And don't forget what he said about ambition. Not to want cancer or some other dreadful disease is the worst form of ambition because it is personal. Not to want to see others suffering is equally bad because you are questioning god's wisdom in visiting it upon them.
An overview of theism’s explanation of the problem of evil
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
And don't forget what he said about ambition. Not to want cancer or some other dreadful disease is the worst form of ambition because it is personal. Not to want to see others suffering is equally bad because you are questioning god's wisdom in visiting it upon them.
This remains a problem, yes.
One thing I have seen theists of various denominations take for granted is that people already have a unified sense of self, that there is something "inside of a person" which every person trusts unconditionally already. That it can be taken for granted that a person identifies with their body, their emotions, their thoughts, their possessions etc. and that the person has no doubts about these identifications.
What I have yet not seen is theists who would take into account the more "schizoid types", ie. people who have doubts through and through; people who recognize that they have all sorts of beliefs, regardless whether they agree with them or not. People who are at "anything goes" and are devastated by it, and simultaneously not.
It's been said:
lightgigantic said:
In my mind, there are beliefs of all sorts, many of them mutually exclusive. I can't think of one stance that I wouldn't have where there wouldn't also be its opposite present in my mind. Whenever I express an opinion, I know I might just as well have said the opposite. There isn't a thought in my mind for which there would be a sense of certainty that it is really me or mine. All I seem to see is a range of options and then another range of criteria for choosing among those options.
Myles
ie deconstructing a theistic claim of logic by saying "well that's not true" and then deconstructing a theistic claim of truth by saying "well that's not logically" (and in this way go nowhere in presenting a solid argument). If you examine the (somewhat credible) arguments of academic atheists you see that they focus on the issue at hand (eg logic, truth, implausibility etc) and stay focused on that aspect, rather than meaninglessly jumping ship midway.
what purpose of the world do you see it as violating?
when I say that you work within Leibniz's framework I mean you don't work with any other premise than "this being the best of all possible worlds" (as a basis for your refutation of course ... actually if you read the OP you can see that even I am critical of that premise}
and you don't work with some pre-existing notion when you assume that this is the best of all worlds or that its primary function is to facilitate our ambition?
and what of your personal belief about the purpose of this world?
actually you are now swapping means (it happens quite a lot on sci actually)
ie deconstructing a theistic claim of logic by saying "well that's not true" and then deconstructing a theistic claim of truth by saying "well that's not logically" (and in this way go nowhere in presenting a solid argument). If you examine the (somewhat credible) arguments of academic atheists you see that they focus on the issue at hand (eg logic, truth, implausibility etc) and stay focused on that aspect, rather than meaninglessly jumping ship midway.
and why exactly is this evil?
what purpose of the world do you see it as violating?
metaphor and analogy is a quick and easy means of explaining the general outline of how something exists (for instance sometimes the brain is explained to be like a computer). Its seems like you have issues with the general principles of knowledge as opposed to anything particularly theistic
well for a start, I don't work within Leibniz's assumption that this is the best of all possible worlds, which doesn't appear to be something both you and Leibniz do
kind of seems to suggest that the purpose of the world is that it exists for god's enjoyment and that we also exist for the same purpose ... even to the degree of being human punching bags
I tend to subscribe to the notion that god is capable to grander arrangements for everyone than being a mere punching bag
Myles
when I say that you work within Leibniz's framework I mean you don't work with any other premise than "this being the best of all possible worlds" (as a basis for your refutation of course ... actually if you read the OP you can see that even I am critical of that premise}
and you don't work with some pre-existing notion when you assume that this is the best of all worlds or that its primary function is to facilitate our ambition?
and what of your personal belief about the purpose of this world?
actually you are now swapping means (it happens quite a lot on sci actually)
ie deconstructing a theistic claim of logic by saying "well that's not true" and then deconstructing a theistic claim of truth by saying "well that's not logically" (and in this way go nowhere in presenting a solid argument). If you examine the (somewhat credible) arguments of academic atheists you see that they focus on the issue at hand (eg logic, truth, implausibility etc) and stay focused on that aspect, rather than meaninglessly jumping ship midway.
and why exactly is this evil?
what purpose of the world do you see it as violating?
metaphor and analogy is a quick and easy means of explaining the general outline of how something exists (for instance sometimes the brain is explained to be like a computer). Its seems like you have issues with the general principles of knowledge as opposed to anything particularly theistic
well for a start, I don't work within Leibniz's assumption that this is the best of all possible worlds, which doesn't appear to be something both you and Leibniz do
I work with the premise that this is the only world we have. Leibniz claims that this was the best world god could make. I deny god.
I do not work with the assumption that the world is here to facilitate anyone's ambition. The world is here, period.Can you not understand that ?
I rely on my reason to make what sense I can of things. My reason tells me there are events which humankind regards as good, others that are regarded as evil. Cancer is , of itself, not evil. It is just a process but to someone who is terminally ill it is seen as evil by the sufferer and others. I see no inconsistency in this view.
Metaphor and analogy may be quick and easy but they break down eventually. They can also conceal nonsense. They have no place in a serious discussion.
You talk of my deconstructing a theistic claim of logic. Theism and logic make poor bedfellows. I have yet to hear a logical argument supporting the existence of god.
The nub of the matter is that you do not trust reason; hence your talk of seeing things from jail. Has it occured to you that the authors of your scriptures were possibly seeing things from jail, as you put it, not to mention you, yourself.
For reasons best known to you, you believe in a higher purpose of some kind. I do not because I have no grounds on which to do so. If you offer a reasoned argument to support your views I will listen but I am not interested in metaphors, what some Indian mystic says and so on. Tell me what you know rather than quote scriptures.
so how do you know that this is the only world we have ? Similarly one could challenge Leibniz how he knows this is the best of all possible worlds. Actually you are both have a remarkably similar premise.
I don't doubt that the world is here
Its when you say that this is the only world that I start to doubt
so it boils down to "reason (particularly yours)= distinctions between good and evil", yes?
Metaphor is an indication
If a person is not capable of discussing indications, it tends to indicate its not worth discussing teh real substance of a claim. For instance if a brain surgeon opens up with the suggestion that a brain is like a computer and the other party just slanders them from there on in on the basis of that indication, he probably wouldn't bother to get into any more substantiative details
given that you can't even remain focused on refuting a claim of logic without jumping to issues of evidence, I'm not surprised
and why is that not a reasonable suggestion?
Even if that is the case, given that you have just indicated that "reason = distinctions betwen good and evil", why would that worry you?
I mean, in what ways is your reason (and thus your distinctions between good and evil) greater than any others?
still it appears that cancer frustrates your purpose ... if you want to say that my purpose is higher, I don't mind ....
the purpose of quoting scriptures is to clearly establing terminology (like for instance, clearly establing what is the relationship between this world and god ... which might be helpful if one insists that "this is the best of all worlds" is the epitiome of theistic premises)- I don't understand how you can comfortably deconstruct a claim of logic in theism without accepting the premises as they are advocated. Its for this reason that a majority of polished academic atheists attempt to deconstruct claims of theism purely on logical grounds, since venturing into the evidence of the matter is obviously not their forte.
Here's another theist explanation for the problem of evil:
It is men who are evil, because they have chosen not to love God. And then God, in order to prevent men from being even more evil, sends floods, earthquakes, famines and such.
It is men who are evil, because they have chosen not to love God. And then God, in order to prevent men from being even more evil, sends floods, earthquakes, famines and such.
how would that prevent people from being evil?
Myles
when I say that you work within Leibniz's framework I mean you don't work with any other premise than "this being the best of all possible worlds" (as a basis for your refutation of course ... actually if you read the OP you can see that even I am critical of that premise}
and you don't work with some pre-existing notion when you assume that this is the best of all worlds or that its primary function is to facilitate our ambition?
and what of your personal belief about the purpose of this world?
actually you are now swapping means (it happens quite a lot on sci actually)
ie deconstructing a theistic claim of logic by saying "well that's not true" and then deconstructing a theistic claim of truth by saying "well that's not logically" (and in this way go nowhere in presenting a solid argument). If you examine the (somewhat credible) arguments of academic atheists you see that they focus on the issue at hand (eg logic, truth, implausibility etc) and stay focused on that aspect, rather than meaninglessly jumping ship midway.
and why exactly is this evil?
what purpose of the world do you see it as violating?
metaphor and analogy is a quick and easy means of explaining the general outline of how something exists (for instance sometimes the brain is explained to be like a computer). Its seems like you have issues with the general principles of knowledge as opposed to anything particularly theistic
well for a start, I don't work within Leibniz's assumption that this is the best of all possible worlds, which doesn't appear to be something both you and Leibniz do
I lack the patience to respond on a point by point basis to what I regard as a load of bollocks. The world has no purpose; it just is. I have an issue with people like you who rely on vague metaphor as opposed to a closely reasoned argument.
The problem of evil only arises when god is introduced because that leaves theists with a lot of explaining to do. My stance is that the world is as we find it, so there is nothing to explain. We call certain things evil and other things good. You are attempting to deny this in some sense. You are hinting at a deeper meaning which is beyond my understanding. Just remember that it may also be beyond the understanding of the religious who , to my mind, concoct fairytales to explain the inexplicable.
I have no wish to spend further time discussing this with you.
It's a bit like gangsters sending the heavies round to put the frighteners on you. If you don't behave, I'll send a famine ; that will teach you who is in charge.
Isn't this precisely what god is supposed to have done when he visited plagues upon Egypt
if you played a main character in the twilight zone the series would be a flop
That's the first sensible thing you have said today. Were you in prison when you thoiught of it, or just feeling a bit evil. Nice to see you ending on an ad hominem, which is always the sign of someone who has nothing of substance to say.