Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(17-08-2014 01:58 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If evil doesn't exist, then the biblical god does not exist. The bible is certainly replete with examples of evil and even describes god as the creator of evil.

Though if you consider evil a mere construct of the imagination, then god can be considered as a mere construct of the imagination.

Hummm. Not to point to my own life's experience as an example here but I was essentially raised with no religion, god or the Bible and even little contact with TV or other communications which would have introduced me to the concept of god (it's a long story) and in all my growing up years I never thought of things as being "evil". Bad things happen, not so bad things happen and really nice things happened. I never heard of bad events in life as being "evil". Ever. It wasn't until I moved out of the mountains (literally) that I came in contact with god believers and discovered, to my complete surprise, that bad things happening or bad people doing bad things was called "evil". Who knew?

I associate the word "evil" entirely with theism, similar to the word "devil" and used in tandem with the word "god", an imaginary being.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Peebothuhul:

OK, just a hyper-brief summary of how reality is a process dialectic of Beauty, Goodness and Truth.

1/ It appears in human debate and development of positions as dialectics.

Thesis - Beauty
Antithesis - Goodness
Synthesis - Truth

Plato, Kant, Hegel, all sorts of people have discussed the topic of dialectics. A dialectic form is heavily visible in the debate on this thread. Notice how whenever I say something (Thesis), some people on here are compelled to disagree (Antithesis), at some point that may proceed to some sort of integration (Synthesis) at which point that Synthesis either gives birth to a new thesis, or perhaps a completely new one turns up.


2/ Jumping into an altogether more physical space, looking at the human brain through triune brain theory, it emerged in 3 distinct sequential stages:

1- Reptilian stem: will and instincts, 1st person awareness, or Beauty
2- Mammalian limbic system: emotions, 2nd person awareness, or Goodness
3- Primate neocortex: Reason, higher level thinking functions, or Truth

So the layers of the primate brain emerged in that order, over time. And the triune brain has 3 separate domains of awareness: 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives. Or - Beauty, Goodness and Truth.

This same essential patterning is visible in the way all structure emerges in reality, from quarks up to humans. So it's descriptive of how manifest entities present here and now, but also how they proceed in transforming into higher order process complexity.

This is a huge topic, there's no possible way I could do it full justice in this thread, I hope the 2 diverse examples above give some idea of the idea though. It's based on holon theory, all entities in this view are considered as holons.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 02:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Traditionally, thermodynamic systems are classed as either open, closed, or isolated, based on the nature of interactions occurring between the system and its surroundings. I suspect that you are quite aware of this, and are merely being facetious.

As I literally just said, and you agreed with, I took your use of "absolute" to refer to thermodynamically isolated systems. As such - and this is a very trivial observation - there cannot be any isolated systems within the universe so far as we are concerned, because if we interact with them they are by definition not isolated from us.

Whether interaction is significant is then a more useful question. In most cases most interaction is not.

OK, let's bring it back to earth a bit and make it a bit more practical and facts-based. Please have a go at the following experiment. I do need you to try it before we continue the discussion, because you yourself need to possess facts (e.g. actual experience) which are able to support what I am saying.

It's going to take quite some balls to do, but if you have the balls to do it, I think you will find the experiment quite enlightening.

You do need to be feeling confident when you do this, it won't work if you aren't feeling really relaxed and confident that day, but walk down a busy street with a big smile on your face making an effort to actually look strangers directly in the eye and smile joyfully and confidently at them.

And then see what happens, make notes your experience of walking down the busy street. If this isn't your normal mode of behaviour, you might be quite surprised at what happens.

Then - do the same thing but this time, walk down the street with a scowl on your face. Think of something you are irritated about to help keep it up, allow people to see the scowl, scowl at them if you like.

And then see what happens, make notes your experience of walking down the busy street.

And then just compare and contrast the 2 experiences, and consider what the difference between the 2 experiences has to say on the amount of actual separation that exists in the human system.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Well well, I'm surprised, I've never once seen Holon theory brought up on this forum. I even considered bringing up a topic upon it just to see if some folks around here were familiar with it or if it brought out any people who knew of it.

Are you a fan of Ken Wilber and the whole integral theory that is based on Holons? That could open up a lot more understandings of where you are trying to come from. I think you are stretched out in some many positions while trying to explain/defend them that you aren't addressing much of the original topic here.

"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
03-09-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 04:32 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well well, I'm surprised, I've never once seen Holon theory brought up on this forum. I even considered bringing up a topic upon it just to see if some folks around here were familiar with it or if it brought out any people who knew of it.

Are you a fan of Ken Wilber and the whole integral theory that is based on Holons? That could open up a lot more understandings of where you are trying to come from. I think you are stretched out in some many positions while trying to explain/defend them that you aren't addressing much of the original topic here.

Yup, my thinking is based on Integral meta-theory. I like Wilber, although I do have reservations about some of his thinking and aspects of his AQAL model. The Integral meta-theory I use is actually one I have arrived at myself, it's not completely incompatible with Wilber's model but I think it's quite a bit closer to Steve McIntosh's thinking (another Integral thinker).

And yes - I am getting completely stretched out here, the thread has really gone way off topic. I also think it's probably going into areas which aren't going to sound meaningful to many people here, although the fact that it has gone into those areas leads me to think that my insights on the original thread topic are probably based in my Integral understandings, and therefore by their actual nature aren't actually going to be particularly meaningful for anyone who is not already familiar with and comfortable with Integral thinking.

So it's starting to look like the sane move here might simply be not to play, lol.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
03-09-2014, 09:15 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 01:56 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Name calling? No, it is an evaluation of your ideas as expressed here. They definitely sound like woo. Drinking Beverage

Fine by me! My ideas sound like "woo" to you, your "woo" sounds like irrational spell casting to me?

When you propose something in flowery philosophical language that has no actual underpinning of evidence, then it surely sounds like woo - and not just to me.
Your charming expression "spell casting" is a silly, soft brickbat that flies wide of its intended mark.

Quote:It's kind of fun how there's no longer any rational, facts-based element to this discussion :-)

Phil

There haven't been any since the get-go. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: