keyser_soze

And some of us find we actually enjoy "new" knowledge. I admit to having a rather unquenchable thirst for new knowledge. When I was a theist, I enjoyed the study of christianity(which ironically caused me to not be a theist) and I find that now that I'm atheist, I STILL enjoy studying christianity...but I am content that I can at least understand that it is not true, but at the same time interests me. No different than people who spend their scholastic career studying shakespeare. They don't have a mistaken belief that hamlet's father's ghost exists...they just enjoy the study.

HRG

I think that you postulate without support - like all apologetics - that free will must inherently include the possibility of evil choices.

But the ability of choosing ham or jam for breakfast, or to post or not to post at the II board is sufficient for the existence of free will. There are many actions we cannot perform, like flying to the moon by flapping our arms; yet this inability is not considered as defeating free will. Similarly, an inability to do harm to others would not be inconsistent with free will either.

Thus God could have given us free will without the ability to harm each other (= do evil). That he didn't - in foreknowledge of the negative consequences - makes him responsible for them.

Regards,
HRG.

haverbob

"Oh yeah...because someone's going to want to claim that God is still not immoral, somehow. That's right."

Sounds like anger to me (or at least sarcasm). That comes from the hurt of being "had" in the past. Who hurt you? Did they hurt you or did you allow them to hurt you by mistakenly putting stock in what they told you only to find out it was wrong? If you turned out to be wrong, why was that bad? You learned something didn't you? It's the insistence on being right that hurts, not being wrong. Being wrong can be great from a certain perspective. Anyway, how does something become immoral if one doesn't have opinions? Takes an opinion to make that judgement. That's the Garden of Eden (no opinions). As I mentioned earlier, surely the Garden of Eden could not have been a physical location. It had to have been a perception that did not include opinions. You can argue that the Garden of Eden was a myth and that's fine. As I mentioned to someone else, I prefer to look at it as a concept rather than a myth.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. "

If one cannot understand God, how does one understand what he (or she or it, the supposed creator of evil) means by evil? Can evil actually serve a purpose and therefore not actually be evil (assuming that it exists at all)? We can probably both agree that one person's evil is another's good. That's because both people in the example insist on putting labels on objects and events and even life itself (and somehow it ALWAYS ends up meeting their individual needs whether they realize it or not). What is peace? Nothing bothering you? Nobody bothering you? How long would it take until that becomes Hell? Not an enternity. How long does one eat steak and drink fine wine in Heaven before they become tired of it. Surely not an eternity. Is evil bad, and therefore God is immoral because of it? As mentioned in my original post, whether God creates evil or not, as far as we are concerned, it exists when we choose to acknowledge it and stamp it as disfavorable. If we CHOOSE to acknowledge it, was that God's fault?

"As Thomas Metcalf points out routinely, free will doesn't need evil. We can have a choice between good things and still have free will, and no one gets hurt. But he said it much more scholarly-like, of course. "

I'm not scholarly as well, so I haven't read Metcalf. However, if one makes a choice, than surely one choice is better than the other. Otherwise we simply do an eannie meannie minnie mo. That is not a choice, that is a coin toss. Wouldn't one want to choose the better of the two and think about which of the two is better? Would you be hurt (somewhere buried deep inside your mind) if you don't make the optimal choice? If you choose door number one and that has a peanut butter and jelly sandwich behind it, and someone else chooses door number two and there happens to have your favorite food in the whole world behind it, would you be hurt? Nothing wrong with peanut butter and jelly. Both choices are actually good although a person usually regrets not making the OPTIMAL choice. and then they would repress and rationalize their regret for not choosing door number two. They would say "that's okay". But there would still be a small amount of regret (hurt), wouldn't there be? Was that a bad choice? Would you choose it again? The only time when no one gets hurt (as Metcalf seems to claim) is when there are no preferences to be met. Otherwise there is always a good choice and a bad choice (or good and BETTER), but doesn't even BETTER make good not so good in the face of BETTER? Evil is something that does not meet what we believe to be our needs. Who said it was bad? Is it immoral for God to allow us to choose something that may not meet what we BELIEVE to be our needs, likes or preferences?

