A Defense of Theodicy
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Football commentators have a notion of god whether they believe it or not.
That doesn't seem mathematically plausible. It's reasonable to assume that the majority of life in the universe does not have the mental capacity to morally judge behavior in the same way as humans, agreed? In fact almost all life on planet earth can not make these judgements. So how are there enough morally aware beings to populate all of the cosmos' morally unaware animals?
It's amazing that this reply is basically every reply I want to give you. How do you know that 'evil is a consequence of material desire'. There is no way you can actually know this.
Again, you are focusing on humans. Humans make up practically 0% of all Earth's living things, yet you think there are enough humans to be reincarnated as all these living things.
Ha! That's funny.
Anyway, this whole "evil" thing is rediculous. You are speaking of "evil" as if it were some entity that existed by itself and could somehow exert itself.
It may have that connotation in religion, but when an atheist, who dosen't believe in good vs evil in remotely the way you theists do, says "evil" he is simply using "evil" to mean detrimental behaviors toward others. This is almost always in a hypothetical way:
"So, if god is so good, why does he allow evil to exist then?"
In other words, justify your own theoretical position in the face of an apparent internal contradiction. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it at all.
Killian_1_4
Registered Senior Member
^^agreed.
"So, if god is so good, why does he allow evil to exist then?"
You don't need to believe good, evil, or God exists to make a statement like this.
"So, if god is so good, why does he allow evil to exist then?"
You don't need to believe good, evil, or God exists to make a statement like this.
Snakelord
I am saying that the material world is the medium to receive the results of one's desires separate from god, just like jail is the medium to receive the results of one's desires separate from greater society - before coming to such a medium we were properly socialized
Kenny
no
I am saying that the material world is the medium to receive the results of one's desires separate from god, just like jail is the medium to receive the results of one's desires separate from greater society - before coming to such a medium we were properly socialized
Kenny
still, theodicy doesn't rank on their calls of the game so much ....
work eternal time and a universe which is probably bigger than what you give it credit into your calculations and get back to me
but the basis of your claims is empiricism, is it not?
what makes you think that earth is the only sphere that has intelligent life?
“ Kenny
“Again, you are focusing on humans. Humans make up practically 0% of all Earth's living things,”
SB 6.14.3 In this material world there are as many living entities as atoms. Among these living entities, a very few are human beings, and among them, few are interested in following religious principles.
“
You did
“Again, you are focusing on humans. Humans make up practically 0% of all Earth's living things,”
yep, and it keeps getting smaller the further you go up in this material world
SB 6.14.3 In this material world there are as many living entities as atoms. Among these living entities, a very few are human beings, and among them, few are interested in following religious principles.
“
For the same reason you draw tall numbers on the percentage of people in jails who are expressing the desire to be separate from the laws of the state
Once again we are back to the discussion of whether by the use of the word “full of knowledge” means “omniscient” or “full of awareness” – to clarify this distinction do you think we should consult the texts in which the term appears or do you think we should just ride with what ever we can drive through in the guise of lexicography?
No, once again we are back to you avoiding the question. Why would a being, (us), that is enlightened and 'full of awareness', (i'll use your new term now you no longer use the other), want to be away from this god?
If an entity would rather be a slug than be with this god of yours, it says something about this god of yours.
Answer the question or don't, kindly don't waste my time with your typical display of avoidance.
by making a mistake
becoming a slug is precisely part of the problem that we didn't anticipate (hence "mistake")
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
So basically the responsibility shifts to us, we're the ones apparently creating our own hell.
But i cant get around the fact that God was the guy to create the framework for us to realise our own personal hell to begin with.
I dont like anyone shifting all the responsiblity onto me or anyone else, a girl i was going out with tried to do that to me once and i didnt like it then either.
I say God is implicated in all of this evil one way or another, no point arguing over degrees of culpibility but hes assumed a level of responsiblity by the simple act of creating in itself.
If God's not responsible then the problem is you can argue that noone else is either. I suppose it all comes down to whos actions are more important for you to justify - your own or god's.
But i cant get around the fact that God was the guy to create the framework for us to realise our own personal hell to begin with.
I dont like anyone shifting all the responsiblity onto me or anyone else, a girl i was going out with tried to do that to me once and i didnt like it then either.
I say God is implicated in all of this evil one way or another, no point arguing over degrees of culpibility but hes assumed a level of responsiblity by the simple act of creating in itself.
If God's not responsible then the problem is you can argue that noone else is either. I suppose it all comes down to whos actions are more important for you to justify - your own or god's.
Mistakes - a clear indication of imperfection. Why would a supposedly perfect entity go about creating imperfect beings that he knew would suffer continually because of that imperfection he created them with?
It's like a going to all that trouble to make a computer that you know is not going to work - i.e absolute idiocy.
more correctly, we are the one's that have a desire that can only be fulfilled in material existence .... which is hell to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of one's separation from god
the basic principle is that we are created in a "constitutional position"
for instance the constitutional position of the hand is to put food in the mouth - in this way the food gets digested and distributes energy to the whole body including the hand - if the hand thinks "Hey why am I serving this stupid mouth - I'm going to eat this apple pie myself" and proceeds to mash up the food between its fingers it neither tastes the food nor extracts any sustenance (outside of the illusory variety)
similarly, the fact that we get no actual happiness in this world is because its not our constitutional position to extract happiness separate from god
one can determine responsibility after one has determined constitutional positions
states also create jails - in fact a city plan may even include a site for a prison - this doesn't mean the heads of state are engineering means and ways to produce criminals to fill them up
I don't follow this logic
If the state is not responsible for a person ending up in jail, neither is the person in jail
ironically, I think you are right
that's right we are not perfect - it distinguishes us from god
so because you and I have gone to jail, everyone has gone to jail?
It's not like all living entities must go to the material world - only those that make mistakes of judgment
So this god of yours created man to fuck up continuously just so we could know we differed from him? Bizarre notion..
It also does bring to light the statement that trying to achieve perfection if pointless, because then - according to you, we wouldn't know the difference between us and god - and thus we're always going to be imperfect and always destined to suffer because of it.
Sounds like fun..
Eh? Pay attention and answer the question:
"Why would a supposedly perfect entity go about creating imperfect beings that he knew would suffer continually because of that imperfection he created them with?"
Which is all living entities - given that they are all created imperfect so that they can know they're not god.
“ Snakelord
the state of being a “fuck up” comes when we decide to act inappropriately
people wind up in jail like that all the time
people get out/stay out of jail like this all the time
“
“
no
the state of being a “fuck up” comes when we decide to act inappropriately
people wind up in jail like that all the time
we become perfect when we are no longer a “fuck up”
people get out/stay out of jail like this all the time
“
there is a correlation between my use of the phrase “everyone goes to jail” and your suggestion that all living entities must take a sojourn to the realm of suffering
“
are we having the same conversation?
Which only happens if created to act that way.
It's like having a really stupid robot that continually walks in a circle. You call it an idiot for walking in circles while not realising it was you that programmed it to do so.
Become perfect heh? If that's the goal why not just make you perfect to begin with, (that you're going to end up being anyway), and just skip out all the suffering?
My question didn't say "everyone" or "all living entities", it asks why this being creates imperfect beings knowing that they would suffer because of the way he made them. Try again.
Evil is the result of free will. Animals can not be evil because they can not choose, they act according to their nature, which is nature). Humans can be evil because they can choose. when we choose we are necessarily choosing to act against nature because to not choose is to act in accordance with nature (like animals). So evil is humans acting against nature. Humans act against nature because it is the only way to choose, and it is only by choosing that one can prove to themselves that they have free will, which is to say a self-governing entity separate from the cosmos. This is why surrender or non-interference is the basis of morality in all religions.
Snakelord
“
“
if all are created equally, and a few go to the material most while most do not, it tends to indicate that they weren't created to act that way
thats the issue - we left the nature of our imperfection is that we can leave the medium of perfection in the pursuit of perfection - in other words the grass is actually greener on our side, but if you want to check out the other side of the fence thats your business ....
then obviously you have a wrong theoretical foundation if you think all living entities are duty bound for an appearance in the material world - at least in the vedas there is a clear distinction between living entities that are nitya mukta (never left the medium of transcendence) and nitya baddha (have accepted material existence)
Well, let's just test and go have a look in this immaterial world, count the people there and then accept your claim. Until such time the claim is lacking.
Wait, I don't follow.. We left perfection to look for perfection and thus are imperfect? :shrug:
:sleep: Get a new one, this is old and stupid.
Wtf? Lol.. Check this: "My question didn't say "everyone" or "all living entities"".
Why do you keep going on about 'all living entities'? Try and pay attention to the question heh?
"why [would] this being create imperfect beings knowing that they would suffer because of the way he made them?"
Be it 'all' or '10' is inconsequential. I am asking why, (if for some peculiar reason a god wanted companions), why not just make perfect companions? Why create companions that are going to want to be away from you and suffer as a cause of that?