The source of evil.

[gael]

I'm not going to get into that one.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
nihilistic, you have quite simply disgusted me with your comments. That was offensive. I'm not sure how I can respond to someone, when they speak in such a way about God, His people, and His relationship with them as their Lord. I've had enough. I'm not going to stand around to listen to someone insult the Lord. I'm just not going to do it.

Everything is bound to be offensive to someone. Prove to me how I am wrong and I will stop considering that you are labeling it "offensive" because you lack a logical defense from it.

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
An old saying: There's two things you should never debate, religion and politics.

And that saying goes hand in hand with the one that suggests to themselves not to open their mouth so as to be thought of as thoughtful, for they fear that sharing their superstitions would permanently label them as idiots.

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
-Now and again I'm reminded why. I hope you guys find what you're looking for.

Thanks for the compliment. I indeed wish to find out what I should be looking for, and find it. If it be the 6th level of hell that the website based on Dante's theories have suggested, so be it. I would rather be an uncomfortable rebell than a complacent tool. There is also an old Chinese saying: "It is still better to be a (human) member of a poor family than to be the dog of a rich one".

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
You would call my expression of the Good News "arrogance".

Would you prefer if I use the term "delusion"?

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
nihilistic, there is indeed a God, the Father, and He is good, regardless of how angry you are at Him.

I cannot be angry at that which I deem not to exist, but I do feel pity for you for your repeated attempts at the rejection of reason for the sake self assurance when the flaws of your system of believes are pointed out to you:

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
And yes, it is obvious that you are.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
You would call my expression of the Good News "arrogance".

nihilistic, there is indeed a God, the Father, and He is good, regardless of how angry you are at Him. And yes, it is obvious that you are.

Each to their own self-made-world is what I always say.

Let's not all fall out over a concept of a deity, eh, chaps?

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
But such religious ideas are the inventions of mankind in my view, as is the concept of evil.

Precisely to the point.

One could believe in The Books of Dune and worship Sid, seing Deity level as meaning of life, with the same arguments one worships a god invented thousands of years ago.

 

[CurtSibling]

I could burn people at the stake for not worshipping the Easter Bunny.

It's the same thing really.

Millions of people believing in an invention does not make it real...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by nihilistic


I purposely made it as close to your argument as possible to show that approximately the same argument can be used against what you supposedly believe in. It's a completely valid strategy. If your counterarguments are so limited that you have to resort to attacking Copy/Paste, I would like to comment on how original your believes are given that they are copied out of thousand year old texts that have been proven to be mere fantasy again and again.

I generally prefer not to get involved into silly flame wars. This is my answer. Don't take yourself too serious...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52987&pagenumber=2

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
I generally prefer not to get involved into silly flame wars. This is my answer. Don't take yourself too serious...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52987&pagenumber=2

How about trying to think of a counterargument instead of crying wolf everytime your arguments are outmatched? If you can prove that my arguments are not more than silly flames, I'll apologize.

 

[CurtSibling]

Nihilistic has a point.

Revisionism and rose-tinted glasses in regards to many religions and their ideas on society have invalidated their message to me.

Can edicts written for Hebrew shepherds be relevant to a modern day call-centre worker?

I daresay not!

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by nihilistic
so you are saying that god is naive?

No, I think he's saying the man upstairs deliberately made it a chancy thing whether humans would resist evil. Now the question still remains why in Its alleged infinite wisdom and goodness a Deity would not create minds that freely choose to do good.

Because the Deity finds it more exciting that way? But playing dice games with evil doesn't sound like all-good-ness to me.

Because our lives would be boring if our choices were foreseen? Nope, doesn't work -- as finite beings, our choices remain unforeseen to us until we actually make them. Besides which, some of my most exciting actions were follow-throughs on decisions I had long known I would make. Or in other words, that I had made long ago and known I would stick to.

No, the only way to keep away the charge of bad heavenly parenting would be to suppose that free will logically requires that free choices be inherently chancy things. And, no big surprise here, that's exactly what churches have said for a long time.

Too bad it's false.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Ayatollah So
No, I think he's saying the man upstairs deliberately made it a chancy thing whether humans would resist evil.

Suppose you must get vaccinated for ... say ... chickenpox and there are two availble vaccines, Vaccine A and Vaccine B, both for this purpose and both in abundance (the cost of each being 0) nad both equally effective. However, Vaccine A is harmless but Vaccine B has a 50% chance of killing you. If I gave you vaccine B and you died by chance, am I liable? If god gave everybody a chance to commit evil, can he then blame his creations to be all they can be? If you build a bridge with faulty foundations, can you complain when when it collapses?

Besides, it doesn't matter how the game is set up. God's "infinite wisdom" should be able to forsee the outcome anyway. There is no point is surprising itself, since having an infinite wisdom precludes it from not knowing anything.

Originally posted by Ayatollah So
Because our lives would be boring if our choices were foreseen? Nope, doesn't work -- as finite beings,

What do you mean by a "finite being"? If you mean that you have a finite number of cells, composed by a finite numbers of atoms, composed by a finite number of sumatmic particles, each with a finite number of states; therefore being possible to be modeled by a finite state machine as a finite automata with a finite number of outcomes, then I would agree with you. By the way, this also means that all your behaviors can be modeled and predicted.

Originally posted by Ayatollah So
our choices remain unforeseen to us until we actually make them. Besides which, some of my most exciting actions were follow-throughs on decisions I had long known I would make. Or in other words, that I had made long ago and known I would stick to.

I wasn't claiming whether you know your outcome or not. I was claiming that your god woudl know it, and therefore cannot hold you responsible for anything because it was him who made you that way. Can you read?

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by nihilistic

so you are saying that god is naive?

and senile?

and you are a pet?

Wow, god has been proven wrong?

even outright rejected?

So god is wrathful at this own creations, his own failures? Can we call god pathetic now?

Why now, is god repentent of his own errors now?

These are good questions. I think it is pathetic to only reply that this is insulting. Don't misunderstand me, this is insulting, but it is insulting in a constructive way.

God is not naive. He knew perfectly well that humans eventually would eat the forbidden fruit, but if they did not have that option, they would not have been free, and those not really happy.

The same is true today. God knows people will abuse their freedom, but he will not withdraw our freedom, because that would make us no more than his slaves. True happiness requires freedom, and we can't be free without the freedom to be evil. Therefore the existence of evil is a good thing!

God made no mistakes. Most people like to live and have no desire to die as soon as possible. Doesn't that suggest that life is a good thing?

Finally I have to admit something: Life is not a test, it is a gift!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Pikachu
God made no mistakes. Most people like to live and have no desire to die as soon as possible. Doesn't that suggest that life is a good thing?

Finally I have to admit something: Life is not a test, it is a gift!

My friend, you put traits that we evolved with into the hands of a human invention.

We are the products of our own development.
We are animals, we adapt, we fight and we survive.
It has always been this way...Even modern armies and air forces are extensions of this ancient law.

But you are right. Life is a gift.

Don't waste it.

 

[Pikachu]

A gift from whom?

We agree that we are products of our own development, but I think it is rather unlikely that this development is only the product of random events. The fact that we both are here to day is actually statistically impossible. An infinite number of events could have changed this. The probability for that these events did not occur is one to one infinity and equals exactly zero. Of course statistics can not prove anything. All I am saying is that the alternative to God is not likely to be true either.

By the way, do you suggest that being religious is to waste your life?

 

[CurtSibling]

A gift from the bio-sphere called Earth.

I am saying the idea of god is an invention of humankind. Can you prove otherwise?

Additionally: From where did you pluck the idea that I knock your religion, my little Pokemon?

I mean what I say: Don't waste your precious 70-90 years of existance, and enjoy every minute.

Don't be paranoid.

 

[Pikachu]

Of course I can not prove that God exists, but you can not prove your point of view either. If there was any real proof, the fear of God would be overwhelming, and nobody would dare to disobey him. Then there would be no real free will. Life would have been very boring that way.

PS: I got the idea that you might knock the religious way of life because you did write that we should not waste our lives in a post that obviously attacked religion. I am glad you did not mean it that way.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by nihilistic
What do you mean by a "finite being"? If you mean that you have a finite number of cells[...]

All of that, plus the implication that our knowledge is finite.

I wasn't claiming whether you know your outcome or not. I was claiming that your god woudl know it, and therefore cannot hold you responsible for anything because it was him who made you that way. Can you read?

My god? You mean Otis Redding?

Just 'cause I started out by disagreeing with you, doesn't mean I'm spending my whole post disagreeing with you. (Which maybe you're not assuming, but it seems to explain your mistaking my intent.) Actually my main point is to give a better argument against PantheraTigris2 than the one you gave. I think you're not giving that devil his due.

I challenge the Panther (or Pikachu) to explain why exactly free will requires (the chance of) evil. I contend it doesn't.

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Pikachu
A gift from whom?

We agree that we are products of our own development, but I think it is rather unlikely that this development is only the product of random events. The fact that we both are here to day is actually statistically impossible. An infinite number of events could have changed this. The probability for that these events did not occur is one to one infinity and equals exactly zero.

