[Copernicus'] Firm Conviction That God Does Not Exist (response thread)

[Willamena]

The point is that if God exists and he is omnipotent, then he could a) stop evil from ever occurring, or b) have created a universe where evil was unnecessary/did not exist.

Actually, this argument is based on the notion that "God" is an agency, which isn't necessarily the best case.

It is a song composed by contemplation,
And published by silence,
And shunned by clamor,
And folded by truth,
And repeated by dreams,
And understood by love,
And hidden by awakening,
And sung by the soul.

 

[Storm]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to rephrase that as "unless my interpretation of experiences such as mine is correct"? The way you wrote it originally, it sounds like you're taking it as given that you're unimpeachably right.

It wouldn't, actually, but I didn't mean to imply that, either. What I meant was, any interpretation that comes up "God," regardless of the inevitable cultural baggage. To my knowledge, that's the vast majority of interpretations. Does that make sense? I'm not quite awake yet....

 

[Falvlun]

The point is that if God exists and he is omnipotent, then he could a) stop evil from ever occurring, or b) have created a universe where evil was unnecessary/did not exist.

This would violate free will, a fundamental aspect of many religions.

I could see how (a) could violate freewill, but I do not see how (b) would.

Actually, this argument is based on the notion that "God" is an agency, which isn't necessarily the best case.

What exactly do you mean by an "agency"?

Even if God chooses not to exert his power and influence, despite omnipotence, he/she/it still could have.

By choosing non-action in the face of evil the "force" would show itself to be ambivalent at best, and malevolent at worse.

It is a song composed by contemplation,
And published by silence,
And shunned by clamor,
And folded by truth,
And repeated by dreams,
And understood by love,
And hidden by awakening,
And sung by the soul.

I like this. What does "it" refer to, we wonders?

 

[Willamena]

What exactly do you mean by an "agency"?

Even if God chooses not to exert his power and influence, despite omnipotence, he/she/it still could have.

That's what I mean by "agency". Action with an implied entity behind it. One alternative image is that "God" is everything, which necessarily means that "God" is the choosing, the exerting, the influencing, etc. (The "song" being written.)

By choosing non-action in the face of evil the "force" would show itself to be ambivalent at best, and malevolent at worse.

How could choosing be malevolent when "choosing" is an expression of one's self?

 

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Falvlun
The point is that if God exists and he is omnipotent, then he could a) stop evil from ever occurring, or b) have created a universe where evil was unnecessary/did not exist.


This would violate free will, a fundamental aspect of many religions.

Apex, I believe that it is mainly Christians who are preoccupied with the Free Will Defense. My short response to your post is "No, it does not." The long response gets us into those many endless debate threads in which we go back and forth over what we mean by the expression "free will" and whether or not it is indeed the desirable "gift" that is said to be and whether or not it is even possible for omniscience and free will to coexist.

 

[McBell]

This would violate free will, a fundamental aspect of many religions.

How?
How does not having an option even known to you violate your free will?
I fail to see how it can.

 

[McBell]

Apex, I believe that it is mainly Christians who are preoccupied with the Free Will Defense. My short response to your post is "No, it does not." The long response gets us into those many endless debate threads in which we go back and forth over what we mean by the expression "free will" and whether or not it is indeed the desirable "gift" that is said to be and whether or not it is even possible for omniscience and free will to coexist.

I agree.
It seems that far to many people fall back on "free will" as an automatic fail safe response.

 

[Willamena]

How?
How does not having an option even known to you violate your free will?
I fail to see how it can.

To some, "free will" literally means the ability to choose good over evil (stemming, no doubt, from the myth of Adam and Eve).

 

[McBell]

To some, "free will" literally means the ability to choose good over evil (stemming, no doubt, from the myth of Adam and Eve).

I understand that.
However, it does not answer the question.

 

[Willamena]

I understand that.
However, it does not answer the question.

Sorry.

No "evil", hence no opportunity to choose good over evil, hence no "free will".

 

[McBell]

Sorry.

No "evil", hence no opportunity to choose good over evil, hence no "free will".

That makes sense.
However, who's definition/brand/flavour/type/etc. of evil are we talking about?

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry.

No "evil", hence no opportunity to choose good over evil, hence no "free will".

Willamena, have you ever read Mark Twain's The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg? It's required for all who would take the position that the opportunity to disobey God is what it's all about, not that it makes any sense for an omniscient being to be conducting experiments and tests.

 

[Falvlun]

That's what I mean by "agency". Action with an implied entity behind it. One alternative image is that "God" is everything, which necessarily means that "God" is the choosing, the exerting, the influencing, etc. (The "song" being written.)

Ok. I think I understand what you are saying. It's just hard for me to apply a God label to such a (non)entity. So god is everything, no agency...

But... that would make evil god and god evil.

And... supposing that God doesn't have agency, but is omnipotent, well then, he could make himself have agency and then abolish evil.

Additionally... the religions who do have Gods with agency are still presented with the problem of evil.

How could choosing be malevolent when "choosing" is an expression of one's self?

If I were a sociopath, and killed Lucy, would I not be malevolent even though murder was just an expression of myself?

To some, "free will" literally means the ability to choose good over evil (stemming, no doubt, from the myth of Adam and Eve).

Hm. That seems to be a bit circular. It's like saying that the sky is blue, and God couldn't have made it green, because the sky is blue.

In our current universe, yes, perhaps good will is so narrowly defined as the ability to choose between good and evil. But the whole point of the problem of evil is to suppose a different universe in which evil doesn't have to exist... which would mean that the definition for free will would necessarily change as well.

By saying that evil is necessary for free-will, they are just digging a deeper hole for their God.

 

[Willamena]

That makes sense.
However, who's definition/brand/flavour/type/etc. of evil are we talking about?

Well, the context in which evil makes the most sense to me is, of course, the symbolic, the proclaimed "separation from God" (vs "being with God"). Humans are "separate from God" by way of how they imagine themselves to be (literally, "I am").

Willamena, have you ever read Mark Twain's The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg? It's required for all who would take the position that the opportunity to disobey God is what it's all about, not that it makes any sense for an omniscient being to be conducting experiments and tests.

It doesn't have to be about "experiments and tests", literalized myths or anthropomorphized religious icons. Being "separate from God" (evil) can be no more complex than being separated from the universe via the split-reality "model" or paradigm (and hence restoring unity with God in awakening from that paradigm, i.e. "finding God").

Ok. I think I understand what you are saying. It's just hard for me to apply a God label to such a (non)entity. So god is everything, no agency...

But... that would make evil god and god evil.

Only in as far as "evil" is an idea we've conjured up to explailn things away. If we look at their apparent nature (the image-of-a-thing nature) does it really reflect the thing we are looking at? Is Hitler's Germany "evil" in nature, or is it actually only Hilter's Germany in nature? See, these are the tricks we play on ourselves (the Fool). We unthinkingly allow things ("evil") to exist that are fallacies of perspective and errors of judgement, essentially mistakes (the "take" of a thing that's a "miss").

And... supposing that God doesn't have agency, but is omnipotent, well then, he could make himself have agency and then abolish evil.

Additionally... the religions who do have Gods with agency are still presented with the problem of evil.

The phrase "he could make himself" is already an expression of agency .
(Incidentally, we, too, "make ourselves", this thing we call "I". Our own agency is a fallacy of perspective --an idea intregal to Eastern religions.)

If I were a sociopath, and killed Lucy, would I not be malevolent even though murder was just an expression of myself?

You'd also have agency. If we free ourselves of the paradigm that allows agency to keep us separate from the world, and instead live as the world (a discussion for another thread), then the reason we have to "kill" would be seen for illusion, because we'd see Lucy for only what she is in nature --hence the objection to killing even a bug in, for instance, Buddhism.

Incidentally, that also explains in part why much of Buddhism appears, superficially, to be about calming and freeing oneself of emotions. Too, that's why "love" is considered our ultimate expression, by some (perhaps most). "True love" is that love that sees past the illusions. Hopefully, if we truly love Lucy we would not kill her.

Hm. That seems to be a bit circular. It's like saying that the sky is blue, and God couldn't have made it green, because the sky is blue.

In our current universe, yes, perhaps good will is so narrowly defined as the ability to choose between good and evil. But the whole point of the problem of evil is to suppose a different universe in which evil doesn't have to exist... which would mean that the definition for free will would necessarily change as well.

By saying that evil is necessary for free-will, they are just digging a deeper hole for their God.

From my thinking, this universe is the one we have to deal with, this one that exists and whose nature we should be attempting to describe in myth. Adam and Eve's choice was not good/bad but "live in the Garden"/"live separate from the Garden". Symbolically, "in the Garden" is "with God", free of illusions, in eternity. (Forever walking beside that ocean.)

The paradigm that suggests to us that we are thought, that thought is not real, that really-real is "out there", outside thought, is what the myth describes. To me.

The whole "problem of evil" right down from Epicurus' poem (which in some lights can be seen as rhetoric rather than criticism) fallaciously transmits the idea that it's about good/bad, "oh lucky me"/"oh poor me", when it doesn't have to be about that.

 

[logician]

I don't see why an unwillingness to prevent suffering would automatically imply malevolence. .

It certainly doesn't imply benevolence. There is a much stronger implication of "randomness", or the lack of any kind of god or order behind things.

 

[Bishadi]

Nice quote. Sophistry, but a nice quote. However it's not a competition, is it? You don't believe in God - Fine, if that fits you then I'm happy for you.
Do you think it makes you superior to those who do?

If a person is representing 'honestly' over a person lying to maintain a belief; then you damn right the honest is FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR superior!

ALL CASES!

The rule of "thou shalt not lie" is beyond belief! :angel2: