Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Defining "god" as "existence" is no more meaningful than saying "existence exists".

Superficially and tautologically true, so far as it goes... but it seems rather pointless, to me.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 10:25 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 08:17 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 06:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  I also conclude that your reading comprehension is not so hot.

The phrase "I conclude from ..." introduces a statement about my beliefs based on the evidence available. It is not a truth claim about you.

You haven't presented evidence for the existence of a pantheistic god thingy.

I spot one straw man argument, and one red herring argument in there.

Let's leave it at that though. I can at least see that you have modified your position into something reasonable.

Thanks,

Phil

My position was and is unchanged. I suppose I explained more clearly.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 11:36 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 09:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Defining "god" as "existence" is no more meaningful than saying "existence exists".

Superficially and tautologically true, so far as it goes... but it seems rather pointless, to me.

Perhaps, although the definition goes further than that.

It's not just saying that existence exists, it's saying that reality exists as a single, indivisible coherent system.

I have found that it's quite easy as a human to perceive myself as a fundamentally separate entity existing within but somehow separate from the rest of reality. This is an illusion, it has a certain relative truth but lacks absolute truth. If I operate from the premise that it's completely true, I'm operating from a delusion. In fact, I might get away with my delusion, but then again I might not, it may be that cause and effect catches up with me and bites conclusively.

Examples of ways that might happen: Peak oil, peak copper, peak phosphorous, climate change

Then there's our failing modernist panaceas: antibiotics, glyphosate, pesticides

Planet earth is something of a closed system and we are part of that system. The "benefits" of our modernist "solutions" (e.g. antibiotics) are translated by the closed system and re-appear as counterbalancing unwelcome consequences elsewhere in the space and time of the system. I think that the idea that we can "science" our way out of every single possible problem may yet prove to be a false rational worldview given, at the moment I don't think the human race is successfully out-running the cause and effect consequences of our lack of large scale systemic thinking.

It's too later now but perhaps in an ideal reality it would have been better if we'd never imagined that we were separate from the system to begin with?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
At work.

Sorry for sticking my oar in so late, but the above post simply strkes me as a load of New-age Wiccan Woo.

Of course every body is separate and unique (Not to mean that beyond every one being Homo-sapiens-sapiens).

As for the other stuff...I just don't have time to go though with just how mixed up it all is.

For all intents and purposes the Earth IS a closed system. We want more fundamental resourses? We do one of two things. Get off this rock and extract them from the rest of the Solar system...... Or wait the few billion years for crust/mantle dynamics to recycle everything. Tongue

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 09:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Defining "god" as "existence" is no more meaningful than saying "existence exists".

Superficially and tautologically true, so far as it goes... but it seems rather pointless, to me.

Perhaps, although the definition goes further than that.

It's not just saying that existence exists, it's saying that reality exists as a single, indivisible coherent system.

Okay; "that which exists, interacts". I'm still not seeing how that's not uselessly simplistic.

Any meaning you ascribe beyond the trivial would need to be justified, and your personal feels are not particularly compelling.

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I have found that it's quite easy as a human to perceive myself as a fundamentally separate entity existing within but somehow separate from the rest of reality.

Looks like equivocation on the use of "separate", to me...

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  This is an illusion, it has a certain relative truth but lacks absolute truth. If I operate from the premise that it's completely true, I'm operating from a delusion. In fact, I might get away with my delusion, but then again I might not, it may be that cause and effect catches up with me and bites conclusively.

You're certainly free to assert as much. Do you have any particular reason to think so?

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Examples of ways that might happen: Peak oil, peak copper, peak phosphorous, climate change

Then there's our failing modernist panaceas: antibiotics, glyphosate, pesticides

That appears to be a grab-bag list of non sequiturs. Thanks for sharing?

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Planet earth is something of a closed system and we are part of that system. The "benefits" of our modernist "solutions" (e.g. antibiotics) are translated by the closed system and re-appear as counterbalancing unwelcome consequences elsewhere in the space and time of the system. I think that the idea that we can "science" our way out of every single possible problem may yet prove to be a false rational worldview given, at the moment I don't think the human race is successfully out-running the cause and effect consequences of our lack of large scale systemic thinking.

Once again you appear to be drawing a heck of a lot more than is reasonably justifiable from what is no more than a tautology ("actions have consequences"? you don't say!).

Are you aware of any better ways to solve problems?

(03-09-2014 11:36 AM)phil.a Wrote:  It's too later now but perhaps in an ideal reality it would have been better if we'd never imagined that we were separate from the system to begin with?

There's that equivocation again.

I'm pretty sure you and I are, in fact, separate people. Are you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 11:48 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Sorry for sticking my oar in so late, but the above post simply strkes me as a load of New-age Wiccan Woo.

Of course every body is separate and unique (Not to mean that beyond every one being Homo-sapiens-sapiens).

As for the other stuff...I just don't have time to go though with just how mixed up it all is.

For all intents and purposes the Earth IS a closed system. We want more fundamental resourses? We do one of two things. Get off this rock and extract them from the rest of the Solar system...... Or wait the few billion years for crust/mantle dynamics to recycle everything. Tongue

Much cheers to all.

Can someone please explain to me me in rational terms what exactly "woo" means?

It sounds to me like name-calling, which I view as a more modern version of primitive spell-casting (throwing words at something we fear in an attempt to take it's power away).

Perhaps it's not though? Perhaps it's a reference to a highly rational and facts-based theory on things :-)

Greatly looking forward to having a rational and facts-based discussion on this interesting concept "woo" :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Can someone please explain to me me in rational terms what exactly "woo" means?

Have you tried looking it up yourself?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
cjlr:

What do you understand by my assertion that humans (and in fact, all entities in the cosmos) are separate in a relative sense but aren't separate in an absolute sense?

Can you reflect back your understanding of that idea, when I can see how you are looking at it then it might be that I can help you better understand what I mean.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:18 PM)phil.a Wrote:  cjlr:

What do you understand by my assertion that humans (and in fact, all entities in the cosmos) are separate in a relative sense but aren't separate in an absolute sense?

Can you reflect back your understanding of that idea, when I can see how you are looking at it then it might be that I can help you better understand what I mean.

I do not think you have bothered to make clear what you mean by "separate". Nor do I find any of the likely interpretations in any way meaningful.

If by "absolute" separation you mean isolated systems, then no, no objects within our universe are separate in an absolute sense. But so what?

What conclusions do you draw from this trivial observation? And why?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 12:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 12:02 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Can someone please explain to me me in rational terms what exactly "woo" means?

Have you tried looking it up yourself?

Ok so it's as I thought?

As long as it's just name-calling then I am happy to ignore it.

Name-calling is a truly fascinating thing. In my opinion it is literally the remnants of irrational spell-casting as that still exists in modern reality, as it's the attempt to take someone's or some thing's power away just by throwing words at them/it.

Sometimes, it really "does work", in the sense that by insulting someone remotely over the internet it can be possible to unsettle them and affect their behaviour. Insofar as one is successful at actually affecting them, "magic" is still alive and well in the modern world.

Anyway, I digress, but do carry on casting spells if you think it will work :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: