Why should we care?

[osgart]

I really don't think allmighty fear of God makes a person any more virtuous.

You hear that ' fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ' from The Bible.

Now I wonder does that mean that fear produces love?

And what exactly is the power, authority, and qualities of the One to be feared?

To me fear is a paralyzing force. Wouldn't it be better to have reason and evidence, and proof for justification?

 

[Nimos]

Not that I wish to write a book in this thread detailing this well established defences against the problem of evil.

I would love to hear that, I haven't stumbled on any yet and I have really looked for it? Do you have a link to it or some information about it? Would really like to see that.

 

[Nimos]

Do you care about what your family thinks, or your friends, or your neighbours, or your colleagues? Of course the answer may be "no", in which case you're unlikely to care about a god either.

But I think that is different. None of them promise a life after death for eternity and they are physical humans that I can interact with.

I think that make a rather huge difference.

So I obviously care about what they think, but only within a certain limit.

 

[Galateasdream]

I would love to hear that, I haven't stumbled on any yet and I have really looked for it? Do you have a link to it or some information about it? Would really like to see that.

It might be appropriate in future threads

If you're very curious right away, a google such for the Plantinga Free Will defence, or Hicks Soul-Making theodicy, would be a good start.

 

[Nimos]

It might be appropriate in future threads

If you're very curious right away, a google such for the Plantinga Free Will defence, or Hicks Soul-Making theodicy, would be a good start.

Cheers I will look into that

 

[robocop (actually)]

If we assume that whatever God one believe in is true and have created everything.

Why should we care about what that God think, so from a human or personal point of view, why would you care about what your God thinks?

The reason I ask this is, because what do one gain from it or what do one try to achieve by it. Because if its about hope of living forever, could one not argue that. The reason people care, is out of fear rather than good?

Also as an atheist myself, I obviously do not care about a God, yet I consider my self a rather decent human being, meaning I don't intentional try to hurt others etc. So if its about doing or being a good human being, that is perfectly possible as a non believer.

So again, think it could be interesting to hear why religious people care about what their God think?

The world could get better for humanity or worse. It's harder to make it better. You don't have to care.

 

[Nimos]

It might be appropriate in future threads

If you're very curious right away, a google such for the Plantinga Free Will defence, or Hicks Soul-Making theodicy, would be a good start.

I found this video with Alvin Plantinga and looked into the Hicks soul-making theodicy as well.

But I almost instantly ran into issues, especially in regards to the example I used.

We are not talking about free will here, neither the parents nor the child are expressing any form of free will or said in another way they are merely experiencing an event for which they had no moral choice to make.

This is what I would refer to as natural evil, comparable to that of an earthquake, tsunami etc. Neither Plantinga nor Hicks seems to supply an answer or solution in regards to this?

Secondly, both Hicks and Plantinga play with the idea that you need evil in order for us to know good. And Plantinga even throws out the idea that maybe God can't make a world where there is no evil due to free will.

Now this obviously create a lot of other problems. Because if that is true, then clearly the bible is lying about Heaven, when it say that people will experience no evil or harm there.

Besides that I don't think any reasonable argument for why evil is needed in order to know good is given in the first place?

Most people live every single day without any problems and without having to do evil. I can't remember the last time I have done anything, I would call remotely evil. So if the majority of people can live day in and day out, without ever doing evil, then why would evil be required in the first place?

 

[Galateasdream]

We are not talking about free will here, neither the parents nor the child are expressing any form of free will or said in another way they are merely experiencing an event for which they had no moral choice t

Indeed, the FWD can only work in regard to 'natural' evil if one also either
a) extends it to cosmic warfare theodicy and holds satanic forces accountable for so damaging a perfect creation the evil becomes possible or directly causing the evil
Or
b) believing that freewill requires a universe fine-tuned such as ours, so that natural evil is an unavoidable side-effect consequence of having human level consciousness

In Hicks soul making theodicy, natural evil is permitted as:
a) a necessary element in allowing development of virtue (ie no pain, no virtues of love, endurance, courage, patience, co-operation, etc)
And
b) Epistemic distance (making the non-existence of God theoretically possible and plausible) so as to allow for practical freewill

This might be another starting point, though that closer to truth interview is a great one:

 

[BilliardsBall]

If we assume that whatever God one believe in is true and have created everything.

Why should we care about what that God think, so from a human or personal point of view, why would you care about what your God thinks?

The reason I ask this is, because what do one gain from it or what do one try to achieve by it. Because if its about hope of living forever, could one not argue that. The reason people care, is out of fear rather than good?

Also as an atheist myself, I obviously do not care about a God, yet I consider my self a rather decent human being, meaning I don't intentional try to hurt others etc. So if its about doing or being a good human being, that is perfectly possible as a non believer.

So again, think it could be interesting to hear why religious people care about what their God think?

If you're an atheist who doesn't care, why should I share my thoughts with you?

" " why are you at RF, contributing, asking questions? To prove "you don't care"? Your post shows you DO CARE. Perhaps you secretly desire to be converted or re-converted?

 

[Nimos]

Indeed, the FWD can only work in regard to 'natural' evil if one also either
a) extends it to cosmic warfare theodicy and holds satanic forces accountable for so damaging a perfect creation the evil becomes possible or directly causing the evil

This argument I think run into huge issues straight away in regards to natural evil. First of all a lot of these like earthquakes for instant happens due to where the tectonic plates meet or interact. So at least to me, it seems unlikely to blame that on satanic forces as the approach to some degree seems beneficial for Earth it self, just not humans. But also why would these not be everywhere on Earth, for instant where I live we rarely have earthquakes and they are so small that you wouldn't notice them.

And I think one could make that argument for all the other natural disasters as well. If the satanic forces could do these things with the purpose of hurting humans, then why not have constant earthquakes and tsunamis?

Also it doesn't explain why God doesn't just stop them, God should just as easy as he can create the universe, be able to win over these satanic forces. From the description of God, it just doesn't seem to fit very well.

b) believing that freewill requires a universe fine-tuned such as ours, so that natural evil is an unavoidable side-effect consequence of having human level consciousness

I don't see the connection between freewill and a fine tuned universe? Again especially in regards to natural evil, it seems very unimportant in regards to freewill, when these two doesn't really interact with each other. Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

In Hicks soul making theodicy, natural evil is permitted as:
a) a necessary element in allowing development of virtue (ie no pain, no virtues of love, endurance, courage, patience, co-operation, etc)

I think my main issue with this, is that it seems to work off an assumption that one just have to accept. Again I don't think that it have been well established that natural evil is required for any of these things. Im from Denmark and when it comes to natural evils, besides diseases, there is none of that here. There is an occasional storm, but nothing that one would consider evil. Yet we are fully capable of experience all these things. I think one would somehow have to demonstrate this?

b) Epistemic distance (making the non-existence of God theoretically possible and plausible) so as to allow for practical freewill

This could be, I would probably find it a slightly strange argument. Especially because the majority of the bible, especially the OT tells its story with God being right there interacting with people who also have free will. Adam and Eve, if one believe that, basically lived with God for who know how long having free will, just not knowing the difference between good and evil. So at least based on the bible, nothing seems to suggest that this would be a requirement or did I misunderstand you?

 

[Nimos]

If you're an atheist who doesn't care, why should I share my thoughts with you?

" " why are you at RF, contributing, asking questions? To prove "you don't care"? Your post shows you DO CARE. Perhaps you secretly desire to be converted or re-converted?

You don't have to share your thoughts if you don't want. Its not a requirement.

I simply think its interesting hearing other peoples opinions about these things. No different than I would ask questions about morality.

Last I checked there were a lot of non Christians here as well, like Buddhists which many are also atheists, so should they stop posting as well? or what about the Muslims?

Besides that shouldn't you be grateful for us atheists to be here, as it makes it easier for you? Didn't Jesus say to spread the word to the rest of the world? Paul to the gentiles etc. etc.

 

[Galateasdream]

it seems unlikely to blame that on satanic forces as the approach to some degree seems bene

You're not going back far enough with satanic influence. Think affecting the laws of physics towards entropy, rather than direct causation. See Greg Boyd's cosmic warfare theodicy here.

