• 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!

Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

darkskies

Active Member
I think your use of the phrase "quite mysterious" implies that there could still be some yet undiscovered quality that goes beyond the mere biological components that we and other animals share. The central nervous system of higher vertebrates is not mysterious, it is complex.
Yes, it does.
And yes, it is complex, but there's enough unknown about the brain's functioning to say that it is mysterious, to some extent.
Yes, there is still a lot we do not know, but that unknown still falls within the confines of the biological capabilities of the cells that make up the central nervous system.
Can you back this up? Because now you're making a claim and there just isn't enough data to go on to reach a conclusion like that. But, I can agree that that is the current working theory, and for good reason too.
Given that we know human beings can engage in self-deception, hallucinate, and be clinically delusional, it is best not to rely solely on our individual, personal perceptions when evaluating questions of the mind.
Sure, so the mind has issues. But it's also the only thing that you can say with certainty, is real. Where does that leave you?

To clarify, my point was to consider that the brain, CNS, and all of human understanding, could be a product of a larger mind. There isn't any good reason to believe this, but when speaking about simulated realities and the like, I am not dismissing it; that is all.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Do you still think I am misrepresenting my argument about 'expectations' of atheists?
No - and I never said that you are misrepresenting your argument.

But you picked a bad example with @A Vestigial Mote. He starts #86 with "I've heard tell that God ...". So he isn't relaying his picture of god but that of another person.

Of course there are some atheists who misrepresent Epicurus' argument or word it poorly - which makes them bad atheists not the argument false. And there was no example of such a bad atheist in this thread until the time I said so.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, it does.
And yes, it is complex, but there's enough unknown about the brain's functioning to say that it is mysterious, to some extent.

Can you back this up? Because now you're making a claim and there just isn't enough data to go on to reach a conclusion like that. But, I can agree that that is the current working theory, and for good reason too.

Sure, so the mind has issues. But it's also the only thing that you can say with certainty, is real. Where does that leave you?

To clarify, my point was to consider that the brain, CNS, and all of human understanding, could be a product of a larger mind. There isn't any good reason to believe this, but when speaking about simulated realities and the like, I am not dismissing it; that is all.

And for others who may be reading along, I am arguing that one should dismiss it.

We human beings have the capacity to imagine just about anything. At some point, we have to be disciplined and begin to evaluate whether what we imagine is probable, even possible, or just imagination. Any question must be evaluated in relation to all available information.

Billions of human observation over thousands of years leaves us quite confident in the external reality of the world. The nature of this reality has not changed in all this time. The sun still rises and sets, gravity has been consistent, and life carries on as we have been observing all this time.

This reality has been chugging along for billions of years before human beings even came on the scene to imagine and speculate. Life was thriving for billions of years before we emerged as a distinct species from progenitor species. And we human beings have been shown to be the same, consistent, emotional, instinctual, fallible creatures we have always been.

So, no, our own individual mind is not the only thing we can be certain is real. That we have the capacity to imagine that reality is all one big computer simulation does not make it a possibility. One must still evaluate it in relation to what we actually know about the world.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
This is logic 101 stuff.
You say this quite often. It is pretty hilarious. As if the amount that YOU think something is "logical" (by which you really mean it makes sense to you) has any bearing on whether or not it is true.

Since God already knows everything, He does not need to be presented with a list of "options that are available to Him." It can be assumed that if God has not chosen any of those options, they are not the BEST options.
Ah, but then the pertinent question becomes "BEST FOR WHOM?"
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You say this quite often. It is pretty hilarious. As if the amount that YOU think something is "logical" (by which you really mean it makes sense to you) has any bearing on whether or not it is true.
I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.

That God exists or that God has certain attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience cannot be proven with a logical argument. Those are beliefs and beliefs can be logical (make sense), but beliefs cannot be proven with a logical argument.
Ah, but then the pertinent question becomes "BEST FOR WHOM?"
Logically speaking, if God created humans (through evolution) and God is omniscient, then and God has to know what is best for ALL humans.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.
Unfortunately, a generally applied statement like "this is logic 101 stuff," would lead one to believe that anyone and everyone would be taught these things as a matter of course in a simple study of logic. Ridiculous.

Logically speaking, if God created humans (through evolution) and God is omniscient, then and God has to know what is best for ALL humans.
But how can we know for certain that the actions He takes (or doesn't take) net out as best for US (we, as humans?) What if, instead, what He decides to engage in is "best for God?" What if it is "best for antelopes?" How would we know the difference? And please do not point me in the direction of "what a book says."
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Unfortunately, a generally applied statement like "this is logic 101 stuff," would lead one to believe that anyone and everyone would be taught these things as a matter of course in a simple study of logic. Ridiculous.
But that is not what I was implying. I was overstating my position in order to make a point.
But how can we know for certain that the actions He takes (or doesn't take) net out as best for US (we, as humans?) What if, instead, what He decides to engage in is "best for God?" What if it is "best for antelopes?" How would we know the difference? And please do not point me in the direction of "what a book says."
I need no book to explain this. God has no needs whatsoever because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, so there is no such thing as what is "best for God." Since God has no needs, everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit, not for God's benefit. God could afford to dispense with all His creatures, IF He did not love and care about them.

We can never know what God does or is doing at any time. All we can ever know about God is revealed in scriptures, and the most up-to-date scriptures are the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
But that is not what I was implying. I was overstating my position in order to make a point.
Overstating your position as in, "exaggerating?" Sort of like one of those lizards who flares out their hood in order to look bigger? That kind of "overstating?"

I need no book to explain this. God has no needs whatsoever because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, so there is no such thing as what is "best for God."
Hmmm... interesting. With "no needs whatsoever" why would He have need to do anything? Apparently you feel that He "needs" to act in a manner that is "best" for [something.] You're the one implying that there is such a "something" when you say that what God does is "best." That word "best" simply MUST be applied to your thoughts from a particular perspective. What benefits from "what is best" according to how God doles it out? And if NOTHING benefits... then I would contend that there is no "good" being done - let alone a "best."

Seems to me you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, and some of the things you said previously to help support the shaft of this hole are starting to topple in on you. No surprise, really. I would imagine it immensely difficult to stay logically consistent with things that are not based on observation, but instead just come from the combined imaginations of yourself and others.

Since God has no needs, everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit, not for God's benefit.
You say "everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit," - is this to imply that we just happen to receive these things, and God isn't really acting purposefully on our behalf? Or do you assert that He does act purposefully on our behalf according to what is "best" for humans? If you state that He does act purposefully on our behalf, again - how can we know this? You didn't really answer that question. You just made more assertions that this is supposedly the case.

God could afford to dispense with all His creatures, IF He did not love and care about them.
This actually hints at a possible answer to my actual question - but I don't think you'd like the implication. That being that we can know that "God does best" for humans, based on the fact that otherwise, He'd most certainly destroy us. And as a related question along that line of thinking - how can we know He isn't already in the process of doing this? Or that He is contemplating it? What holds Him back? Certainly no "need," as you stated definitively that God has no needs. Which would ultimately imply that at any time He could change His mind about doing "what's best" for humans, couldn't He? I am asking you how can we know whether or not that has happened? How can we know He is still acting in "the best" interest of humanity? Simply because He hasn't destroyed us? Is that the best you've got?

We can never know what God does or is doing at any time
Then, again, how can we be sure that anything He is doing is "the best?" And again - I have to assume by the tone of your posts that you necessarily feel that "the best" is what is best for humans, specifically. If not, please clarify. I assert that in order for anything to be considered "best" you must necessarily have a perspective from which a particular thing is judged. Without that perspective, you cannot use the word "best" to any real effect. The "best" thing for me might be food one moment, and water the next, and still in the next moment, oxygen. It takes the perspective of the situation to determine which is most appropriately labeled "best" in any given moment.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.
It can be proven false.
That God exists or that God has certain attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience cannot be proven with a logical argument. Those are beliefs and beliefs can be logical (make sense), but beliefs cannot be proven with a logical argument.
Beliefs can't be proven but some of them can be disproven. When a set of beliefs can be shown to lead to a contradiction, it is false. Logic 101.

I just hope you don't start murdering people when your beliefs are proven false.

 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Can you please explain how a belief can be proven false.
One example is in the video. Pythagoras believed that all relations between numbers can be written as relations of whole numbers. In the video it is shown false by geometric proof, Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia shows the algebraic proof.
Perhaps, but can you show me the contradictions in my beliefs?
I think you found one yourself. If I understood you correctly you no longer believe in an omnibenevolent god because it contradicted your experience.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hmmm... interesting. With "no needs whatsoever" why would He have need to do anything? Apparently you feel that He "needs" to act in a manner that is "best" for [something.] You're the one implying that there is such a "something" when you say that what God does is "best."
I already explained that God does what is best for humans and He does so because he loves us and wants what is best for us. That is no different from what a parent does for his children.
That word "best" simply MUST be applied to your thoughts from a particular perspective. What benefits from "what is best" according to how God doles it out? And if NOTHING benefits... then I would contend that there is no "good" being done - let alone a "best."
I would contend that humanity benefits from what God doles out through His Messengers, but of course people have to partake of what God doles out in order to get the benefits.
You say "everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit," - is this to imply that we just happen to receive these things, and God isn't really acting purposefully on our behalf? Or do you assert that He does act purposefully on our behalf according to what is "best" for humans? If you state that He does act purposefully on our behalf, again - how can we know this? You didn't really answer that question. You just made more assertions that this is supposedly the case.
The ONLY way in which God interacts with humans is by sending Messengers. God purposefully sends Messengers in every age, and they reveal teachings and laws which state the best way to live in this world and the best way to prepare ourselves for the next life in the spiritual world.
This actually hints at a possible answer to my actual question - but I don't think you'd like the implication. That being that we can know that "God does best" for humans, based on the fact that otherwise, He'd most certainly destroy us.
That is not what I said. I said that since God does not need us God could destroy is if He did not love us, but because He loves us He does not destroy us.
And as a related question along that line of thinking - how can we know He isn't already in the process of doing this? Or that He is contemplating it? What holds Him back? Certainly no "need," as you stated definitively that God has no needs.
Why wouldn’t God have already destroyed us if He wanted to, as He has had plenty of time since we were created? I just explained that God does not destroy us because God loves us. Why the heck would God create us if he did not love us, given He does not need us? Hopefully human parents have children because they plan to love and care for them.

You are forcing me to bring out the big guns, which will hopefully get my point across in the fewest words possible.

This is Baha’u’llah speaking to humans on behalf of God:

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.


The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4
Which would ultimately imply that at any time He could change His mind about doing "what's best" for humans, couldn't He? I am asking you how can we know whether or not that has happened? How can we know He is still acting in "the best" interest of humanity? Simply because He hasn't destroyed us? Is that the best you've got?
Why worry about what has never happened throughout human history? Why would God suddenly do an about face and destroy all humans? You might believe that if you are a Christian, but that is based upon a misinterpretation of the Bible….. God never had any such plans.

The best I have got is that in every age God does change His mind about what is best for humans because He reveals a new message which is different from what He revealed in the previous age’ but it is for our benefit that God does this because human needs change from age to age, and the problems in the world vary for age to age.
Then, again, how can we be sure that anything He is doing is "the best?" And again - I have to assume by the tone of your posts that you necessarily feel that "the best" is what is best for humans, specifically. If not, please clarify.
Of course that is what I mean, although there are some religious teachings that address what is best for animals.
I assert that in order for anything to be considered "best" you must necessarily have a perspective from which a particular thing is judged. Without that perspective, you cannot use the word "best" to any real effect.
As I said before God is All-Knowing and God created humans so God knows what is best for humans. As a human I am not All-Knowing so I cannot know what is best for me.
The "best" thing for me might be food one moment, and water the next, and still in the next moment, oxygen. It takes the perspective of the situation to determine which is most appropriately labeled "best" in any given moment.
That reflects what I just said above – what is best for humans varies from age to age, and that is why what was revealed in older scriptures such as the Bible is no longer what is best.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
One example is in the video. Pythagoras believed that all relations between numbers can be written as relations of whole numbers. In the video it is shown false by geometric proof, Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia shows the algebraic proof.
I do not see how that related to religious beliefs being proven false. To prove my beliefs are false you would have to prove there is no God and Baha'u'llah is not a Messenger of God.
I think you found one yourself. If I understood you correctly you no longer believe in an omnibenevolent god because it contradicted your experience.
But that is not a contradiction within my beliefs. In other words, none of my religious beliefs contradict each other. That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I do not see how that related to religious beliefs being proven false.
Religious believes get no special treatment in logic. And for Pythagoras it may have been a religious belief.
To prove my beliefs are false you would have to prove there is no God and Baha'u'llah is not a Messenger of God.
No, it would be sufficient to prove one or the other. It would even be sufficient to show that they can't be true at the same time, thus disproving neither.
But that is not a contradiction within my beliefs. In other words, none of my religious beliefs contradict each other. That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.
It is.
 

darkskies

Active Member
At some point, we have to be disciplined and begin to evaluate whether what we imagine is probable, even possible, or just imagination. Any question must be evaluated in relation to all available information.
That's the thing though- we simply cannot use reality to prove itself. But to understand it, sure. Which is what we're doing.

If the reality you experience is under scrutiny, then using it to justify anything we "know" would be clearly circular.

That we have the capacity to imagine that reality is all one big computer simulation does not make it a possibility
I kinda agree. Maybe it doesn't entail possibility, if it is something unfalsifiable or similar to that. It would make no difference whatsoever, no true distinction between reality and non-reality in the mind I speak of. Perhaps you are right.
 

darkskies

Active Member
Beliefs can't be proven but some of them can be disproven. When a set of beliefs can be shown to lead to a contradiction, it is false. Logic 101.
Beliefs cannot be proven or given truth values. They either point to facts or they don't. You're confusing the two.
e.g. If there's a contradiction, then those beliefs might be 'unwarranted' or the person might be 'cognitively dissonant'.
 

darkskies

Active Member
That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.
I have a question. Does the Baha'i Faith teach of an all-good god? Not omnibenevolent, all-good (or all-giving, "just").
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Simplistic thoughts basic.

Common concept words closest to one as possible. To advise an ego eccentric human it's truth versus every bad choice ever made.

His story. My man story quotes the greater ego.

King. High priest scientist satanist. Thinker for destruction against God existing.

A basic truth.

King and Queen selves head of human family. Forgot who they worked for.

God concept a stone planet. Human not there.

Heavens all thoughts. I am not there. Wait a minute I am the abstracted thinker.fake God position.

Life recorded by multi adult male father human lived. Expressed recorded living record heavens.

I thought I was God.

God the body survived the attack science forced on it.

I am not God. No wonder I suffered. No wonder I believe I deserved it as the thinker storyteller concept.

As your victim science brother I never agreed with the story karma.
 
Top