Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:
Quote:....and I can speak for Buddhist practices considering I studied and practice mindfulness meditations and the various esoteric ideas that go along with these systems.

Interesting. So - have you had a Satori yet?

If you have - how did the world look?

Phil
Yes and no. The world looked like the sound of one hand clapping. Angel

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, 01:43 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 12:07 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 06:51 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Yes

Cool! Can you tell me the facts of what actually occurred?

Phil

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.

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, 01:52 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 01:43 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:07 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Cool! Can you tell me the facts of what actually occurred?

Phil

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.

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)
However both experiential involvement with cases like the multiple myeloma described above & theoretical understanding of evolution,biology,neurology etc gives me awareness & conviction of non-design, naturalism and if there was a creator that its utterly barbaric, unmajestic (vosur I know such a word doesnt exist yet) and has a name in all the Earth as part of the repertoire of cognitive delusions made up by humans .

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, 03:44 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 01:18 AM)Vosur Wrote:  As far as I can tell, the problem here is that you continue to articulate your thoughts using a different definition of the word "suffering" and that's something I already pointed out in my response to your post about the Buddhist distinction between
"pain" and "suffering." As long as you do that, you cannot engage the criticism in this thread in a meaningful way. When you assert that ongoing suffering occurs due to denial, for instance, you are obviously not talking about physical pain, but about the negative feelings associated with it. In essence, we have been talking past each other so far because we are talking about two distinct phenomena.

Now that that misunderstanding has been cleared up, would you care to respond to the question I posed in response to your OP using the same definition I use?

Sure, I'm happy to respond against your definition of the term, although I'll need a bit of help understanding how you see it, at the moment it's not really visible to me.

For myself (even against my dictionary definition and not against buddhist definitions) "suffering" does necessarily imply a psychological, or interpretive dimension to the experience of pain. Eg "suffering" is a meaningful concept and it's a different concept to "pain".

If you are in fact talking about "pain", can we just use the word "pain", and drop the word "suffering"?

And if you are not talking about "pain", can you post a differentiation of those two concepts, and perhaps explain a bit more about what suffering means to you?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:49 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 01:36 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:Interesting. So - have you had a Satori yet?

If you have - how did the world look?

Phil
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
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:53 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 01:43 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 12:07 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Cool! Can you tell me the facts of what actually occurred?

Phil

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
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:56 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 03:44 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Sure, I'm happy to respond against your definition of the term, although I'll need a bit of help understanding how you see it, at the moment it's not really visible to me.

For myself (even against my dictionary definition and not against buddhist definitions) "suffering" does necessarily imply a psychological, or interpretive dimension to the experience of pain. Eg "suffering" is a meaningful concept and it's a different concept to "pain".

If you are in fact talking about "pain", can we just use the word "pain", and drop the word "suffering"?

And if you are not talking about "pain", can you post a differentiation of those two concepts, and perhaps explain a bit more about what suffering means to you?

Phil
You are correct, there is no meaningful distinction between my usage of the terms "suffering" and "pain," so you can feel free to use the latter instead of the former.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:58 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(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
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 04:30 AM by Chas.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(18-08-2014 08:22 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Evil exists in the common accepted meaning of evil. People do things which are described as evil, and those actions most certainly exist.

If this an argument for the ontological basis of Evil I have to tell you it's circular.

However, I nevertheless agree with it. Effectively "evil" is there simply because people say it is and for no other reason, e.g. it's all in the mind.

Phil

No, I make no absurd ontological arguments; that is word-play.

Of course evil exists only in people's minds and can be exhibited in their actions. This is what rational people mean by 'evil'.
Again, the Problem of Evil still exists (in people's minds).

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
19-08-2014, 04:27 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 12:17 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 06:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I absolutely agree Vosur.
Phil.a is sitting in his ivory tower with cop out gobbledigook.
The great designer God creates conditions like this:
(Harlequins Ichtheosis)
...oh its just pain and not suffering.

Actually it's probably neither - that baby does not look old enough to be reflectively self-aware.

How does pain require self-awareness? Do you think a puppy does not feel pain?

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: