A Defense of Theodicy

[lightgigantic]

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
”
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.

or alternatively we could just accept your estimate based on your understanding of the universal popoulation, huh?

“
we left the nature of our imperfection is that we can leave the medium of perfection in the pursuit of perfection
”
Wait, I don't follow.. We left perfection to look for perfection and thus are imperfect?

as already said, the grass is actually greener on your side, but if you want to scope out the other side of the fence, that's your business ....

“
then obviously you have a wrong theoretical foundation....
”
Get a new one, this is old and stupid.

:roflmao:

sorry

empiricism may work that way but philosophy doesn't

“
if you think all living entities are duty bound for an appearance in the material world
”
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?"

if you don't understand that ALL living entities DON'T come to the material world and if ALL living entities are made of the same quality, its not clear what premise you have in determining why they have been made imperfect (ie come to the material world)

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?

its the nature of our free will - its ours to use or abuse - and the reason we have free will is that states like "love" cannot exist without it

 

[SnakeLord]

or alternatively we could just accept your estimate based on your understanding of the universal popoulation, huh?

What are you blithering on about? You made a claim that you can't support that "only a few people go to material existence".

Come back to me when you've counted the population of immaterial existence or can support your claim with something tangible. There's a good boy.

as already said, the grass is actually greener on your side, but if you want to scope out the other side of the fence, that's your business

Is the imperfect grass greener if you're perfect? If you say so.

if you don't understand that ALL living entities DON'T come to the material world ..

Yeah, you keep making the claim - I await the evidence. Until that time kindly tell me why, once again, you're going on about ALL, when I'm not asking about ALL but simply those that exist here. We were created yes? We are imperfect yes? Why make an imperfect being?

its the nature of our free will - its ours to use or abuse - and the reason we have free will is that states like "love" cannot exist without it

We'll save the long debates about free will for another time.

However, needless to say this god used his free will to make the system in such a manner, (unless he had no say in it). Here's a question for you..

1) god created beings with free will. He already knows their choices but yes, they have free will.

2) He knows as an example that these 10 people he creates will use their free will to love and worship him - which is what he wants.

3) He knows as another example that these 10 people he creates will use their free will to not love and worship him - which is not what he wants.

4) Why not just create the people in the first example? They're still using their free will and nobody is suffering.

 

[s0meguy]

Sometimes, yes.

If one does not believe that "Evil" exists, yet argues that God could not be Omnimax because Evil exists, that person is most certainly being intellectually dishonest.

Wrong.

Evil exists even in most atheists' minds, it is subjective but still it's there (most of them don't even consider the validity of their beliefs, just like most theists they act like sheep). But that's beside the point.

When arguing this, the atheist assumes that evil exists in the christians' mind, and that this christians' beliefs are wrong because they conflict (evil and God)

 

[s0meguy]

1) Atheists presume there is no justification for evil. This rules out, according to them, the possibility of a God being perfect (meaning all-wise, all-powerful and all-good).

It does, if that same God is claimed to be "good" meaning that he wants humanity to be peaceful prudes and is able to predict everything thats going to happen (he's all-powerful and all-knowing right). He can predict our lives if he's all-knowing, but he designs us to be like this anyway, knowing that we will fail?

So assuming that if a God exists, he's not "good". If you consider life to be a test to go to heaven and be his servant or something, why wouldn't he create his own perfect servants?

2) Theists presume evil is justified. They argue that God has neither created evil at His own whim, nor is He powerless to stop it.

Evil is justified? That makes no sense at all. Can you explain yourself a bit here, why is it justified?

A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good.

Unless God isn't "all-good". Why would he be all-good?

1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.

What if I just randomly killed someone? Not out of any desire at all, just plain randomness. I would have done something evil, not out of desire. This 'philosophy' wouldn't work even assuming that the Bible is true (which I think it's not)

2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil).

This doesn't make any logical sense at all. Can you try to explain this from your viewpoint?

Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good.

Is that bad? So in your idea of a perfect human we wouldn't desire material objects at all. No clothes, no food or even our own survival. Or should we desire clothes and food? Then why not get the clothes that you like and the food that tastes nice? No, we're supposed to eat shitty food and wear shitty clothes, otherwise we would be desiring material objects. And that's bad.

In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.

Why is it madness? If that's not what God wanted, than why did he create us to be like this? (according to you)

 

[s0meguy]

Evil is the result of free will. Animals can not be evil because they can not choose

Animals can choose. My cat chooses to go sit on my lap because then I will stroke it. It knows that if it doesn't go sit on my lap, it won't be stroked, thus it chooses that. If you had a cat and you hit it a few times when it comes near you, it'll choose not to go near you again and thus not get hit.