Thanks for the GREAT response. You might be right. I just explained an alternative point of view, that's all. I'm learning and I appreciate your thoughts. It's the kind of thoughts that I hoped for and expected from this discussion group.

diana

Since you said you appreciate my thoughts, bob, here they are: sarcasm communicates a point. You seem to have missed it. Further, you won't get far here with psychoanalysis, so you can unceremoniously drop it now.

We're here to discuss facts. Not feelings. Maybe I've been hurt, maybe I haven't. Maybe I'm angry, maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm bored. Maybe I'm horny. Maybe I'm hungry. None of these, however, has the slightest effect on any of the concepts we are discussing here. My arguments either hold water or they don't, irrespective of my state of mind. Got it?

Focus on the facts only. Thank you.

To review: I implied that Christians will say anything to wiggle out of any admission that God is immoral, despite the fact that he created evil, then bragged about it.

You respond with this:
What is immorality if not evil? As I already pointed out (and you didn't argue), God created evil. Says so right there in black and white. This means, by proxy, that God created immorality. In my book, this makes God immoral. It's easy math. You don't even have to carry the 1.

Whether he has an opinion of it or whether we do is about as relevant as the fact that I had green beans for breakfast.

Did you say good/evil is subjective or objective, again? Clarify, please. Sounds like you're saying "subjective"--morality is an opinion, right?

If it's an opinion, then where did good and evil come from? Is it all God's opinion? Or man's? If it's just man's, then who needs God? If it's God's, then to call God "good" (as the bible does) is meaningless.

Actually, I was just going to say that your assertions about the "meaning" of the Garden of Eden I have yet to connect in any meaningful way to the discussion of God's morality.

Let me get this straight: the bible says--and I assume you're working from some version of the Christian/Jewish scriptures here--plainly "I...create evil: I the Lord do all these things," and you question whether evil even exists? MMmmmmkay. Do you believe the bible or don't you?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and allow that you're assuming the existence of God only for the sake of argument. Please support your assertion that evil exists only if we choose to acknowledge it then please link this in some coherent way to your overall argument/worldview.

Sorry 'bout that. Thomas Metcalf is one of our regular posters. He writes things in a very scholarly fashion, generally.

A coin toss is chance. A choice is the result of free will. They aren't even in the same bucket of fruit.

You marginalize the existence of murder, rape, disease, abuse, dismemberment, child molestation, and all manner of senseless violence. The "no one gets hurt" bit was my simple explanation. Compared to the existence of these things, I daresay there is no pain in opening the peanut butter and jelly door instead of the prime rib and cabernet sauvignaun one.

Straight out of haverbob's dictionary, is it? The rest of the English-speaking world uses Webster, or some form of it, which defines the word as "morallly reprehensible; causing harm." There is a vast difference between the pain of a spoiled brat that doesn't what he wants for din-din and the pain of a five-year-old child who is repeatedly molested by his father, wouldn't you agree?

It is insulting to suggest that what is happening to the five-year-old is just "something that does not meet what he believes to be his needs."

Well, it works like this, bob. We get a concept and we label that concept. Evil is simply the label we randomly selected to represent something that is inherently bad.

Um. What?

Actually, that isn't all. You managed to be condescending right off the bat. You need to work on your bedside manner, there, Freud.

d

haverbob

diana, totally right about the psychoanalisis bullshit. Sorry about that. Definite party foul.

I think I am confusing alot of people on just where I stand and i'm doing a pretty shitty job of explaining myself. I really don't care very much about the Bible. I was making a suggestion that the things in the Bible can have different meanings based on the lens that one sees it through.

What I'm merely trying to do is use aspects of the Bible to help illustrate a point (which is the ONLY thing that the Bible does for me). I realize that George Smith;s argument really didn't have to do with the Bible. It has to do with an immoral or moral God. I will try to explain my point of view in a less rambling fashion than I have been by using a simple example.

Consider Captain Crunch cereal. Now at this point, you may be tempted to suggest that I change my screen name to Captain Crunch because of the childish and ludicrous notions that I have (and no one would laugh harder at that joke than me). I might even do that, it has a ring. Anyway, when I was a kid, I LOVED Captain Crunch. Captain Crunch was good. As an adult, i can't even take one spoonful of that sugar loaded crap. Captain Crunch went from good to bad. but how can captain Crunch change from good to bad? It's still the same exact cereal. It changes because I changed, as I will continue to do (perhaps when I'm much older, Captain Crunch might become good again). So the truth of the matter is that Captain crunch is neither good nor bad and it never was. It's just Captain Crunch. WE make it good or bad. WE make it good or evil.

That's all I was trying to say. It takes an opinion of something before it becomes good or evil (good or bad, pretty or ugly...). Drop the opinion itself and neither exists. So according to your quote, Metcalf essentially correct. But one cannot recognize the problem he speaks of until one decides to formulate an opinion on the matter. If someone asks a gura, mystic..whatever, "why are you happy?" The mystic replies "why shouldn't I be?" So I was probably mistaken to bother to bring the Bible in to this because i didn't need it to make my point. I just though it may help illustrate it.

My central point is that Smith's entire argument (for or against) can be bypassed by placing the responsibility for evil on to us. We decide to acknowledge, accept and apply the concept of evil (and good) by formulating opinions. It's not the event, object or person, it's not the perception of the event object or person, it's the opinion of the perception of the event, object or person that is the key here. Supposedly, "the fruit of knowledge caused us to realize our mortality, which in turn caused fear, which in turn caused a protectionist or defensive posture....." So, by making us aware of death, fear and evil was created FOR us (and not BY us).

I disagree. It takes a negative OPINION about mortality in order for fear to occur. God is only responsible for giving us free will. Maybe one could argue that it was immoral for God to give us free will. Possible. But would it not be equally or more immoral to deny us free will? Somehow, I suspect that there is still a flaw in my thinking that others will point out, and that's great, point it out. I just wanted to make sure that I truly have everyone "grasp" the point I'm making, so that they can educate me on why I am so wrong.

Maybe I should change my screen name to "Cereal Killer of Logic". Whaddya' think?

[edited only to break up into paragraphs]

Jinto

Could you consider dividing that into paragraphs? The way it is now is... ugh.

mosaic

Hi, I know I'm new here y'all but I posted this in direct response:

And no sensible person will argue that god, by preventing us from ever suffering eternally in hellfire would be immoral. Hell is the only option if you dont go to paradise. I really dont see the neccesity in allowing people's own subjective decisions to lead them to unspeakable torment. Who but god values the freedom to suffer eternally? In a human sense, freewill is important but in the ethereal world, why is it neccesary? Is it neccesary to experience evil to appreciate the ethereal? But we cant escape hell so what do we learn? We're punished eternally because we dont recognize the ethereal significance of finite actions.

Simply put, I dont belive anyone values the freedom to spend an eternity miserable. And for finite crimes at that. There are only two options, and only one way, so where exactly is the freewill? You're granted existence only to be threatened because of it. There is something evil going on there.

AsimovsProtege

"God is responsible for giving Humans free will, freedom of choice and that is where his responsibility ends. Is the granting of free will immoral? That was the point that I was trying to make. If we use our free will in a manner that ends up causing us pain, is that God's fault? One could argue the fact that he would be immoral or unloving by denying us free will or freedom of choice."


Before you can determine that evil actions are the result of free will, you'd have to determine that an all-powerful all-knowing God could create free will. An evil action is something that is against Gods Will. God being all-powerful, and all-knowing, nothing can go against his Will. If everything goes according to his Will, we have no choice in our actions.


As for thanking God for Satan, apologists claim that if there wasn't evil, we wouldn't truly know "Gods love. "

haverbob

What?? What about "just ceasing to exist" as a possibility. Seems like God (or the common description of God) would have this as an option as well from a logic standpoint. I would never bother to get involved in an "afterlife" disussion because it's pointless. If there is "afterlife", then go down logic trail A, if not, it's trail B. Who could possibly prove which trail is correct? That part has to be either belief or not belief, and can NEVER be correct or incorrect to a being living in this world.

