thread move fast or what!?)
quote:But that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
Ok, I got that. But now I have another question: why would God give some people reasons to have faith (ok, maybe "reasons" isn't the best word, but I can't find another one right now), and doesn't give them to others? Why do you have that faith and that hope that gets you through troubled times, and I don't have any of it, and when I suffer there's nothing to tell me: it will get better? As mothertree said in another thread:
quote:It's not no God that's the problem. It's a God that other people say has helped them but who apparently didn't help you.
quote:You can have light without darkness. You can have joy without sorrow. You can have wisdom without stupidity. That we have come to define these things largely by the absence of negative emotion does not in fact mean that they are dependent upon negative emotion to exist.
What makes you so sure of this?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
None of those arguments are new, none of them are in any way convincing, and no, my head does not hurt. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin, there's no doubt that our existance is rife with inequalities. Some people having faith and others not is miniscule compared to other major ones like great wealth to some and abject poverty to many.
This all points back to my personal faith about it all being balanced in the end. I believe that my having faith and your not having faith will be balanced in the end. But that is not something that you believe. Deliciously ironic, eh?
But, you know, assuming that I am right, all atheists and agnostics will have something to consider upon finding that they continue to exist after death. And since I believe that death is not the end of our chances to accept God, for those who just *can't* have faith because of what they see around them, there are still opportunities.
But I imagine the added evidence of God's existance will not automatically clear up all the issues people have with believing in God. There will still be a great many who have come to the conclusion, based on what they've seen and how they perceive it, that if God exists, He is not worth worshiping.
I imagine these reconcilliations will take a lot of time and effort. This coming from a perspective that God *is* both Good and Wise. Even, as Scott R so wonderfully puts it, He isn't always "Nice".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, my definition of "worship" is overwhelming respect, admiration, and trust in a being who is completely worthy of all those things, because He does balance things out so that they make sense, have purpose, and beauty in the end. A being that protects the integrity of the natural laws of the universe while also doing everything in His power for our benefit.
This is who I believe that I worship.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe in God with a capital G and, despite their obvious solidity, I don't believe in the gods with their small g's. Not as real forces in the universe. But I believe in the *****-goddess Irony. She crosses all the time. She rules men and gods and God alike. And She has a wicked sense of humor.
- Dan Simmons, Ilium
Kind of works for me.
quote:But I imagine the added evidence of God's existence will not automatically clear up all the issues people have with believing in God.
Neither do I, for that matter.
Anyway, this is where this discussion ends for me. I'd really like to thank you all, it's probably the first time I have a view this clear of what I believe and why and you have helped me reach this conclusion. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is, if I'm wrong and I just cease to exist at death, I will never *know* that I was wrong.
Am I worse off or better off for having had that faith, even if it is wrong? I will never *know* for a fact that it was wrong.
I guess I am agnostic in the sense that there is no possible way to prove to me that my faith in an afterlife of some sort is misplaced. But it is possible to prove (eventually, and to myself) that there is an afterlife.
So it is a "wait and see" sort of agnosticism.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't exactly form my thoughts over any of this. One thing is that for some reason throughout my life, I've never doubted there WAS a god.
What form, what shape, what his personality would be...all that stays nebulous. Sometimes I think I might snatch a meaning here or there, or perhaps some sort of truth. I've been angry with god, happy with god, ignored god. Watching that caterpillar scene would've killed me too, Karl. If anyone else watched that bee film that was linked on sakeriver--that also got to me. Both basically the same as when some sort of human atrocity happens--like what happened in london. Just total disbelief at the stuff human beings will do to one another, all in the name of whatever, whether named or not.
Sometimes I wonder if we're like ants. God created our ant farm and set us loose on it, and then watched what we did with it. No controls on what we do exactly, except for what he included in the human design. Or whatever designs he started with. I don't know.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I'll deal with that hurtle if it comes. Frankly I'm quite happy with my view that after death comes nada, zip, zilch. It makes the most sense based on the facts and I think after having lived 70 to 80 years of life I will be quite ready for a nice, long, nap thank you very much.
But if I do find myself living after dieing, well like I said, I'll have new information then and I'll deal with if it happens.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's my version of God judging you, I assure you, He will be both fair and merciful. In fact, the scripture I put my trust in says that even those who are condemned will completely agree with God's judgement of them.
In other words, no one will be crying, "No fair!" in the end.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky: Maybe not new, but convincing depends on the person... I general won't argue about if there is a God because it is really all just philosphical posturing, and probabilities in the end. And whether or not someone really believs in God always tends to be a personal mindset rather than a rational one.
Tom: When I was an Agnostic I always wondered why God couldn't just let me meet him when I died if he existed, and then if I thought he was cool I would hang out with him. If not he could just smite me =P. I just thought it was odd that I couldn't make a decision about God when I actually met him but aparently I have to make all of those choices based on what I see in my life.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Funny the more and more God gets explained the more and more human he gets... wonder why that is?
Because we have the limits of human intelligence and experience to force God into, which is the problem with this whole line of argument. The real answer is beyond us. Suffering exists. It may have a purpose beyond our understanding. It may not have a purpose beyond evolutionary forces.
We can pick one or the other... it seems everyone is picking the one they perceive to be the most humane, which is good.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I guess I am agnostic in the sense that there is no possible way to prove to me that my faith in an afterlife of some sort is misplaced. But it is possible to prove (eventually, and to myself) that there is an afterlife.
So it is a "wait and see" sort of agnosticism.
From that point of view, I'm agnostic too.
Oh, and relief would come when God would tell me what I did wrong in my life, make me understand why those things were wrong, would explain why me doing bad things toward others was even allowed or necessary, why "accidents" are allowed/necessary, etc. and then I'd go to Heaven. And He'd tell me there's no Hell, and that no one is living an eternity of pain or suffering, whatever they committed in this life. Until then I'll keep my angst, thankyouverymuch! Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARNING: This is very long, because I included scripture. And it probably won't make me very popular nor will it answer very many questions, but hey, when have those facts stopped me from posting before?
The "Problem of Evil" is not new to Christian apologists and theologians. It's been around a long time. And it's been answered, in many different ways, for centuries. In fact, it even has a name, "theodicy."
Here is one thing to consider, which goes back to something that was already posted here, and then dismissed but I truly think it's worth another look.
I'm going to quote C.S. Lewis here for a moment.
quote:My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust?…Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—that the whole of reality was senseless [given evil]—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple…If there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
There is an argument that evil exists so that we can know what good is. That without evil, there is a perfect creation, with no sin, no death, no suffering, and therefore no need for salvation. That is a creation that doesn't need redemption, that doesn't, in a sense, need God. That creation brings therefore, no real glory to God.
I believe God allows evil and sin because it glorifies Him.
That is not a comfortable belief to wrap oneself up in. It is also not the view of all Protestants, perhaps not even most Protestants. Now you know why my traditional southern Baptist family is horrified by me at times. I happen to think it's a view that fits scripture, however.
We like to think of God as nothing but all-loving and all-caring, and in fact my husband has a phrase for this belief - he calls it the "Jesus is a giant teddy-bear" syndrome. It's tempting to say "oh God would never allow anything so evil as a baby dying of cancer, so obviously God can't be in control of that type of evil." But that flies in the face of God's sovereignty. If God doesn't control cancer, then God is not sovereign.
Scripture does not bear that out, though. Not to me it doesn't. There's plenty of scriptural evidence that God does in fact control all things, even things we would consider bad or evil.
quote:Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:37-38)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6)
So God does control both Good and Evil things that happen. Why? To our sense of justice it doesn't seem fair. Because if we believe that he allows death and sin and evil for His own glory, then we must wrap our minds around the belief that he creates people for the express purpose of damning them and allowing them to suffer so He can be glorified. That is NOT a pleasant thought and one I struggled with for a long time.
However, I think it's a scripturally sound thought.
quote:I will say to the north, "Give them up!" and to the south, "Do not hold them back." Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth – everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. (Isaiah 43:6-7)
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD… (Exodus 14:4)
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory… (Romans 9:17, 22-23)
But is there not some higher standard, that even God should be held to? Don't we have the ability to question God's actions, to say to Him, that what he's doing is wrong? To say that it was wrong for him to purposefully harden Pharoah's heart so that He could manifest His glory in the suffering that caused?