 

[grover]

Animals can choose. My cat chooses to go sit on my lap because then I will stroke it. It knows that if it doesn't go sit on my lap, it won't be stroked, thus it chooses that. If you had a cat and you hit it a few times when it comes near you, it'll choose not to go near you again and thus not get hit.

You ever heard of B.F.Skinner or Pavlov or operant conditioning? That's what you're talking about, not choice.

 

[KennyJC]

Evil is the result of free will.

If 'god' made the universe without 'evil', then we'd be non the wiser and still think we have free will.

 

[scorpius]

1) Atheists presume there is no justification for evil. This rules out, according to them, the possibility of a God being perfect (meaning all-wise, all-powerful and all-good).

makes sense,.. perfect ,loving father wouldnt cause EVIL to his children.

2) Theists presume evil is justified. They argue that God has neither created evil at His own whim, nor is He powerless to stop it.

theists are just LYING to themselves
lets leave the free will,for now and talk about NATURAL evils,huricanes,tsunamis,volcanic eruptions etc..why are those needed?
IF god created ALL then he is responsible for creating ALL evil,wouldnt you say?

A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good.

Vedic philosophy has three contributions to make here.

1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.

not really,you can be good and materialistic also

2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil).

3) The medium of our bondage is our own desire. Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good.

and you believe that krap??
seems to me someone wants to convince you that to be happy you must give up everything,.I say go for it, join the Amish, or become Budhist monkey.

In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.

in WHICH world do you want to seek happiness,since theres only this one material one?

if there was some SPIRITUAL world WHAT would your spirit LIVE OFF???

 

[scorpius]

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.

god is the one responsible for everything IF he created all
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/vindicate.html

 

[Tiassa]

I think it would be easiest to simply acknowledge that "evil" is a human creation.

As for the rest, life (like "God") simply is.

 

[s0meguy]

You ever heard of B.F.Skinner or Pavlov or operant conditioning?

All animals are subject to this, including humans

That's what you're talking about, not choice.

If you had a cat and you hit it a few times when it comes near you, it'll choose not to go near you again and thus not get hit.

Replace cat with human in this sentence. So if a human does this, its a choice, while in the case of a cat it's not a choice?

Can you give an example in which a human makes a 'choice' where an animal would not make a choice? (at something that we are both physically capable of doing)

If you're going to say that we have the ability to choose between good and evil, then thats not because they can't choose while we can, but it's that they aren't capable of understanding the concept of good and evil as you like to think it exists. Animals do understand that they're not supposed engage in some specific behavior, like many animals don't (with a few exceptions) kill members of their own species because it is counter productive to the survival of the species. This also goes for many other kinds of behavior similar to what you would call 'evil'.

 

[grover]

All animals are subject to this, including humans

I think your logic is faulty. I didn't say humans aren't subject to this, only that in the examples you provided that was at work. Also, just because humans subject to operant conditioning that does not mean it is the only thing at work in human behavior.

Replace cat with human in this sentence. So if a human does this, its a choice, while in the case of a cat it's not a choice?

What? The example you gave was sitting on people's laps to get stroked.

Can you give an example in which a human makes a 'choice' where an animal would not make a choice? (at something that we are both physically capable of doing)

Making choices requires pretty sophisticated thought processes, you have to sit there and think "If I do A, B will happen." You really think animals do this?

If you're going to say that we have the ability to choose between good and evil, then thats not because they can't choose while we can, but it's that they aren't capable of understanding the concept of good and evil as you like to think it exists.

It is a given that a certain level of understanding is required. Even in a court of law a person must know that what they are doing is wrong and do it anyway. There is no evil wothout choice period. If a lion attacks your child, is it evil? If another human attacks your child is it evil?

Animals do understand that they're not supposed engage in some specific behavior,

You just contradicted yourself.

like many animals don't (with a few exceptions) kill members of their own species because it is counter productive to the survival of the species. This also goes for many other kinds of behavior similar to what you would call 'evil'.

My point exactly. Animals don't engage in this behavior, not because they have understanding, but because it goes against their instincts (nature). Humans do engage in these behaviors, despite the fact that they go against nature. What we call evil is acting against nature. (Note: So in light if the fact that nature and God are nearly synonomous in Buddhism/mysticism - evil is acting against God. Which means that evil is man's invention, not God's. But it is true that a Fundamentalsit conception of God would ultimately be responsible for evil, but the Fundamentalist conception of God is just an invention by man, which explains why the Fundamentalist conception of God is so often used as a justification for evil.)

