1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's Non-absence

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Ostronomos, Nov 27, 2021.

  1. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    497
    Ratings:
    +125
    Religion:
    None
    "Too many times is God absent"

    In actuality he is nowhere absent. S is distributed over S. This is how the self is S, and since nowhere is S absent, He must be in me. And He is therefore "I" as spirit and non-"I", or "God" and non-"God" merged to become the one that distributes over the one. Reality being defined according to God. As I already explained, evil does not exist, it is the absence of God in man's heart, God is love, consciousness, and good, therefore a flicker of that candle in the dark can illuminate and destroy what is false/concept/ false concept/object/actual lies and/or misunderstandings of reality. And even in this misunderstanding, can I be aware now of that. Forgive my misunderstanding, but you are not "God" if you are evil, as God is the light in your darkness that illuminates you and reveals himself that is one self. I am that light which shines in darkness. I am the love that fills the coldest heart. I am the goodness that transcends all "evil:' I am the one who is not separate from everything and everyone.

    Who are you?

    I wrote the above when I was the smartest person in History for half hour in 2007.

    It was based on a quote by Einstein which went as follows:

    quote:

    A university professor challenged his class: "Did God
    create everything?" A student replied, "Yes." The professor
    continued: "If God created everything, then He created evil
    too. And since our works define who we are, then God is
    evil." The class became silent. Suddenly another student
    raised his hand and asked, "Professor, does darkness
    exist?" The professor responded, "Yes." The student
    replied, "No, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is
    just the absence of light. Light, we can study, but not
    darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break the
    white light into many colors and study the various
    wavelengths of each color. But you cannot measure darkness.
    A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness
    and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain
    space is? You measure the amount of light present. Darkness
    is a term used by man to describe what happens when there
    is no light present." Then the young man asked, "Sir, does
    evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of
    course." To this the student replied, "No, evil does not
    exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. It
    is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness, a
    word that man has created to describe the absence of light.
    God did not create evil. It is the result of what happens
    when man does not have God's love present in his heart.
    Evil is like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or
    the darkness that comes when there is no light." The
    professor sat down. The young man's name was Albert
    Einstein.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    20,077
    Ratings:
    +9,992
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    I think this quote refers to all those times when humans called out for God's help, and their cries went unanswered.

    There are a number of philosophical and theological responses available to those who find themselves in this predicament, but they aren't looking for a philosophical or theological response. They are looking for real, actual, help.
     
  3. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    9,525
    Ratings:
    +6,716
    Religion:
    Judaism
    And this ^^ is where non-duality fails for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,625
    Ratings:
    +17,787
    Religion:
    Sufism
    Not sure you can call you self "world smartest person ever" when it is a drug involved to get you,"smart"
    Just try to be you as the normal you.
     
  5. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    40,401
    Ratings:
    +17,621
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Einstiens letter, years later to philosopher Eric Gutkind.....

    " I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

    ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

    In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

    Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

    With friendly thanks and best wishes,
    Yours, A. Einstein"
     
  6. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    497
    Ratings:
    +125
    Religion:
    None
    Yes Einstein fell victim to atheistic ignorance in old age.
     
  7. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    2,052
    Ratings:
    +864
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Define "good."
     
  8. Ostronomos

    Ostronomos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    497
    Ratings:
    +125
    Religion:
    None
    Although we have an instinctive idea of what makes "good" good and "bad" bad, there is the absolute versus relative argument. We understand that by benefitting the group and society can we benefit ourselves, but when it comes to extreme examples of good and evil the concept is not so clear. Throughout history there have been tyrants who committed genocide at the push of a button. Whether they can be defined as good or evil depends on their actions. However, we are defined by not only what we do, but our programming as well. The human brain can be programmed to express pure negativity or pure goodness (if possible) whether their appearance is obvious or not. Evil can exist as a concept alone which is malleable to destruction. If evil is an absence then good or God is a non-absence.
     
  9. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +3,892
    Religion:
    none
    This appears to be entirely fictitious: Did Albert Einstein Humiliate an Atheist Professor?
     
  10. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,450
    Ratings:
    +3,229
    This is a less sophisticated rehash of Augustine of Hippo's argument of evil.

    I think this fails on several levels, because we do not consider an evil act to be an act that lacks a good substance, but an act that creates harm and suffering - which cannot be explained away as the absence of non-harm or non-suffering.

    So if we take evil to not mean a substance or physical trait of a being, but an ethical judgement based on the harm caused by acts made by willed agents, then evil does indeed exist separately from good - if not as its own thing, then at the very least as a point on a spectrum between actions that wholly cause harm and nothing but harm, and actions that are only good.
     
  11. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    Who is this "we"? To me it is painfully obvious that evil is a "deprivation of a due good."

    What are the other levels on which this fails?
     
  12. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,450
    Ratings:
    +3,229
    I was using the majestic plural.

    How does harm deprive anybody of the substance of good?
    Can you walk me through the philosophical argument you are basing this claim on?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    I am not sure what you mean by "the substance of good." Either way, harm (speaking of knowingly chosen human acts) deprives of due good like starving one's children deprives them of health.

    I think I told you before (although due to certain events on these forums the view has changed slightly) but after considering myself and the usage of the words I thing "good" and "being" are interchangeable and lacks or willed deprivations or otherwise caused lacks and deprivations are what is called evil. That's one of the routes I currently follow.
     
    #13 Lain, Dec 11, 2021
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2021
  14. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,450
    Ratings:
    +3,229
    I mean that the Augustine argument hinges on the existence of a metaphysical good that exists separately from good deeds or their moral judgement by individuals or societies.

    You need to define said "due good" before you can claim that anybody is deprived of it. What "due good" is a harmful act depriving people of? What is a hurt person lacking in that an unhurt person has aplenty?

    If existence is intrinsically good, then everything that exists is by definition good, and everything that does not exist is by definition evil. I don't see how we arrive at harm as deprivation of good from this. If good is existence and vice versa, then what does harm deprive people of? Can harm even exist?

    If I'm in pain, then what am I feeling if my pain does not exist?


    (As an aside, if evil does not exist, then the devil, temptation and corruption are also not real and do not exist, and are mere follies in the minds of the misguided, no more real than fever dreams or unicorns. Which I find rather ironic if we look back at the very first debate we two had on RF.)
     
  15. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    "Due good" can differ depending on the thing, and I need to work on defining that more precisely, for I am unable to do so with the exactness it deserves now. For instance I would say a healthy dog has four legs, and if they lacked two then that would be evil, and a deprivation of what the thing should be, yet if asked "why should a dog have four legs?" I do not know how to respond other than "that's it's nature" which satisfies no one except those who already agree with me.

    Demons are real intrinsically good beings to me.

    As for temptation, the passions exist and are intrinsically good (the Lord Jesus had them) it is simply that they are corrupted, meaning in us they lack some good they have. They exist in this sense I believe: a man with a limp. His leg exists, he exists, it is simply broken and defective. This does not mean "broken" and "defective" reflects some real existence separate from him but describe the existence of his leg being less than it ought to be, but gaps, evil-of-the-gaps one might say. When this is sensed it is called evil, but this goes right back to the question of "due good," for there is a sense that something should be there which is not there, and this needs answering: why do we think things should be there or have this idea of how they should be.
     
  16. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,450
    Ratings:
    +3,229
    @Lain
    I think you are running into a categorial error when you equate a broken leg with a harmful act, and I question your characterization of the former as "evil"; if that is what your notion of evil encompasses, then I don't think we can continue our debate, as this is so far outside my own value system that I don't think I could meaningfully contribute to that discussion.
     
  17. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    8,936
    Ratings:
    +6,194
    Religion:
    It exists
    Question... You said...
    "For instance I would say a healthy dog has four legs, and if they lacked two then that would be evil"

    What or who caused that evil?
     
  18. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    I am not equating them, evil to me is a deprivation of due good although in very different senses which should not be equated. There is natural evil, for instance: a tsunami destroying plant-life is evil in a sense as it causes non-being in those plants. There is moral evil which is caused by moral agents which is very different, for instance the Holocaust to me is evil in a moral sense. There are probably other types as well. I am (attempting to) consider evil in the most abstract way possible.
     
  19. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    "What or who" depends. Someone may have cut the legs of their dog off, or perhaps the dog was born without them, a defect in it's generation.
     
  20. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,450
    Ratings:
    +3,229
    I think your notion is too abstract because that definition leads us to some very bizzarre places and far away from what I think is the core of the issue, that is, morality and moral judgement.
    EDIT: To whit:

    Those are wildly different situations with wildly different moral connotations, which I think is the key element of our dissonance here. I would argue that it would be absurd to categorize a dog born without legs as evil, unless we assign moral agency to genetics.
     
Loading...