Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

Is it Kinda-Sorta natural or REASONABLE to assume that, based off of what we see in the world (a sliding scale of ontological hierarchies) that it is at least intuitive to think there is a God who is the MAXIMAL good?

In Religious Ed class, there is shown to young kids the following:

Rock -> Plant -> Dog -> Human ....

Now imagine at the first end we have NOTHINGNESS. So the lowest possible ontological status (not good, since nothing is nothing).

Next, imagine if there is something Over and Above the Human level. Is it not NATURAL to assume there at least could be something greater since, after all, we have such a DRASTIC sliding scale of VALUES as something so insignificant as a ROCK then up to a plant, then DOG (yay, puppies!) To a BABY HUMAN (MIRACLE!!!).

Why not angels afterwards? And why not Gods or THE GOD (BEING)? Is it not at least INTUITIVE? Thanks.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #21

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote: Is it Kinda-Sorta natural or REASONABLE to assume that, based off of what we see in the world (a sliding scale of ontological hierarchies) that it is at least intuitive to think there is a God who is the MAXIMAL good?

In Religious Ed class, there is shown to young kids the following:

Rock -> Plant -> Dog -> Human ....

Now imagine at the first end we have NOTHINGNESS. So the lowest possible ontological status (not good, since nothing is nothing).

Next, imagine if there is something Over and Above the Human level. Is it not NATURAL to assume there at least could be something greater since, after all, we have such a DRASTIC sliding scale of VALUES as something so insignificant as a ROCK then up to a plant, then DOG (yay, puppies!) To a BABY HUMAN (MIRACLE!!!).

Why not angels afterwards? And why not Gods or THE GOD (BEING)? Is it not at least INTUITIVE? Thanks.
A rock can appear insignificant to a human being - or less valuable, until one realizes that one exists upon a rather special rock which altogether allows us to experience it for a time.

In relation to what we know of the universe in today's day and age, we could easily understand that - not unlike a baby human - The Earth itself is also a miracle.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: Is it KInd of Reasonable to Think That....

Post #22

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote:
Dimmesdale wrote: Is it Kinda-Sorta natural or REASONABLE to assume that, based off of what we see in the world (a sliding scale of ontological hierarchies) that it is at least intuitive to think there is a God who is the MAXIMAL good?
If we postulate that there exist a Creator God who is MAXIMALLY good, then the next question we would need to ask why this God created a universe that is NOT MAXIMALLY good?

So if we embrace the premise that God must be MAXIMALLY good, then our next conclusion should be that no such entity exists because our reality is not MAXIMALLY good.

If we postulate that there exist a Creator God who simply is, and place no particual spin on that by introducing what can only be flawed opinions regarding 'good' - (maximum or otherwise) then there is no requirement to ask why this God created a universe that is NOT MAXIMALLY good.

The premise itself appears to be at fault. So we cannot conclude from the premise that a Creator of this Creation, 'does not exist', regardless of how we choose to perceive The Creation.

Such as is the case, if one perceives The Creation as NOT MAXIMALLY good, one can therefore perceive The Creator as NOT MAXIMALLY good.

But so what?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: theodicies?

Post #23

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote:
elphidium55 wrote:
God may have injected badness into the creation ...
Are you saying that god created evil? This seems to be contrary to orthodox Christian belief - but maybe you're not Christian. Also, there are pretty strong arguments against "soul making" theodicies. You're going to have to explain yourself further if you're making that move.
Maybe God didn't "create" evil directly, isn't its "author" in the same way a human being could be - as an agent of evil. But maybe he initiated circumstances which ineluctably led to the formation of evil, and he allows it for reasons that are opaque to us.
Maybe it is our own limited understanding of 'good' and 'evil' which is the problem.

We have some collective grasp of what is what in human terms. We got that through experience.

It would have been better had the British not bombed a Dresden residential zone in the Second World War.

Hindsight can and should teach us that what we think of as 'good' can easily be shown to have been 'evil', and if we can accept that, we are better equipped to perseverve with learning more about good, even as evil teaches us, but ultimately we make the call - not just as collective sectors/countries/states/etc but also - and perhaps more importantly - as individuals.

We simply do not have enough information or experience to make a call on how a Creator of this creation might think regarding 'good' and 'evil' but we can point to something and make a claim it is evil.

Lets say we claim that the whole Earth is evil...on the grounds that it feeds upon itself in order to continue existing and evolving and that there are a lot of creepy things preying upon one another.

Shall we gather from this that if the creation is thus evil, then the Creator must also be evil?

Yes, we should.

But the premise is at fault here, for we are declaring something 'evil' simply because we do not like it, how it is designed, what it does etc...

I dare say, in order for someone to think such premise is true, one would have to declare that it is NOT a creation, and therefore there is NO creator...otherwise how would one be able to cope with the evil that one sees nature as being?

One would be tempted by the rope and the yardarm...for how would someone, thinking they are 'good' be able to survive the ordeal of being within something 'evil', otherwise?

:-k

If one must look into the idea we exist within a creation, one should at least appreciate the creator has 'a dark side'.

But is the 'light' side necessarily 'good' and the other 'evil'?

Or are we confusing ourselves with faulty human perceptions...

:-k

Generally theology is about "getting on God's 'good' side" rather than the general non-theist approach of poking a stick of accusation into dark places.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: theodicies?

Post #24

Post by William »

Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

No, no, no, the Devil must be placed equal to or lower than nothing as matter of ontology.

There is no Biblical basis in saying that God created evil in the World. Indeed, we're talking about 2 primordial forces, God for goodness and Satan for evil!

:study: :D 8-)

All this premise does is complicate things unnecessarily.

There is biblical basis that the God of the bible created evil. It is written the God brings both upon the head of humanity, depending upon what humanity is up to.

To claim that there are "2 primordial forces, God for goodness and Satan for evil" is to say that there are 2 'gods'.

The easier explanation is that there is only one creator, and that the creation brought forth the idea of 'good' and 'evil' specifically in those directly experiencing it from a position of tabula rasa - an absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined goals - which allowed for the identification of 'good' and 'evil' to surface.

This in turn allows those experiencing such, the opportunity to understand that The Creator is either 'good' or 'evil' as said terms have developed, but is really neither...in real terms...or both, in relation to humanity, which then gets to choose.

"Choose Wisely" appears to be the biblical message...and indeed, is the overall message of Theism in general.

Don't get on supporting the dark side, especially to the point where one cannot
- because one will not - seriously consider there is a creator and we exist within a creation of said creator. That is non-theism.

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: theodicies?

Post #25

Post by mgb »

William wrote: Lets say we claim that the whole Earth is evil...on the grounds that it feeds upon itself in order to continue existing and evolving and that there are a lot of creepy things preying upon one another.

Shall we gather from this that if the creation is thus evil, then the Creator must also be evil?

Yes, we should.

But the premise is at fault here, for we are declaring something 'evil' simply because we do not like it, how it is designed, what it does etc...
The natural world is fallen a corrupted by evil. Many things in it are not from God.

Post Reply