 

[grover]

If 'god' made the universe without 'evil', then we'd be non the wiser and still think we have free will.

We would only think we have free will.

 

[KennyJC]

We would only think we have free will.

You missed my point completely. You think we have free will now. Just as evil could be missing and we'd still think we have free will, there could be something missing right now that would also increase our free will.

 

[grover]

My point is simple JC, there is no evil without free will. Describe this universe in which there is no evil yet free will exists. Are you talking about a universe without pain? No, because pain is not what causes evil. Evil is when an agent with free will causes pain. That's why if a snake bit you and killed you you wouldnt call it evil but if a person killed you you would call it evil. Evil can't exist without free will.

 

[KennyJC]

My point is simple JC, there is no evil without free will. Describe this universe in which there is no evil yet free will exists. Are you talking about a universe without pain? No, because pain is not what causes evil. Evil is when an agent with free will causes pain. That's why if a snake bit you and killed you you wouldnt call it evil but if a person killed you you would call it evil. Evil can't exist without free will.

Is your imagination really that narrow? Without evil, we are still free to make choices, and in a universe without evil we would still have free will. It just so happens that this universe does have evil. But what if god left out any number of variables to this universe? What if in another universe, people could choose to be born? What if in another universe people are not so trapped by material nature? How could those people used to such an existence think that our universe allows such free will by comparison?

 

[grover]

Is your imagination really that narrow? Without evil, we are still free to make choices,

Kenny, I didn't say that free will can't exist without evil, I said that evil can't exist without free will.

and in a universe without evil we would still have free will.

What are you basing this on? Your wild imagination?

It just so happens that this universe does have evil.

Right because it has beings with free will called humans. No humans no evil. Get it? Evil is a man-made invention.

But what if god left out any number of variables to this universe? What if in another universe, people could choose to be born? What if in another universe people are not so trapped by material nature? How could those people used to such an existence think that our universe allows such free will by comparison?

Allows it? It's not free will if it wouldn't be allowed. Besides, I'm not speculating about other "imaginary universes" I'm talking about this one and the fact that no free will=no evil.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

or alternatively we could just accept your estimate based on your understanding of the universal popoulation, huh?
”
What are you blithering on about? You made a claim that you can't support that "only a few people go to material existence".

unlike the support for "the universe according to snakelord", huh?

Come back to me when you've counted the population of immaterial existence or can support your claim with something tangible. There's a good boy.

the next question would be whether the word "tangible" can be satisfied by empiricism .....

“
as already said, the grass is actually greener on your side, but if you want to scope out the other side of the fence, that's your business
”
Is the imperfect grass greener if you're perfect?

without having recourse to omniscience, it could very well appear that way

“
if you don't understand that ALL living entities DON'T come to the material world ..
”
Yeah, you keep making the claim - I await the evidence.

given the insignificance of your senses and the size of the universe, that could be some time (but hey, empiricism is where it's at in terms of reality)

Until that time kindly tell me why, once again, you're going on about ALL, when I'm not asking about ALL but simply those that exist here. We were created yes? We are imperfect yes? Why make an imperfect being?

if ALL are created equal and if ALL don't arrive here, then its not clear why you ask why SOME were created to come here.


“

its the nature of our free will - its ours to use or abuse - and the reason we have free will is that states like "love" cannot exist without it
”
We'll save the long debates about free will for another time.

However, needless to say this god used his free will to make the system in such a manner, (unless he had no say in it). Here's a question for you..

1) god created beings with free will. He already knows their choices but yes, they have free will.


2) He knows as an example that these 10 people he creates will use their free will to love and worship him - which is what he wants.

3) He knows as another example that these 10 people he creates will use their free will to not love and worship him - which is not what he wants.

4) Why not just create the people in the first example? They're still using their free will and nobody is suffering.

basically you assume that because the living entity deals with the material world in a different way to the spiritual world, that the same must be true of god. This is foolishness.
For god there is no difference between the spiritual and material worlds (they are both contingent on him and fully under his control) - in other words if the living entity, by their free will, decides to leave one contingent energy of god and enter another contingent energy of god (and apart from contingent energies of god, what else could there be?) its not clear why that poses a problem or limitation or surprise for God.
To put it another way, if you are in a room that has a chalk line down the middle, how does your crossing the chalk line according to your free will somehow thwart my knowledge of your activities?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ S0meguy

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
1) Atheists presume there is no justification for evil. This rules out, according to them, the possibility of a God being perfect (meaning all-wise, all-powerful and all-good). ”

It does, if that same God is claimed to be "good" meaning that he wants humanity to be peaceful prudes and is able to predict everything thats going to happen (he's all-powerful and all-knowing right). He can predict our lives if he's all-knowing, but he designs us to be like this anyway, knowing that we will fail?