No. We don't have that right. It is not for the creation to question the Creator.
quote:One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:19-21)
Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him. If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, "What are you doing?" (Job 9:3-12)
"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" Then Job answered the LORD: "I am unworthy – how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer – twice, but I will say no more." Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" (Job 40:2-8)
Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "He has no hands?" Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?" This is what the LORD says – the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? (Isaiah 45:9-11)
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
So is there an answer to the problem of evil? I think so. It may not be one that everyone likes, or everyone is comfortable with, but I think there is definitely an answer. Evil exists to glorify God. Therefore the evidence of evil is not evidence against the existence of God. But I think it's worth noting that evil is a temporary condition, that God, in His infinite mercy, will destroy evil, just as in His infinite mercy, he has redeemed the elect.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: All the crap you go through in life is crap you go through. If you have greater joy, great. And perhaps you were able to achieve that greater joy by applying some of the crap you went through -- and perhaps you achieved that greater joy for some other reason. But your greater joy is in no way dependent upon the crap, unless the joy is in fact so inadequate that it only resembles joy in comparison to crap. [/QB]
You're right; it's not dependent upon the crap. I think the point is to have joy in spite of the crap. Anyone can be happy when everything's going right. Can you still be happy when nothing's going right? Can you learn to let go of the things that don't matter and only hold on to the things that do? That's what all the crap is for: not to serve as a simple contrast, but to teach us how to have joy in the things that really matter.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is an argument that evil exists so that we can know what good is. That without evil, there is a perfect creation, with no sin, no death, no suffering, and therefore no need for salvation. That is a creation that doesn't need redemption, that doesn't, in a sense, need God. That creation brings therefore, no real glory to God.
Interesting. There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that you have nearly paraphrased here. It is found in 2nd Nephi chapter 2:
quote:ll For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
Of course, this last part doesn't make any sense for those who believe that the universe goes on just fine without a creator.
Either it's true or it ain't.
quote:Because if we believe that he allows death and sin and evil for His own glory, then we must wrap our minds around the belief that he creates people for the express purpose of damning them and allowing them to suffer so He can be glorified.
That is an unpleasant thought. In the same chapter I quoted from above is the scripture, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy."
The idea here is that for reasons we don't fully understand, passing through this mortal existance with it's pleasures and pains, all its oppositions, is the only way we can have greater joy than what we could've had otherwise. And this possibility for greater joy is worth the suffering.
Of course, we Mormons believe that we, each and every one of us, are here by choice. That we understood what awaited us in mortality and chose it anyway. That idea resounds powerfully with me.
Kinda like a woman choosing to go through pregnancy, childbirth, and the difficulties of raising a child, because she believes having that child is worth it.
I am certainly not satisfied with the answer that evil exists solely to glorify God, or even that we exist solely to glorify God. It makes me *not* want to worship Him. I guess that is why I reject most flavors of Christianity.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm currently working on a theory where the result of going through the crap is to produce Fear of the Crap, which makes us more grateful for the joy.
I've never had any particular fear of God, but I do fear the...natural consequences of doing the things that the Lord lovingly warns us away from. For some things, it remains abstract, and for others, I know exactly what I am staying away from and am afraid of.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting point, Jon Boy. It introduces the idea of us stretching our ability to be joyful by learning to be joyful in spite of things that suck. I'm not entirely sure what I think of that.
Tom says that going through crap doesn't increase our enjoyment. But I don't know if I agree with that.
When I go camping, I love being outdoors. But camping isn't the most comfortable of things. I have decided that one of the reasons I go camping is to increase my gratitude for all the wonderful comforts of home. My soft, warm bed, my shower, running water, toilets, fast food....
It's kind of a silly analogy, but it works for me.
As well, living in a third world country for 18 months increased my appreciation for all the blessings of a first world country. It gave me PERSPECTIVE.
What if that is part of what mortality is about? Perspective?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, that one doesn't ring a bell. I'm so behind on reading right now I don't know if I'll ever catch up, but I'll file it away as something to check out.
Beverly, I know the Mormon view is vastly different on this point. And yes "Calvin's" God can seem very harsh at times. It took three years of really studying the issue and immersing myself in scripture before I came to believe in the Reformed view. However, I am not of the flavor that only the Calvinist view is definitely the correct one. I'll paraphrase Charles Spurgeon: "If you ask me if I'm a Calvinist, I will tell you that I prefer to be called a Christian, because I follow Christ, not John Calvin. But if what you mean is do I believe in the doctrine of Grace that is sometimes referred to as Calvinism, then the answer is yes, I do. However, I do not believe that only Calvinists will be present in heaven. God forbid!"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly: Yes, I think so. Think about the story of Job. He lost all his earthly possessions, his family, and his friends, and he endured a great deal of physical suffering. Yet he still had faith in God. He knew that he was still saved and that he would meet God one day.
And for all those Mormons who like to talk about Star Wars in church, I'll mention something Yoda said in Episode III: you have to be willing to let go of the things you're afraid to lose. If you're only happy because of the things you have, then you're not truly happy.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Jim-Me, that one doesn't ring a bell. I'm so behind on reading right now I don't know if I'll ever catch up, but I'll file it away as something to check out.
No biggie... it's really popular with PCA and other conservative Presbyterians.
He's my Great Uncle. I'm a minor character in his follow up book Revelation Unfolded. </proud relative>
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe God allows evil and sin because it glorifies Him.
Wow. Belle, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think if your God exists, I'm proud to be an active enemy of His.
---
quote: Tom says that going through crap doesn't increase our enjoyment. But I don't know if I agree with that.
It doesn't. At most, it increases your appreciation of your enjoyment.
If you torture someone, they are happier when you stop. Should they be grateful?
------
quote: I'll mention something Yoda said in Episode III: you have to be willing to let go of the things you're afraid to lose. If you're only happy because of the things you have, then you're not truly happy.
Remember the context. Yoda said this to someone who was afraid of losing his wife. Are you quite ready to let your wife die, Jon Boy, because you'd be more truly happy without her? Does the joy she brings you really make all your other joys seem less significant than would the sorrow you'd feel upon her passing?
Yoda was never at his more ignorant.
There's something to be said for Buddhist detachment, but this isn't it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if pain, suffering, and injustice are a natural part of any physical world? What if God simply found reality this way, and His purpose here is to create a group of people that can overcome evil and pain and create self-sustaining joy?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What if God simply found reality this way, and His purpose here is to create a group of people that can overcome evil and pain and create self-sustaining joy?
Then that's great. I'm not sure that's really most people's definition of God, but I've said before that the Problem of Evil doesn't exist if your God is not omnipotent and/or didn't create the universe.
Making God considerably less powerful resolves a lot of theological paradoxes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Remember the context. Yoda said this to someone who was afraid of losing his wife. Are you quite ready to let your wife die, Jon Boy, because you'd be more truly happy without her? Does the joy she brings you really make all your other joys seem less significant than would the sorrow you'd feel upon her passing?
Yoda was never at his more ignorant.
There's something to be said for Buddhist detachment, but this isn't it.
I should have clarified that I believe there are certain things this statement does not apply to; family is one of them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, if we're talking benevolent, all powerful creator who cares about his subjects, then screw him. If that's the best he could come up with clearly he's not all he claims to be.
That is not clear at all. Just because you happen not to like how the system works doesn't mean that the system is faulty.
quote: Precicely becuase it causes pain and suffering. If he's truely omnipotent and all powerful then he could most certainly come up with a better mechanism for the same job. That is if he's truely that benevolent and loving of his subjects.
You dislike pain because it is uncomfortable. In order to properly function it needs to be uncomfortable.
What you are suggesting would involve, for example, making humans indestructible. It is a great idea in theory, but it speaks once again to the purpose of life. For example, indestructible people can't die.
quote: Jacare - I picked a baby so he would have "no sins" attached to him. Nothing to be punished for with that pain. If he does whatever he can to stop it, and people try to help him but can't, why does God still allow the pain to go on? I keep asking why is that pain necessary and you keep telling me that we try to avoid it. Somehow we're not talking about the same thing here.
I have told you why pain is necessary. Where is the disconnect? DO you prefer a metaphysical explanation to a simple practical one?
I don't think that pain is directly tied to sin at all- it is simply the logical byproduct of the specific type of bodies that we have.
quote: If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why do we need God at all to explain it?
We don't, but then, it doesn't make much sense to debate why God would allow pain and suffering if we don't allow for the existence of God.
Tom said:
quote: You can have light without darkness. You can have joy without sorrow. You can have wisdom without stupidity. That we have come to define these things largely by the absence of negative emotion does not in fact mean that they are dependent upon negative emotion to exist
You are wrong. If all that exists is a single side of a thing then it is not a valid attribute at all. For example, if all things are equally wise, then wisdom is not even an attribute- it is simply what all things are. If all humans were equally wise then wisdom is a meaningless term. If light permeates all space equally then darkness cannot possibly exist and light is a meaningless term. Therefore anything which has a given attribute has that attribute precisely because something else lacks that attribute.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't. At most, it increases your appreciation of your enjoyment.
And maybe that is worth a great deal.
quote: If you torture someone, they are happier when you stop. Should they be grateful?
See my analogy of the mother chosing all that she does in order to have a child. The difference is going through it willingly. In your torture example, the one suffering does so unwillingly.
And here is where perspective comes in. From our current perspective, we *are* unwilling. But what if we did willingly chose this mortal life with all it's suffering? We don't remember chosing it, so we don't feel it's effects now. But it comes with the concept of receiving True Perspective (at some point, perhaps not right away) after this life is over.
Since I believe that each and every one of us willingly chose this life, it greatly changes my perspective on suffering to be more like the mother chosing to have a child rather than the unwilling torturee.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, if all things are equally wise, then wisdom is not even an attribute- it is simply what all things are.
I find this baffling. Of course it's an attribute; it's just a univerally-applicable attribute.
There might be no word for wisdom, but that wouldn't mean that wisdom didn't exist, or that people were any less wise.
The universality of joy would not preclude the existence of joy. It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
-----
quote: Since I believe that each and every one of us willingly chose this life...
Including the snails, carrots, and puppies? Or are they ultimately just props for the enormous moralistic play that we're putting on for ourselves?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
Again, maybe this is a big deal. Maybe the contrast, the context, is what gives meaning to existance.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to think that my life has meaning no matter how successful I am at removing sorrow from it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you had never known sorrow at all, would it still have meaning? Maybe your life would have meaning because of your success at removing that sorrow. You can't know. You've never (that you remember) not known sorrow. Though maybe there was a time where you didn't--before this mortal life.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Experience is painful. Growth and change is inredibly difficult. Goodness can't result from stasis.
And I don't think that anyone really knows why this is so. In fact, it's not clear to me that God knows the why -- only that he knows (perfectly) that it is (and how it is) so. I'd also add that it seems to me that God knows the best way to maximize growth and experience with the least pain and that if people paid more attention to his ideas on that, there'd be less pain in the world.
--------------
Of course, the caveat here is that this is from the perspective of LDS theology.
EDIT: I see that predictably the conversation has already turned in this direction. Shame on me for not reading the entire thread before posting. Let me only add that it would seem that experience (and the pain and joy that comes with it) is a necessary part of relationship forming, and I think that relationship forming is the key to this whole existence thing.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
- I say: a rock hit me in the head. I ask why did it have to hit me? - You say: Pain is there so I can learn to duck rocks next time.
But that is not what I'm asking, is it? I'm asking why did it have to hit me in the first place?! Why that part was necessary, not why the effect of that - me feeling pain - is necessary. I don't see any answer for that in your posts. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to make it clearer. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I find this baffling. Of course it's an attribute; it's just a univerally-applicable attribute.
There might be no word for wisdom, but that wouldn't mean that wisdom didn't exist, or that people were any less wise.
The universality of joy would not preclude the existence of joy. It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
Let me rephrase- something cannot be recognized as an attribute unless there is something with which to compare it. No one could possibly realize that things could be any other way. Wisdom would be completely outside of everyone's experience and wisdom itself- the term, what it means, its very existence would never have been.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