If the satanic forces could do these things with the purpose of hurting humans, then why not have constant earthquakes and tsunamis?

Depends upon their ability to influence in the cosmic warfare. I mean, think of the amount of non-direct influence human activity has upon global warming etc - maybe it's similar inthe spiritual realm. Note, one doesn't have to believe any of this for the FWD to work - merely the idea that a plausible morally sufficient reason to allow natural evil is enough to defeat the PoE philosophically. Which is why most philosophers, even atheist ones, think it is a failed argument against God's existence.

why God doesn't just stop them

FWD. Same reason he doesn't stop murderers. Freewill requires consequence, otherwise it isn't meaningful freewill.

the connection between freewill and a fine tuned universe?

The idea is that the laws of physics that give rise to conscious humans are the same laws that give rise to disease and volcanoes - same laws. Can't have one without another. Consider - what laws of physics would you have to allow consciousness but not earthquakes?

Especially because the majority of the bible, especially the OT

I'd put aside the bible for a philosophical discussion.

But again, I don't really want to do a bad job at trying to deal with a massively complex topic on this thread.

 

[Nimos]

Note, one doesn't have to believe any of this for the FWD to work - merely the idea that a plausible morally sufficient reason to allow natural evil is enough to defeat the PoE philosophically. Which is why most philosophers, even atheist ones, think it is a failed argument against God's existence.

I know and I do approach it as such. If the argument is solid, ones belief shouldn't matter. I have no idea if Alvin or Hitch are even religious or not, and is of no importance to me.

And I completely agree with you, that evil in it self is not an argument against the existence of God. Personally I see no issue with God being slightly evil and yet existing. My issue is whether one could call him all good or not, in regards to morality. If we were discussing that. But would never say that evil disproof God.

You're not going back far enough with satanic influence. Think affecting the laws of physics towards entropy, rather than direct causation. See Greg Boyd's cosmic warfare theodicy here.

Ill admit that, I have never really heard about this satanic warfare that you are talking about. So will look into that.

FWD. Same reason he doesn't stop murderers. Freewill requires consequence, otherwise it isn't meaningful freewill.

Im not sure I follow that logic. So let me ask another way.

Would you consider freewill limited or non existing, if there were only natural evil? or does the ability to harm others directly need to be there to have freewill?

And if so are natural evil different from direct evil or what to say?

The idea is that the laws of physics that give rise to conscious humans are the same laws that give rise to disease and volcanoes - same laws. Can't have one without another. Consider - what laws of physics would you have to allow consciousness but not earthquakes?

I think it depends. If I were God and had the ability to create as described in the bible, then im not sure I would see the need for making volcanoes or earthquakes. Could one not imagine that these are not necessarily connected, by making the physical laws work differently?

 

[Galateasdream]

in it self is not an argument against the existence of God. Personally I see no issue with God bei

To be clear, by God I mean a omnibenevolent being. Most philosophers believe the PoE doesn't disprove a omnibenevolent God. I agree with them.

Would you consider freewill limited or non existing, if there were only natural evil? or does the ability to harm others directly need to be there to have freewill?

The existence of natural evil doesn't affect beliefs about the existence of freewill. I believe in freewill, which in turn creates the problem of moral evil. The existence of natural evil creates its own problem. They are only connected in such that the existence of freewill might also be used to explain natural evil, by one or other method.

by making the physical laws work differently?

Omnipotence only means the ability to do the logically possible. So it would have to be argued or shown how the laws could be different so as to achieve human consciousness without any form of suffering. I don't think such can be shown. It seems inconconcievable to have any non-divine consciousness, especially with moral accountability, without also having suffering.

 

[Nakosis]

what do you consider strong motivation to live a moral life?



does that negate the intention of seemingly Good Behavior and Standards of the Bible? People have justified bad behavior because that is what we want to do.

Not sure who you are responding to but...

I see happiness as being a strong motivation to live a "moral" life. If you consider a moral life being one of mutual cooperation.

 

[Nimos]

To be clear, by God I mean a omnibenevolent being. Most philosophers believe the PoE doesn't disprove a omnibenevolent God. I agree with them.

To me it depends if one also claim that he is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If that is the case I would disagree. I don't think one could make a good argument for that being the case, compared to making one for it to not really hold up.

The existence of natural evil doesn't affect beliefs about the existence of freewill. I believe in freewill, which in turn creates the problem of moral evil. The existence of natural evil creates its own problem. They are only connected in such that the existence of freewill might also be used to explain natural evil, by one or other method.

Just so I understand you correctly.

The natural evil might be due to the satanic forces?

Moral evil is a consequence of God giving us freewill, so freewill create evil or have the potential to?

Omnipotence only means the ability to do the logically possible.

As above, I would agree if God is not said to be omniscient as well.

So it would have to be argued or shown how the laws could be different so as to achieve human consciousness without any form of suffering. I don't think such can be shown. It seems inconconcievable to have any non-divine consciousness, especially with moral accountability, without also having suffering.

I think that would be to shift the burden of proof. Because wouldn't I be in good right, to first demand that you proof that God does not have the power to have done it in some other way?

Or said in another way, that you proof that these restrictions applies to God. And obviously one can quickly figure out, that we will eventually end up with me saying, that you claim that God exists so the burden of proof is on you and not me.

 

[Galateasdream]

To me it depends if one also claim that he is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If that is the case I would disagree. I don't think one could make a good argument for that being the case, compared to making one for it to not really hold up.

Fair enough. But most philosophers think that omniscience has to go with omnipotence (can't really have one without the other) and that the PoE is a dead duck when it comes to arguing against God. All you need for the LPoE to fail is the ability for a morally sufficent reason to allow suffering to be logically possible.

The natural evil might be due to the satanic forces?

That is cosmic warfare theodicy, yes (one niche view of the FWD)

Because wouldn't I be in good right, to first demand that you proof that God does not have the power to have done it in some other way?

I don't think so. The ax change tends to go: evil, theodicy, then defeators for the theodicy. If I posit that freewill likely requires physical laws, and that laws that generate consciousness but not suffering are inconceivable, it's your burden to show they are, in fact, conceivable.

 

[Etritonakin]

If we assume that whatever God one believe in is true and have created everything.

Why should we care about what that God think, so from a human or personal point of view, why would you care about what your God thinks?

The reason I ask this is, because what do one gain from it or what do one try to achieve by it. Because if its about hope of living forever, could one not argue that. The reason people care, is out of fear rather than good?

Also as an atheist myself, I obviously do not care about a God, yet I consider my self a rather decent human being, meaning I don't intentional try to hurt others etc. So if its about doing or being a good human being, that is perfectly possible as a non believer.

So again, think it could be interesting to hear why religious people care about what their God think?

Anything real needs to be considered. Otherwise, we act on incomplete information.
If God is essentially reality having self-awareness and creativity, not considering God would be the most crucial mistake.

It seems to me....

It was absolutely necessary for God to be perfect in order to continue.
We have buffers in place which allow us to err without immediate adverse effects (usually) as we learn, but such would not be in place for the original.

If God created our extremely complex reality, not only should we learn from his complete wisdom -we should realize that only he is in a position to maintain it overall (if he is the sum of all and we are a part, we have limited power and he has all).

Many ask "Who would want to live this life eternally?" -because it is not as it should be. Eternal life is only worthwhile if there is love and order -if it is joyous and does not fall to ruin.
That takes universal adherence to law and acceptance of government which is based on a complete understanding of things and positive regard -which is why we must first be made incorruptible -as well as one capable of reigning over all of reality and administering that government.

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."

We do not think twice about fearing the laws of physics -because if we break them, really bad things happen.
The fear of the Lord is actually no different. If we break the commandments and refuse to be governed by God, bad things happen.

Though things such as are recorded in the old testament are quite harsh, they do not compare to what would happen if we all had eternal life and were left to our selves.
God allowed each individual (with some early exceptions) about 120 years or less -and mankind overall from Adam about 6,000 years -during which we gain an experience base necessary to create a very different future. It was absolutely necessary that we receive an absolute reality check.

Then, it's over -done -will never have to happen again -will be very different, and the former things -what we call human history -will eventually be forgotten.

The only answer to man's problems is that we gain permanence and incorruptibility -and we cannot do that ourselves.

 

[dfnj]

If we assume that whatever God one believe in is true and have created everything.
Why should we care about what that God think, so from a human or personal point of view, why would you care about what your God thinks?
So again, think it could be interesting to hear why religious people care about what their God think?

The way dogma works is people have a set of assumptions they consider to be true without any proof. Based on these assumptions people will speak in such a way their sentences and ideas have meaning and truth within context of their assumptions. If you do not share the same set of assumptions with someone else then statements they make with regards to their dogma will sound insane. Everyone has a dogma whether they admit it or not. Some people refuse to accept this idea of dogma and assumptions by claiming their beliefs are common sense. Language will simply not work without a well-defined context.

So with this in mind I will answer your questions. Let me begin with how I define God. Contrary to the simplistic Sunday school way of thinking about God, I prefer to think of God as a word that represents every possible thought and experience we can have or possibly have in reality. God is the alpha and omega of meaning. God represents everything in thought-space and reality at the same time. God is both immanence and transcendence at the same time. The evidence of God's existence occurs in two places. First, ALL of reality is evidence for the existence of God (immanence). And second, God exists in our use of language, that is, God exists in our written and spoken words (transcendence).

In terms of immanence and transcendence I like this quote:

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The Apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only."

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

Recently I've heard this idea about how our Universe was created by God. Since we have no way to know how all the matter and energy in the Universe came into existence from nothingness, God is often associated as being the first cause of existence. So the idea is God is perfect, whole, and complete. Since God is perfect, whole, and complete, God has no unfulfilled needs or desires. Therefore, the Universe was not created out of some need or desire by God. Instead, the Universe was created out of an overflowing abundance from God.

Since the Universe is not God, unlike God, the Universe is incomplete. Unlike God's perfection and wholeness, everything in the Universe is incomplete and full of imperfections. It is these imperfections in nature, our bodies, and our human character which are the source of all that is evil in the World. Because human beings have desires and needs, we inevitably commit acts of evil. God is the only being who is perfect, whole, and complete. God is absolute goodness since God has no desires.

So given our imperfections, our goal in life is to experience slivers of God's perfection, wholeness, and completeness. We are all drawn to experience God's perfection. When we experience greatness in ourselves and others it brings us closer to God. When we experience greatness in beauty and performance, we feel a connection to the perfection, wholeness, and completeness that is God.

So to answer your questions, God does not think. God just exists. God does not have thoughts since God is everything all at once. God's perfection is timeless and without time. It's not that I care about what God thinks. What I care about is experiencing greatness in myself and in others. Because when I experience greatness, especially in human character, it makes me feel closer to God. Even if it's only a small sliver of God's total perfection it makes me feel closer to God. This experience gives my life meaning and purpose.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

If we assume that whatever God one believe in is true and have created everything.

Why should we care about what that God think, so from a human or personal point of view, why would you care about what your God thinks?

The reason I ask this is, because what do one gain from it or what do one try to achieve by it. Because if its about hope of living forever, could one not argue that. The reason people care, is out of fear rather than good?

Also as an atheist myself, I obviously do not care about a God, yet I consider my self a rather decent human being, meaning I don't intentional try to hurt others etc. So if its about doing or being a good human being, that is perfectly possible as a non believer.

So again, think it could be interesting to hear why religious people care about what their God think?

You, like most atheists that I have encountered, doesn't get it.

Judaism is about moral standards, and has rather poor teachings about afterlife. In fact, many atheists could easily become Jews with only a minor addition of belief in God, as nothing about their life changes.

But Christianity is not about morality. It is about how our sins are forgiven, with or without anything we have done. And how we cannot try to earn or buy our way into Heaven. It is not about being good enough.

As for why you should care, honestly, since you're not interested in an afterlife, and God is giving grace whether or not anyone has earned it, I can honestly say that you should only care about it if you want to care about it.