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.

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

Re: theodicies?

Post #11

Post by Dimmesdale »

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.

I know people have counterexamples to the idea of theodicies (as most all other philosophical positions), but I think some can be justified. Can you say they are thoroughly refuted? I think you should entertain their possibility at least....

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: theodicies?

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 11 by Dimmesdale]

Which is the better god, one that indirectly created evil via the intermediate step of agents of evil, or one that didn't create evil directly or otherwise?

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: theodicies?

Post #13

Post by Aetixintro »

[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-)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: theodicies?

Post #14

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 13 by Aetixintro]

Don't tell me, tell your theist peers, they are the one who keep telling me God created evil indirectly by giving human free will. The Devil didn't do that, God did. Or so I am told.

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

Re: theodicies?

Post #15

Post by Dimmesdale »

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Dimmesdale]

Which is the better god, one that indirectly created evil via the intermediate step of agents of evil, or one that didn't create evil directly or otherwise?
In my mind they would be on the same exact level. As long as they didn't break the moral law by a willful act of immorality, they would both be morally perfect.

That does kind of bring up the question of what counts as immoral behavior for a God.... I think that God acts in such a way that he is always blameless. Even when he "harms" people. I don't believe "sin" can be credited to him. I don't think God can be malicious or egotistical. And ego and malice are what I take to be the hallmarks of, for lack of a better term, sin. God does not have ego. At least not false ego. And he absolutely does not have malice, IMO.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: theodicies?

Post #16

Post by Bust Nak »

Dimmesdale wrote: In my mind they would be on the same exact level. As long as they didn't break the moral law by a willful act of immorality, they would both be morally perfect.

That does kind of bring up the question of what counts as immoral behavior for a God.... I think that God acts in such a way that he is always blameless. Even when he "harms" people. I don't believe "sin" can be credited to him. I don't think God can be malicious or egotistical. And ego and malice are what I take to be the hallmarks of, for lack of a better term, sin. God does not have ego. At least not false ego. And he absolutely does not have malice, IMO.
If a god is not blameless for indirectly creating evil, then he is negligent. It's immoral to be negligent.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Only One Almighty God?

Post #17

Post by elphidium55 »

And there can only be One Almighty God


I'm not sure this claim can be philosophicaly supported. There seems to be no logical contradiction in there being multiple, equally powerful gods at the top of the metaphysical hiertarchy. These gods would simply be co-supreme beings. Of course, this idea would further work in order to cache it out.

Most orthodox christians are trinitarian; they believe that their god consists of three persons within one substance. So already, there is some tension in the relationship between multiplicity and unity in many versions of christianity. The monotheism of orthodox christianity needs to be heavily tweaked.

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

Post #18

Post by mgb »

As Agustine tells us, evil is a deficiency of good. Creation becomes good by learning to tell the difference between limited evils and eternal goodness. If creation is to be good, it must learn. Evil is a step on the way to ultimate goodness. Creation chose this path when it fell away from God.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

mere absence of good?

Post #19

Post by elphidium55 »

As Agustine tells us, evil is a deficiency of good.
Is it, really? Why? Was the evil of the holocaust, for example, merely due to an absence of good? Or was there something more radical and fundamental at play? It is considerations like this that have led many theologians and philosophers to reject Augustine's deprivation model of evil.
Creation becomes good by learning to tell the difference between limited evils and eternal goodness.
No, "creation" is not an animate object. It does not think or feel; it does not act or intend or learn or regret. The notion that "creation" is a personal agent is nonsense.

Philosophers have a word for such mistaken move: reification - to make something abstract seem concrete. Atheists also have a word for such a move - woo, woo.

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

Re: mere absence of good?

Post #20

Post by mgb »

elphidium55 wrote:
As Agustine tells us, evil is a deficiency of good.
Is it, really? Why? Was the evil of the holocaust, for example, merely due to an absence of good? Or was there something more radical and fundamental at play? It is considerations like this that have led many theologians and philosophers to reject Augustine's deprivation model of evil.
Evil is not a positive existence like God. It has no power or being of its own because all power and being is from God. It is a distortion of life and being and creativity. Without the life force, evil is nothing. Evil can only happen if it is imbued with intelligence, creativity, and energy. But these are positives and are good. In evil they are being used negatively. That is what Augustine means when he says it is a deprivation or incompleteness of good.
No, "creation" is not an animate object. It does not think or feel; it does not act or intend or learn or regret.
I'm talking about the creation of spirit. Besides, humans are part of creation and they think and feel.
The notion that "creation" is a personal agent is nonsense. Philosophers have a word for such mistaken move: reification - to make something abstract seem concrete.
I don't believe it is. The universe reveals great intelligence in its design and it is not nonsense to say that because it seems intelligently designed it is intelligently designed; sometimes things really are what they seem to be. Like the man said 'sometimes a cigar is a cigar'. But when I say 'creation' I don't just mean the physical universe, I am talking about created minds, of which humans are an example.

Post Reply