Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 289 by ttruscott]


[center]
Beauty is in the eye of the demonic beholder[/center]

But you do NOT accept that the beauty of a demon is a different beauty and found in different goals than the GODly harmonious beauty of heaven?

Good point.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people want so speak for all of us.. but MY taste might be different than others.. in fact, I can GUARANTEE that it's a bit different than others. I TRY to be a bit different than others.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 287 by Zzyzx]

And it is not uncommon for opposition debaters to consider posts "flowery, vague, unsubstantiated" when they don't really understand them or find them representing a serious challenge to their own POV which they feel unprepared to address. So there.

Now, let's see if we can get back on track. Here is my summary of the situation. You are upset because I said God is Cosmic Artist. Right? OK, but I'm not sure I understand the whole story here. Is this something new to you? What? You wanted to know where this came from. Right? I explained from my studies and experience. Regarding studies, I am borrowing here on major process philosophers, such as Whitehead, who said God is the "poet of the world." In quite a number of posts, I have explained the rationale behind this process model of God, how it is a response to the classical model. I'm sure you have read that material. I know I posted some to you. So I assume I don't need to go into that here. Or do it? If you want to know more, let me know.

You also became most distressed with my claim that beauty is the purpose of the universe, that all creatures seek beauty, which is a major part of my rationale for saying God is Cosmic Artist. To clarify, I have resented my definition of the term "beauty." I presented some samples. You presented what you took to be counter examples, and I have addressed those.
You then went off on what I take to be a tirade on your opinions about philosophers talking to laity, language, blah, blah, etc. As far as I am concerned, all that is irrelevant to the matters at hand. So let's put all that aside and stay on topic.
So, first question: What is your understanding of my concept of beauty? I ask because "beauty" have more than one definition, and I want to make sure we are on the same wavelength here. My suspicion is that you are reading in some other definition and that's what is creating confusion and distress on your part.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 288 by marco]

The term "beauty" does have more than one definition. I am trying to make certain others understand mine.
It is the task of metaphysics to seek out universal principles, just as it is also the goal of science. The fact I claim beauty holds throughout he universe is no more of a Aunt Fanny statement than claiming gravity holds throughout, or that the struggle for survival or survival of teh fittest apples to all organisms, etc.

In debates, the reason why someone would say to another that he or she has given an Aunt Fanny statement is simply that the charges her or she has made against another poster would also hold for themselves. An example would be someone saying religion is all bad because it has a dark side, so I chose science. Reply: That's an Aunt Fanny statement. Science and technology also have a dark side. If you are going to reject religion on that basis, the same would also hold for science. So no, Aunt Fanny statements aren't meaningless at all.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 289 by ttruscott]

Wait sec. I'm not sure we're on the same wave length as to how I am using the term "beauty." Yes, I agree there are many forms of beauty. Mozart's operas are very different from Wagner's musical dramas, for example. Country-and-western music is a long way from the Met, etc. However, I am interested in commonalities. The commonality I see is that all these different forms present a harmony, similarity in diversity, for example. And I also see that throughout all creatures. In brief, I see all entities as representing a momentary unity of experience. There is, initially in the process of self-formulation, the inrush of the big booming buzzing world, the influx of chaos. Out of this chaos, all this manyness, the birthing self creatures a unity, a harmonious blending of all these feelings it has inherited, which can be through of as the "satisfaction," its achievement of a momentary beauty. That' why I believe all experience is aesthetic experience. I see God as presenting an initial aim for each occasion so as to maximize its beauty. This is always felt conformably and so never negligible. But entities doe have freedom as to how far and in what ways they will carry out this aim. Some do better than others. Hence, even "demons" are beautiful, though a far lesser beauty that what God intended them to be.

[Zzyzx]

.

And it is not uncommon for opposition debaters to consider posts "flowery, vague, unsubstantiated" when they don't really understand them or find them representing a serious challenge to their own POV which they feel unprepared to address. So there.

That may well occur; however, in this case the 'opposition debater' points out to anyone who reads the thread that flowery language can be and is used to avoid addressing challenges to what was said / claimed.

Astute readers may well recognize that I focus upon the real world, not fantasy or imagination -- and therefore represent no point of view regarding what gods may have as goals or what someone may regard as 'beauty'.

Now, let's see if we can get back on track.

Excellent. You made a claim to know 'God's goal'. I challenge(d) that claim and ask repeatedly for substantiation.

Here is my summary of the situation. You are upset because I said God is Cosmic Artist. Right?

Upset? Perhaps those who are emotionally driven project their own tendencies onto others.

I have no emotional involvement in statements being made that claim knowledge of gods and their attributes. However, when those claims are made I ask for EVIDENCE -- NOT someone's opinions or philosophical ponderings .

OK, but I'm not sure I understand the whole story here. Is this something new to you? What? You wanted to know where this came from.

Correction: I ask for substantiation of a claim to know 'God's goal'.

Right? I explained from my studies and experience.

Your studies and experience are NOT evidence in debate.

Regarding studies, I am borrowing here on major process philosophers, such as Whitehead, who said God is the "poet of the world."

What 'major process philosophers' have opined is NOT evidence that what is said is true and accurate. They, like you, are expressing OPINION.

In quite a number of posts, I have explained the rationale behind this process model of God, how it is a response to the classical model. I'm sure you have read that material. I know I posted some to you. So I assume I don't need to go into that here. Or do it? If you want to know more, let me know.

Protracted pondering of 'the process model' vs. 'the classical model' may be appropriate in some philosophical / theological discussions elsewhere; however, that is of no consequence in answering How do you KNOW God's goal?

You also became most distressed

Again, it is imprudent to project one's emotionalism onto others.

with my claim that beauty is the purpose of the universe,

Kindly supply verifiable evidence to support that claim

that all creatures seek beauty, which is a major part of my rationale for saying God is Cosmic Artist.

You are entitled to that OPINION. However, your opinion is meaningless in debate and is not binding upon anyone other than yourself.

I challenge the claim that 'beauty is the purpose of the universe' and ask for verifiable substantiating evidence that is more than opinion.

So, first question:

The first question is:

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you KNOW this?

Is a straight answer too much to request?

What is your understanding of my concept of beauty?

We are not debating your concept of beauty. You claim to know 'God's goal', I challenge that claim, and you refuse to substantiate your claim.

I ask because "beauty" have more than one definition, and I want to make sure we are on the same wavelength here. My suspicion is that you are reading in some other definition and that's what is creating confusion and distress on your part.

I do not debate the meaning of 'beauty' -- but challenge a claim that 'beauty is the purpose of the universe'.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 295 by Zzyzx]

Astute reads will recognize that you focus on the real world, etc.? C,mon. Take about opinions here. I sure don't see any evidence of that. Where is your evidence to back this grandiose claim about yourself? I sure don't see any, just your own say-so. And are you assuming that you are alone in that quest, that the rest of us here aren't interested in the real world, that you know more about it? C'mon.

Ok, getting back tot he topic at hand. You now tell me you have no problem with my concept of beauty. OK, fine. Then I guess you have no quarrel with my claim that all creatures seek beauty. And that being the case, why do you have trouble wit the notion that a theist such as myself would ten say that God is Cosmic Artist? The two assumptions go right together. That should be a no-brainer. Are you trying to ague God doesn't exist? Are you trying to argue all creatures seek beauty, but really, you know, the Devil programmed them to do that, that God hates beauty? What?

[Zzyzx]

.
It might have been wise to acknowledge that you cannot show that you know 'god's goal' rather than make post after post avoiding the challenge -- 'How do you know God's goal?'.

Astute reads will recognize that you focus on the real world, etc.? C,mon. Take about opinions here. I sure don't see any evidence of that. Where is your evidence to back this grandiose claim about yourself?

It would be prudent to read again (trying for comprehension) what I actually said -- which was verbatim "Astute readers may well recognize that I focus upon the real world, not fantasy or imagination"

Notice the words 'may well recognize'. Applying some intellect and education should identify that is certainly not a 'grandiose clam' but a statement of possibility or probability.

Simplifying, 'It may well rain tomorrow', is NOT a claim (or 'grandiose claim') that rain WILL occur tomorrow.

I sure don't see any, just your own say-so. And are you assuming that you are alone in that quest, that the rest of us here aren't interested in the real world, that you know more about it? C'mon.

It would also be prudent to avoid stating what I 'assume' as though you knew -- unless mind-reading is part of the curriculum in philosophy and theology studies.

Is making statements about what one does not know (as though they were true) an acceptable practice in philosophy and theology circles?

Ok, getting back tot he topic at hand. You now tell me you have no problem with my concept of beauty. OK, fine.

Correction: I have said no such thing. What I actually said was:

I do not debate the meaning of 'beauty' -- but challenge a claim that 'beauty is the purpose of the universe'.

and

I challenge the claim that 'beauty is the purpose of the universe' and ask for verifiable substantiating evidence that is more than opinion.

Then I guess you have no quarrel with my claim that all creatures seek beauty.

I challenge that claim and ask for substantiating evidence.

And that being the case, why do you have trouble wit the notion that a theist such as myself would ten say that God is Cosmic Artist?

What 'notions' Theists (such as yourself) may have about their favorite gods is of no concern to me. Their private notions are their business, not mine. However, if they make claims about their favorite gods being a 'cosmic artist' I challenge those claims and ask for verifiable evidence to support the claim.

BTW, is 'cosmic artist' flowery terminology -- or established fact?

The two assumptions go right together.

Two unproved assumptions = two unproved assumptions (whether they go 'right together' or not)

That should be a no-brainer.

Perhaps conflating unproved assumptions to 'prove' a point is de rigor in philosophy and theology environments; however, doing so is meaningless here in public debate.

Are you trying to ague God doesn't exist?

I do not argue the existence or non-existence of the thousands of proposed 'gods' -- as clearly specified in my signature that appears on every post -- "ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision."

Is that not quite clear enough?

Are you trying to argue all creatures seek beauty,

What the heck would make anyone think that from anything I have said? I do not pretend to speak for or know about 'all creatures' -- but leave such fantasizing to others.

but really, you know, the Devil programmed them to do that, that God hates beauty? What?

Many Theists seem to get all tangled up in their terminology and their assumptions -- then think that it is everyone else who is confused.

Perhaps if Theists reduced dependence on word salads and revising definitions of words they would confuse themselves less often. Of course, straight talk might well reveal or acknowledge the flaws in their theistic position.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 297 by Zzyzx]

Wait a sec. Foul ball. In this and other recent posts to me, you have made any number of claims, representing your own opinions on matters from flowery language to how philosophers should post here, etc. OK, fine. Problem is, they are but your opinions that require verification, substantiation. As yet, you have failed to substantiate a single one of your opinions. If you, especially as a mod here, cannot play by your own book of rules, you cannot expect others to do so either. Judge not, that you be not judged. Before you point the finger at others, take a look at your own posts.

[Zzyzx]

.

Wait a sec. Foul ball.

The 'foul ball' seems to be an elaborate dance being performed to avoid admitting inability to substantiate a claim to know 'God's goal' or to show readers the source of such knowledge.

In this and other recent posts to me, you have made any number of claims, representing your own opinions on matters from flowery language to how philosophers should post here, etc. OK, fine. Problem is, they are but your opinions that require verification, substantiation. As yet, you have failed to substantiate a single one of your opinions.

Which of my statements has been challenged without a substantiation from me (URL, verbatim quote)?

Unless and until a claim is challenged, substantiation is not mandatory.

Is inventing such complaints presented as a sincere effort to debate honorably the issues under consideration?


Readers are aware, I trust, that it is not uncommon for those who do not fare well in debate to attempt to divert attention away from their own defective posts by various subterfuge -- including frivolous and phony 'you did it too' claims.

If you, especially as a mod here, cannot play by your own book of rules, you cannot expect others to do so either.

If that is a suggestion that I do not play by Forum Rules, that is a rather serious matter (or accusation if so intended) -- not to be made lightly (or as a tactic in lieu of debate). Exactly what rule have I broken? Where (URL)?

If I violate any Forum Rule use the report button atop each post and state the nature of the offense. A member of the Admin / Moderating team will evaluate the merits of the case.

Judge not, that you be not judged.

I regard that as a very foolish platitude. If one is unwilling to 'judge' others they cannot distinguish between friend and foe / scholar and phony / crook and honest person / etc.

Rather than ducking responsibility with the 'judge not' foolishness, I take full responsibility for my actions and do not attempt to avoid being 'judged' on the basis of what I say and do.

Perhaps if I was weak, insecure, incapable, etc I might attempt to avoid being 'judged'

Before you point the finger at others, take a look at your own posts.

I ask for substantiation of claims -- and do not do so frivolously. If someone claims to KNOW 'God's goal' it is quite rational to ask for substantiation. However, doing so is often resented by those who make grandiose claims without having supporting evidence.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 299 by Zzyzx]

You know, someone needs to sound a bell here. Ding. OK, Z and HH go to your corners. Ok, ding, round 2. I say that because there is a degree of humor here and also because we are both very good at exchanging punches. Fun as that may be, and don't tell me it isn't, lets get back on track.

I am validating my claim that God is Cosmic Artist, on the grounds that beauty is the telos of the universe, everything is seeking beauty. To mean, as I said earlier, that means God has endowed us, hardwired us to seek beauty. And it logically follows that only a God who is a Cosmic Artist would so do.

So I am still not sure where your problem is. You talk about "vague" language. Well, language is often a very poor tool, especially where aesthetics is concerned. So some degree of vagueness has o be accepted, though I am trying to be as clear as I can. Indeed, when it comes to evolution, there is always a problem with vague language. "Survival of the fittest" has been criticized form being vague. What do you mean by "survival"?

You spoke of "flowery language." Again, I am concerned with aesthetics, which some do see as the "touchy feely" part of life. So though I am still not sure what you men by "flowery language," I am willing to say you might have to allow for some of that here.

You keep asking for verification and yet I have described how and why I see beauty as a fundamental dimension of the universe. One way I can put it is that every entity, every momentary unity of experience, can be understood as creative synthesis of feeling, which is also true of all great works of art.

So, what is it you want be to do now? Do you want me to say more about why I view the building blocks of reality as momentary unities of feeling? Do you want me to explain why I use the term "feeling"? What?

I still suspect the problem is that you are reading in another definition of beauty other than how I am using the term. My suspicion is that you are going on the idea that beauty is purely in the mind of the beholder. OK, but earlier, I challenged that claim in posts to others here, not sure if you were in on that.