Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Once you remove Magic from the equation the Problem of Evil becomes a non-factor.
Yeah, no magic, no omnipotence. That's why the 3 omni-s are necessary for the problem of evil to be relevant.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 11:25 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you claiming non-human animals do not suffer?

Nope.

Phil

Personally, I cannot stand one word answers when the purpose is allegedly to exchange ideas.

But that's just me.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-08-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
10 pages of silly shit from this guy and Epicurus remains unscathed.

[Image: epicurus-on-god.jpg]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Minimalist's post
19-08-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 03:53 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:43 AM)Baruch Wrote:  The short answer is I had convictions that 'spiritual experiences' were from God during my orthodox religious and comparative religious days.
Awareness of cognitive illusions, fallacies, neurology, neuro-psychiatry, philosophy etc deconstructed these experiences giving a different outlook regarding the God concept (both phenomenological/experiential and analytical/theoretical)

Consider it as a De-conversion both theoretical & experiential.

OK cool! And what sort of beliefs did you have around the "god" concept in your religious days, e.g. are we talking about a bearded man in the clouds here or something a bit more abstract?

Phil
Quote:What sort of beliefs did you have around the "god" concept
Phil - Everything from God concepts such as the bearded man in the clouds to neo-platonistic apophatic theologia negativa, to Kabbalistic Ayn Sof's & non-dualities, to transcendental Platonistic universals. (Well technically it cannot be "everything" because we are always making up or discovering something possibly new and it is not possible to translate and understand everything)

Granted some of these concepts would by definition be agnostic and not atheistic then I would be identifying through a range of completely atheistic to agnostic positions.
However I have found naturalism to be sufficient with something along the lines of monistic/ontic structural realism, various forms of nominalism & pragmatism with combination of ideas from the rationalist and empiricist philosophies [in a nut shell].

I cannot disprove a "neoplatonistic eminationist panentheism" [in great technical jargon] so I would by definition have to be agnostic to any form of eminationism involving a negatively defined God such as the apophatic/via negativa traditions (in Kabbalah the Ayn Sof, Bhuddism Vipassana non-duality or neti-neti in Hinduist adveita brahamin traditions).
HOWEVER -in all the above traditions, once the God is stripped of ALL attributes including omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence & omnibenevolence you are basically left with NOTHING.
So God is basically nothing. Kind of like a well polished atheism for the sophisticated Smartass.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 04:50 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:Phil "God" is absolute, to negate "god" you'll need to pull an absolute quality out of the hat and you haven't yet done that.

What ? This is just an arbitrary assertion.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
19-08-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 03:49 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:36 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Yes and no. The world looked like the sound of one hand clapping. Angel

I'm hearing a "no".

Well if it ever happens, I'd be very interested to hear about the facts of the experience!

Phil

I didn't say no. I said Yes & No.
In non duality consciousness immersed in total subjectivity the answer could not be given due to the inherent limitations & duality of language.
Satori is defined differently according to different people, cannot be replicated in a way everyone can agree on - so how could one answer such a question ? Certainly by not reading some text which has many interpretations.
Is it Satori according to 無門慧開 or 月林師觀 or 大慧宗杲

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 03:58 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 01:52 AM)Baruch Wrote:  A simple example which is easy to comprehend might be ecstatically experiencing the world as a wonderful design of God fulfilling the verses "O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens." (8:1)

Interesting!

So going into the facts of the experience, you felt "ecstatic". Can you tell me a bit more about the facts of "experiencing the world as a wonderful design of God"? That sounds like an interpretation of (or story about) experience, what was the underlying experience?

Phil

Any experience attributed to God is a story. ....and your right IT IS A STORY. Thats precisely the point and why it is deconstructed once it becomes a story.
The experience in phenomenological terms may be described as awe, ecstatic, bliss, joy or wonder - there can be many adjectives.
However I have no problem attributing these experiences as phenomena which are brain dependent & understood via naturalistic methodology. We many not fully understand the underlying mechanism's for all these experiences - but that is no excuse to making stuff up about magical realities, higher transcendental planes & anything supernatural.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
19-08-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:52 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 10:50 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil

An Omnipotent Benevolent god would not be constrained in that way. You are saying that said person is more powerful than your god.

Or Phil:
In your God story God is not Omnipresent but absent in some places (creating 'lack' and perception of evil).
Atheism just takes it a step further and believes in an omniabsent God. Of course God is powerless where He is absent so God becomes omnipowerless. God is cruel, barbaric & malevolent were He is powerless & absent so He becomes omnimalevolent. Of course God knows nothing of where He is absent so omnignorant too.

So here we have the glory of the ominabsent, omnipowerless, omnimalevolent & omignorant God.

...of course you will claim these are human perceptions of Gods absence which creates evil.
...The whole lot of positive & negative omni's are human perceptions because humans made up God in the first place.

HOWEVER the negative omni's have no contradictions involved.
The positive Omni's are often incompatible with each other and contradictory.

...so better trust the perception of the negative Omni's !!! They are all consistent and trustworthy !!!

...I now experience the ominabsent, omnipowerless, omnimalevolent & omignorant God AKA I experience atheism.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Baruch's post
19-08-2014, 07:35 PM
Re: RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:50 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 09:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your point still remains absent. If an absolute God set this all in order. It created the mass delusion of evil that nearly everyone confirms through other means of expression to eachother.

If still a physiological perception, it's one the gods set within or allow within human minds, that many human minds using the other qualities given by the God to determine it unjust.

I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil

Yeah... But you're not omnipresent in your example. So that's the distinction. And if you aren't able to be everywhere, clearly your power is limited, and you're not omnipotent.

If evil is the absence of the God, then the God is weak and back to the problem, undeserving of worship.

You can't ignore the important aspects of the question and say you solved it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:41 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 06:18 AM)phil.a Wrote:  OK well I have thought about this, on reflection I am not sure I can offer a meaningful post on the subject of "pain" if you don't differentiate "pain" from "suffering", simply because it's likely that both separate phenomena will be conflated in your interpretation of my argument. E.g. if I am to talk about pain, I need to know you are hearing about "pain" as a phenomena distinct from "suffering".

So given that these are two separate words and therefore two slightly separate concepts, can I suggest we perhaps discuss their differentiation? In fact, I think my argument hinges around their clear differentiation.

In my opinion, it's meaningful that you chose to use the term "suffering" rather than "pain" in your original post, even if you are perhaps not fully cognisant over why you chose that word rather than "pain". I think you used the correct word insofar as suffering rather than pain is an issue that's relevant to this discussion.

Phil
I'm afraid to say that I'm not particularly interested in getting into a lengthy discussion about whether this distinction is warranted in so far that one can exist without the other (i.e. whether suffering can exist without pain and vice versa). You can rest assured that if you use the word "pain" in your response, I will be thinking of the objective phenomenon of pain that even other animals experience, not the subjective (negative) feelings associated with it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: