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 292 by hoghead1]



[center]
Ad hominem ping pong[/center]

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.

"So there"?

Some people play "tit for tat" ad hominem instead of honestly addressed a serious challenge to their own POV.

[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.

On another forum someone described an opponent as "He's like a punch-drunk fighter who answers the bell, swings wildly, takes a beating, stumbles back to his corner, and thinks he is winning"

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.

Throwing out two unproved assumptions does NOT validate a claim

It has NOT been established or agreed that beauty is the ultimate end (telos) of the universe. That is ONLY your opinion.

It has NOT been established or agreed that any gods are involved in the universe.

Try making your case without those assumptions / preconceptions that you cannot demonstrate are true. I do not agree to accept those assumptions.

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.

Okay, be as clear as you can in telling READERS how you know 'God's goal'.

There is a current thread addressing that very topic viewtopic.php?t=32230. Feel free to demonstrate knowledge of gods and identify how that knowledge was acquired.

OR show readers how to shuck and jive to avoid admitting making grandiose claims that cannot be shown to be true and accurate.

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"?

Yes, when cornered attempt to change the subject and throw up a smokescreen of diversion.

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.

One is allowed to demonstrate to readers that what they have to offer is fluff without substance.

You keep asking for verification and yet I have described how and why I see beauty as a fundamental dimension of the universe.

It must be really, really difficult for one seeped in philosophy and theology to understand that in the real world one does NOT verify a claim by telling what they think.

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.

I do not accept your proclamation.

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 have asked repeatedly 'How do you KNOW God's goal?'

Unless you KNOW and can SHOW that what you are saying is true and accurate, you are just 'blowing smoke'.

I still suspect the problem is that you are reading in another definition of beauty other than how I am using the term.

Definition of beauty is NOT 'the problem' -- wild claims that cannot be substantiated ARE the problem. Refusal to address challenged claims is symptomatic of a very weak debater or debate position.

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.

Rather than more word play, kindly tell readers 'How do you KNOW God's goal?' OR entertain them with more fancy tap dance.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 300 by hoghead1]



[center]
What's the best tool to discuss aesthetics with?[/center]

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 what are we gonna do?
Colored pictures with crayons, instead?

If we use the WORD aesthetics, and we want to DISCUSS aesthetics, and cannot use WORDS, then we are out of our depth.

Oddly enough, I have no problem using words to discuss aesthetics.
But of course, I don't have the impediments of a PhD.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 293 by hoghead1]



[center]
Science is NOT in the business of seeking out universal AESTHETIC principles. That would be artists and philosophers of art.[/center]

It is the task of metaphysics to seek out universal principles, just as it is also the goal of science.

By what method are you going to discover that beautiful "universal principle"?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 298 by hoghead1]



[center]Some people it's really quite FOUL to have to back up their claims[/center]

Wait a sec. Foul ball.

Just defend the proposition that you know God's actual goals.

OR take it back.
This isn't exactly rocket science.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 302 by Zzyzx]

I already presented my case for why I believe the telos of the universe is beauty. And I find at no point here or elsewhere did you specifically offer a rebuttal to any of my points. Try making your case by carefully reviewing mine, point by point, and offering your rebuttals, if you can.
The rest of your post is simply you expressing your opinions on matters and offering no supporting evidence to validate them.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 306 by hoghead1]

I already presented my case for why I believe the telos of the universe is beauty.

we all thank you for that

[Zzyzx]

.

I already presented my case for why I believe the telos of the universe is beauty.

Yes, you have repeated and repeated and repeated your OPINION. However, you have NOT addressed the ISSUE raised. As BC so aptly says:

Just defend the proposition that you know God's actual goals.
OR take it back.
This isn't exactly rocket science.

Dancing around rather than responding to multiple direct, specific challenges to a statement you made is NOT likely to fool or impress readers -- or to save face.

And I find at no point here or elsewhere did you specifically offer a rebuttal to any of my points. Try making your case by carefully reviewing mine, point by point, and offering your rebuttals, if you can.

I guarantee that if you answer the above question I WILL offer a strong rebuttal -- as perhaps you are aware.

The ball is in your court -- and has been since the 'God's goal' statement was made pages ago.

Notice that this thread has over 4000 views -- presumably readers who evaluate the merits of what is presented. Those readers are likely to recognize when challenged statements are NOT supported with anything more substantial than repeated personal opinions.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 308 by Zzyzx]

Yes, and you have repeated your song-and-dance again and again.

OK, one more time. My claim is that God is Cosmic Artist and tht this came be seen by considering how beauty is the telos of the universe. And I say that the telos of the universe is beauty, because all entities seek more than just mere survival; they seek to live well and better, meaing enriched experience, greater depth and breadth of feeling, which I label as beauty. I also claim the telos of the universe is beauty, because all entities represent a synthesis of feeling, the many have become one, a harmony, a unity of many components, similarity and diversity. Take a look at ourselves. Each of us is a unity, a harmony, created out of the manyness out there, the many feelings we absorb from the big booming buzzing world. I stress "feeling," because I believe affect is our most basic level of experience. Conscious, sensory experience is the end product of countless non-cognitive, non-sensory experiences in our brains and bodies. Our connectedness with the of reality, causality, is primarily an affective experience. We do not see the puff o air make the eye blink, but we feel it do so. I say beauty is the telos of the universe, because art is creativity, and no tow entities are ever fully alike, every one is unique, something novel, an actualization of creative potentiality.

OK, your turn. And lease don't hand me this song-and-dance again that I did not provide supporting arguments. And I add that every point I made above was amply discussed in previous posts. So again, don't give me this son-and-dance that I never supported anything. If you wish to disagree with me, go ahead. But you have to honor the fact that I did supply considerable supporting arguments. Hence, your case has to be that you maybe found some fault in my argument, not that I didn't make any. So, give your rebuttals and then stand by for my counter-counter-rebuttals. No fairs trying to get off the hook by saying I didn't provide any evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, and you have repeated your song-and-dance again and again.

Correction: I have repeated challenges to your claim to know 'God's goal' and asked repeatedly HOW you come by such information.

Tell readers how you came to know 'God's goal'.

OK, one more time. My claim is that God is Cosmic Artist and tht this came be seen by considering how beauty is the telos of the universe.

Perhaps it is necessary to distinguish between opinion and evidence.

Opinion is defined as: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. or a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. www.dictionary.com

an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. It may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are more likely to be verifiable, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Evidence is defined as: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

Kindly supply substantiating evidence to support your claim to know 'God's goal' -- NOT more conjecture and opinion, or word salad, or flights of fantasy -- just straight out -- how do you know that -- where does that information reside -- how is it accessed?.

And I say that the telos of the universe is beauty,

Kindly supply substantiating information -- NOT more conjecture and opinion.

because all entities seek more than just mere survival; they seek to live well and better, meaing enriched experience, greater depth and breadth of feeling, which I label as beauty.

Kindly show readers HOW you know this about 'all entities'.

It is generally prudent in debate to refrain from making grandiose blanket statements.

I also claim the telos of the universe is beauty, because all entities represent a synthesis of feeling, the many have become one, a harmony, a unity of many components, similarity and diversity. Take a look at ourselves.

OPINION noted. I do not accept your opinion as evidence of anything other than what you choose to think about a topic.

Each of us is a unity, a harmony, created out of the manyness out there, the many feelings we absorb from the big booming buzzing world. I stress "feeling," because I believe affect is our most basic level of experience.

Opinion noted. I do not accept your opinion as evidence of anything other than what you choose to think about a topic.

Conscious, sensory experience is the end product of countless non-cognitive, non-sensory experiences in our brains and bodies. Our connectedness with the of reality, causality, is primarily an affective experience. We do not see the puff o air make the eye blink, but we feel it do so. I say beauty is the telos of the universe, because art is creativity, and no tow entities are ever fully alike, every one is unique, something novel, an actualization of creative potentiality.

More opinions noted. I do not accept your opinion as evidence of anything other than what you choose to think about a topic.

OK, your turn.

I need no 'turn' because I have made no claim to know 'God's goal' or any claims to know about 'beauty' in the universe. I simply challenge what you have presented and ask for substantiating evidence (beyond more repeats of opinion).

And lease don't hand me this song-and-dance again that I did not provide supporting arguments. And I add that every point I made above was amply discussed in previous posts. So again, don't give me this son-and-dance that I never supported anything. If you wish to disagree with me, go ahead. But you have to honor the fact that I did supply considerable supporting arguments.

Your 'supporting arguments' are nothing more than your opinions repeated.

Hence, your case has to be that you maybe found some fault in my argument, not that I didn't make any. So, give your rebuttals and then stand by for my counter-counter-rebuttals. No fairs trying to get off the hook by saying I didn't provide any evidence.

Again, HOW do you know 'God's goal'?