I doubt that anyone ever calculated that. Statistics is a science (though probably my least favourite subject), you can't just use it randomly to support your arguments. Even if something seems obviously very uncertain a closer calculation prooves/rejects this better than just an assumption.

Of course statistics can not prove anything. All I am saying is that the alternative to God is not likely to be true either.

Why do you argue with statistics, if you consider the science misleading?

By the way, do you suggest that being religious is to waste your life?

This was not directed at me, but it's a good question. Off course not. I don't necessarily believe in god, but religion can be productive, it just depends on your interpretation, what god wants from you.

 

[Mojotronica]

Religion is a tool, that may be used for good purposes or bad purposes.

(W/ the caveat that "good" and "bad" are subjective terms.)

Since those w/ a pro-science bent are often atheist or agnostic, religion in W. Civ is basically left for those who are skeptical of the mainstream scientific consensus.

Therefore, religion has developed a reputation -- and it is often the popular perception -- that religion and science are incompatible.

And this attitude has also extended to progressive social agenda.

But it is not necessarily so. I believe that they simply are trying to answer different questions.

My hope is that those who are scientifically and socially progressive will EMBRACE religion, seeking out the ways that it is compatible w/ their secular beliefs.

Then they will usurp the religious authority from those who use it as a cudgel against progressive reform and scientific progress.

Thus, I strive to embrace Christianity in my life, as a means of setting an example. And I have found that it is compatible w/ my core beliefs. In fact, it probably shaped my core beliefs to a greater extent than I realize.

 

[smalltalk]

originally posted my Mojotronica
A friend of mine is angry at God because, he feels, if all good extends from God than so must all evil.

Your friend is right - if the bible is right. One might claim, that all evil comes from Satan, but Satan does not enter the biblical scenery before the Book of Job. The Yahwe of the Genesis and Exodus was a wrathful God. With Gods like these you sure don't need a devil.

Other people have claimed, that God had no chance but to create the world exactly as it is, no other world would have been possible.
Still other people have claimed, that there were a lot of possible worlds and that God in fact had created the best one out of them.

Now lets have a closer look at the incident in paradise:

Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat from the fruit of knowledge. But I often wonder, they couldn't differ between right and wrong from the start, so how should they know that they were commiting the primal sin? Let me bring forth a drastic example: I put some cookies into my dog's napkin and command him not to eat it. As soon as I go out of the room he sure will be over it, and that's it, I kick him out therefore!

And wasn't the snake actually telling the truth, when it said to Eve, she wouldn't die but gain godly powers, if she ate the fruit? Whereas God made it look like she would immedeately drop dead! I also often wonder, why did neither God nor the snake ever mention the tree of live? Precaution, secrecy, double-thoughts, forgettivnes?

These questions are not covered in the bible and it feels to me as if God had no chance to act any other way. He seems to be as surprised from the course of events as we are.

Anyway, this is all talking in a mystical tongue. I'll switch to science garble now.

I think that God IS all. God was one, perfect, complete. But the "creation" was actually more of a splintering.

The universe also is all and everything (some might like to include the multiverse here). The universe is one, perfect in itself, all-embracing. And of course it is splintered into quarks, photons and electrons, into protons and neutrons, into atoms and molecules, cells and anmials, people and cultures.

God empowered individual souls -- splinters of God, that are still part of God -- to have free will. The free will is the source of misery, because we can't see the BIG picture, like God can.

I very much doubt, there is a free will. The macroscopic world - the world of cells and especially brain cells - is deterministic. There is no place on this level of reality where a free will could come from. Perhaps you have heard of this experiment: people are told to raise an arm at a random time. Their brain activity is monitored. There is a rise in activity about 0.5 seconds before the person acknowledges to have made the decision.

Schoppenhauer put it this way: 'You can do what you want, but you can not deliberately want what you want.'

Even if we all saw the big picture, we would still disagree about how it should look like in the end. People will differ about right and wrong as long as people exist. If someday we all perceive the world alike, arrive at the same conclusions, act the same way, then individuality will make no sense no more.

I feel, the source of misery is that we originate from a universe that is utterly unaware of us. The universe does not care if we starve or if we hurt or if we are unhappy. The universe does not have feelings like we mammals do. It has no heart, that can be broken and no eyes to see.

As a biologic race, we have just come down from the trees. We rub our eyes in the faint light of our dawning consciousness. We may ride the subway or even a moon rocket, but we still are partly cave-men or great-apes inside, despite the fancy suits we don.

A literal interpretation [of the bible] will carry you through the motions of salvation, but it will not save you.

I really like this one and could comment about it forever, but I have to stop now and resume with reciting my sutras.