You're threatened because of your negative opinion of losing your existence and what may or may not happen in the afterlife. I'll answer these two cases separately.

As far as our existence in the here and now. it's really kind of funny, but I've found that people that are the MOST concerned with the afterlife, are that way because they don't know what to do about THIS life. If they were focusing on this life, they wouldn't have as much time to ponder or concern themselves with the afterlife. I usually say to them, "when you discover THIS life, THIS person (themselves), the afterlife (or lack of one) will take care of itself".

If one wants to ask about God, one should first know more about who is asking the question. That seems more practical than trying to describe or agree on God. That's a waste of time, he, she or it has no begining. It ends right there. How can one understand the branches (multiple individual descriptions of God), when it's impossible to figure out the root where the branches sprung from?

As far as the afterlife, I don't have time to think about it. The present moment is keeping me too busy to do so. You could say "then why are you spending time in this group?". And I would respond "because it may possibly help me with THIS life, surely it's not going to help for the next one (assumption of next one)".

As for the rest. I'm still not getting my point across (my bad). It is our choice to have opinions. Believe it or not, it is possible to live without opinions. In fact Humans are the only living things that have them (as far as we can tell), so logically speaking this statement can definitely be possible, just not probable or logical according to Mankind's sense of reasoning.

The yet touched question is "Suppose by some inordinate amount of effort or discipline, I manage to look at the world with no opinion? What would be left? No good, no bad, no evil, no nothing !!"

My answer is that first of all, you can't do it with discipline or effort, only by "grasping" when you see your opinions for what they really are. Anyway, who cares how, the assumption is that you did it.

Yes, there will be nothing AT FIRST. Although please allow me to mention that I feel very uncomfortable about using "descriptions or words around this area where I'm going because it can really only be experienced. A blind man can never adequately describe what a symphony sounds like to a deaf person and a deaf person can never adequately describe the color green to a blind person. Because both the color green and the sound of a symphony can only be experienced, not described.

I think that most of the mystics and gurus who have been screaming this stuff for thousands of years would say that at first there is nothing. However if there is a void, something will fill it. Kind of like an osmosis. What fills the void? Unconditional happiness because there is no longer anything preventing it from getting in.

This is the "dying to one's self", "born again" kind of stuff that mystics, gurus and prophets have been screaming about for thousands of years, but few people hear them. They hear something else that is formulated through their past experiences and subsequent opinions (followed by fears.....) Even worse is when someone THINKS they heard them when in fact they didn't (I can think of a few "born agains" that might meet this description).

I'm not really defending or attacking this dying to oneself or born again stuff. I can't tell you to believe this stuff or not believe and i would never bother. I'm only trying to clarifying it. At worst, I'm just explaining an alternative angle to look at all of this stuff from. Ultimately it's still just conjecture.

One final example: I want to visit your house. Let's assume you live far. Therefore in order to travel to your house, a car could be considered an BIG necessity (maybe even an absolute necessity). When I arrive at your house, do I enter your house with my car? Assuming I had a few marbles left (big assumption), the answer is no. I have to get out of the car and walk through your door. Equate the car with opinions, logic, facts, words, labels, categories... all very useful and for the most part reliable tools at our disposal. They help us get to the door to knock on it (in fact, we can't get there without them). However, we can never enter the house with them.

So far I've heard from people in this group who put me to shame when it comes to intellect and knowledge. And they are RIGHT THERE, knocking on the door. Closer than they can imagine according to my perspective. But no one ever answers the door, and that creates understandable skeptisism about whether there is anything behind the door. I wonder if anything would answer if we got out of the car before we knocked on the door. One can't know until one does that.

Hmmm. I wonder if I should become a science fiction writer. Doubt it. I'd have to make alot more sense to do that. Oh well. Best try.

diana

Oooh. Good point.

Heaven/hell is bribery/coercion.

I'd think "free will" would involve a third option that neither promises reward or threatens punishment, because let's face it: Which would you like? The candy or the whipping?

Were it not for the avoidance of eternal torment, heaven would have far fewer hopefuls.

d