So assuming that if a God exists, he's not "good". If you consider life to be a test to go to heaven and be his servant or something, why wouldn't he create his own perfect servants?

“ 2) Theists presume evil is justified. They argue that God has neither created evil at His own whim, nor is He powerless to stop it. ”

Evil is justified? That makes no sense at all. Can you explain yourself a bit here, why is it justified?

“ A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good. ”
Unless God isn't "all-good".

Why would he be all-good?

since this seems to be leading to issues of free will, and since your premises appear identical to Snakelord's, perhaps you can read my response to him for all of this

“ 1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature. ”
What if I just randomly killed someone? Not out of any desire at all, just plain randomness. I would have done something evil, not out of desire. This 'philosophy' wouldn't work even assuming that the Bible is true (which I think it's not)

desire is commonly seen as the means to determine action, and from the display of action, things like reward and punishment are determined - at least the legal system works like this .....
are you trying to say that it is possible to "randomly kill" someone and avoid any legal implications by not expressing desire?

“ 2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil). ”
This doesn't make any logical sense at all. Can you try to explain this from your viewpoint?

things (factually ....as opposed to imaginatively or speculatively) used in the service of god yield results like elevation, enlightenment, liberation, etc and the same thing used in the service of ourselves (or used imaginatively/speculatively in the service of god) results in selfishness, lust, entanglement, vice etc

“ Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good. ”
Is that bad?

that's the proposal of the OP

So in your idea of a perfect human we wouldn't desire material objects at all.

remember that a thing only becomes material if one uses it in the service of one's self (resulting in vice, etc) as opposed to the service of god

No clothes, no food or even our own survival.

only if one was in some bizarre situation where being hungry, cold and sickly improved one's capacity to serve to god

Or should we desire clothes and food?

we should desire service to god, and see what that requires, careful that we don't spill out into material desires (if it does, the appearance of selfishness, lust, etc should be clear indications we have messed up)

Then why not get the clothes that you like and the food that tastes nice?

being attached to matter .....

No, we're supposed to eat shitty food and wear shitty clothes, otherwise we would be desiring material objects. And that's bad.

..... or being repulsed by matter is the same thing - MATERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

if we are viewing matter in relation to our likes (or dislikes) we are simply engaged in another aspect of material illusion

an actual change involves viewing the same things, but in relation to god instead of ourselves

“ In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world. ”

Why is it madness?

the material world is the place of duality - whatever you gain in the pursuit of material happiness is merely an introduction for an equivalent amount of suffering

If that's not what God wanted, than why did he create us to be like this? (according to you)

actually the OP was suggesting that God did not create us like that

 

[lightgigantic]

Scorpious
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

1) Atheists presume there is no justification for evil. This rules out, according to them, the possibility of a God being perfect (meaning all-wise, all-powerful and all-good).
”
makes sense,.. perfect ,loving father wouldnt cause EVIL to his children.
“
2) Theists presume evil is justified. They argue that God has neither created evil at His own whim, nor is He powerless to stop it.
”
theists are just LYING to themselves
lets leave the free will,for now and talk about NATURAL evils,huricanes,tsunamis,volcanic eruptions etc..why are those needed?
IF god created ALL then he is responsible for creating ALL evil,wouldnt you say?

calm down - perhaps we can see what the rest of the OP has to offer
(ever encountered the word "introduction" in discussion?)
“

A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good.

Vedic philosophy has three contributions to make here.

1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.
”
not really,you can be good and materialistic also

sorry, I don't understand what you are saying
“

2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil).

3) The medium of our bondage is our own desire. Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good.
”
and you believe that krap??
seems to me someone wants to convince you that to be happy you must give up everything,.I say go for it, join the Amish, or become Budhist monkey.

I said material nature has two aspects – what makes you think I said both aspects (ie everything) should be given up?
“

In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.
”
in WHICH world do you want to seek happiness,since theres only this one material one?

Thats a very definite statement (and not one that rides with empiricism either, if you are willing to accept quantum theory)

but anyway, so how do you know there is only one?

if there was some SPIRITUAL world WHAT would your spirit LIVE OFF???

in short

In the material world, we live off matter
In the spiritual world we live off spirit

:shrug: