diana

Thanks for the apology, haverbob.

I've been reading through this, and it's all blurring together for some reason. I see you arguing that good/bad is an opinion, but I'm failing to see how it relates to Smith's argument, really. This may very well have nothing to do with how you've expressed it and everything to do with my inability to think straight at 1am.

What I am noticing, though, is that this thread isn't really arguing the existence of God. It's arguing the source of evil, so far as I can see. For this reason, it's far better suited to Philosophy than Existence of God.

I'm moving it, and will pop in later when I've had some sleep.

d

haverbob

Yes. You are beginning to understand my point. It's not about the existence of God, it's about the origin of evil. Smith argues that if there is evil, God is immoral. I'm merely saying that God is not the cause of evil. We are because we have an opinion that creates evil. Drop the opinion and there is no good, bad or evil. The only thing left over is REALITY. Therefore God is not accountable for evil as the very root of Smith's argument assumes. Therefore the rest of his argument becomes moot at the very root. There will ALWAYS be pain, but WE create the "suffering" by creating good, bad, evil, injustice..... And it's the suffering part that causes Smith and others like him to postulate as they do and not the pain.

About moving this. Okay, whatever works best. I posted here because of the other post I found here which involved Smith and his argument. I was merely providing an answer to this from an angle that apparently no one else has thought or bothered to take (and I didn't want to do this from position 253 of the initial Smith post that someone else put up before). Everyone just accepts the initial assumption, and then goes in to a complex, well thought out for or against. From my angle, none of that is necessary.

[qoute]For this reason, it's far better suited to Philosophy than Existence of God[/quote]

Okay, fair enough. I can't see the difference. The entire notion of God or no God is philosophy isn't it? It was created by philosophers wasn't it? When you argue the point, you are being a philosopher aren't you? Surely you are not being a Scientist. In fact the very utterance of God puts you immediately in to philosophy (which happens to contain religion as one of it's parts).

Anyway, the move is probably good. It seems that in spite of the immense intellect flying around here (I mean that sincerely), most people in this area are only capable of looking at things from one angle. Maybe that's not true. Maybe they CHOOSE to look at things from one angle. Either way, I'm not going to get anything out of this because someone needs to be able to see from a different angle in order to understand my point and hence critique it.

Oh well. What can one do? One dances their dance and then move on. If someone gets something from it, great!! If not, too bad. They apparently like the "mixed bag" world that they are living in (or perhaps I can say, "that they created for themselves")

Pleasure speaking with all.

GrandDesigner

For fun, I'll comment on parts.

Perception is all anyone has.

What's interesting is that morals are dependant on a beings perception. Well, everything is, but I thought I'd point out that that includes morality. God may be considered immoral by some set of standards but know that eventually you'll see God isn't immoral at all. Even though, at some time, some things may have seemed evil.

Perception is everything. I'll repeat this over and over. If you choose to perceive evil, see the world as bad, you will see it that way. It's your perception. Hard to imagine it's so simple as a choice, but it is.

One of the things one must realize about gaining knowledge and thought is that it doesn't automatically make one smart. There's a lot of scholarly people, even, who can be considered dumb*sses. For example, there was this scientist who researched the splitting of an atom. Then he said something like "oh...wait...err..someone may use this for harm". Well, what did he expect from monkeys? Not too bright at all. A dumb*ss.

Satan is below humans, if you can believe that! Can you imagine that? That humans, these meek bodies, are above a seemingly powerful angel? A way to see that whole thing is that humans are the type to listen to Satans temptations and follow him down. But even if that happened for a time, I like to believe humans can rise above things. To change how you see that situation, change ones perception, is to lend Satan a 'hand up'. What did he do that was so wrong anyways? Ask to have the same powers as some omnipotent being or something?

Opinion. Perception. Words. Essentially the same meaning. And I dont mean by dictionairy definition. I mean that when you say 'opinion', to me it translates to Perception. But then I'm no scholar.

I do talk in riddle at times, but if you read through right, you can piece it together. Have fun!

Grand Ol Designer

haverbob

Got your message and responded. Unfortunately, i didn't see the part where you said you responded. Obviously, now that I've noticed. I would like to make only one correction. Perceptions are different than opinions. One can have an opinion of a perception. That's why I carefully chose the word opinion. Perception can be seeing or hearing (as far as I know) and one can have a perception without an opinion (at least according to my opinion) (kidding).

Jamie_L

Causing people to suffer is wrong. Allowing people to suffer when you can easily stop it is wrong. People and their supposed Free Will do not cause all the suffering in this world. To name a few things outside man's free will:

earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, cancer, strokes, birth defects, and so on

All these things are a result of the way the universe is set up. They cause suffering because of the way human beings are set up. It's not an opinion that dying of cancer is painful. Dying of cancer is painful, because that's just the way the disease interacts with our bodies. Likewise getting struck by lightning, drowning in a flood, etc. It's not really a matter of opinion that death makes us grieve. It's just the way our brains work. Suffering (which is really the definition of evil) is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Who is responsible for how the universe is set up and how people are set up? Well, if you believe in am omnipotent, omniscient creator, then God is responsible. God causes people to suffer. God does not exercise his omnipotence to prevent people from suffering. Thus, if this omni-creator God is out there, he's not a benevolent guy. He's at least frequently indifferent and at most a sadistic prick.

Jamie

haverbob

That was one long opinion (or maybe I should start using the word "judgement" if it helps people understand it better) and that's about ALL it was. That's exactly what I've been talking about the whole time!!! Thanks for providing me with a real life example!!! Perhaps I can do something for you some day in return (just kidding).

haverbob

Let me be corny and quote a stupid book (doesn't matter, if no one understands it anyway). "There is no such thing as the past or future. There is only the present which goes on and on and on...." That's reality.

Autonemesis

Says who? Who gave God just that much responsibility, and no more? Why is there no end to God's other attributes - his Knowledge, his Wisdom, his Goodness, his Justice - but his Responsibility only goes so far?

haverbob

Obviously I did, because I'm God (totally kidding).


Don't pay attention to my lack of seriousness above, because this is a GREAT QUESTION !!! Your getting down to the nitty gritty. Best answer I can give you is that it is impossible for God to be able to do or be ANYTHING that one can imagine. Can God lie? Can God be a fool? Those are logical impossibilities.

If you say "God could lie if he wanted to, he just chooses not to", I would say that the very moment he chose to do so, he ceases to remain as God and therefore it's a logical impossibility. Maybe one can say "God ceases to fit our description of God, but still remains God".

That's getting closer. Because that's all God is for us (and that's a shame). He can only be our notions of him and that's as far as our logical minds WANT to take us. So our judgement of God, no God, good and evil, blah, blah, .....is all based on notions we create. That's unfortunate. Please note that I used the words "our" instead of "your" or "their" because I include myself in this.

Anyway, back to "God cannot lie or be a fool and therefore cannot do everything". God cannot do something that is contradictory. God cannot be on both sides of the fence. Maybe he could throw the fence away, but he can't be on both sides. He cannot give free will and at the same time take responsibility for the choices that one makes because of free will. Being the benevolent entity that he is "supposed" to be, he would have to intervene if he felt responsible, and therefore take away free will at that very moment.

One may argue "Why did God make bad choices available to us at all? Couldn't he just give us all good choices?" Now that's right at the bottom of the barrell, the true crux of the question. This is where I have to tread in abstract areas and I always have difficulty because words are not as useful in these areas.

My best try: First, as a side note, look at what we do. We usually prefer to blame external sources for our problems, in the cases where we feel we can, don't we? It makes us feel non guilty or non accountable for the bad stuff that happens to us. Makes us feel a little better, or not as bad, so why wouldn't we do that? If I interecept a pass and run the wrong way with the ball, then I could say "why the hell did they make two goalposts anyway?" Well....okay....It's your world boss. That's what we do.

Next: The heart of my attempt at an answer. It takes an opinion or judgement (perception is a different thing) to see bad choices. One could perceive a choice without making a judgement of good or bad. One may be choosing in random fashion at that point, but I still think one is making a choice. Ex: "Pick a card, any card". Which card is the good choice and which is the bad? Neither. Without the ability (or maybe desire) to judge, there could be no such thing as a bad choice. There could be bad consequences, but you would have to judge those consequences before they become bad. Water is good. It sustains our life, until we are surrounded by an ocean of it without a raft. Now water is bad. how does water go from good to bad when it's still the same thing? It neither good or bad, AND IT NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE. It's just water. We just think otherwise.

Let me explain a key distinction here. I am not suggesting anyone to CHANGE their opinions or judgements from good to bad, bad to good. I'm saying to DROP them altogether. VERY IMPORTANT. Psychologists tell people to look on the bright side while you're digging a ditch. Think of what you have and deny what you don't have. Don't think of death, think of life. That's what they call "Healthy Denial". That's what I call total bull !!! And that's why most people on this board probably don't believe it either. Can't blame them. Those two words shouldn't be used in the same sentence. How could you truly be healthy or happy if you feel the need to deny something? There is still an unsolved problem that is locked away.

So don't change your opinion/judgement, DROP it all together because it is false. One can never experience true reality through the lens of opinions. It can only be seen through the lack of opinions because an opinion, notion, description, ....can never accurately represent reality. They can only fragment something that is a continuous flow. I think i'm going to fill my flask with the water from a famous river and give it as a present. Can you imagine that? A peice of river? But that's what we do with reality. We fragment the river and put labels on the peices (including good, bad or evil). That's fine. That may be very useful in many circumsatances and it can cause suffering as well, but it's not reality. Don't confuse the two.

"How could I possibly live without formulating opinions or judgements?"

I don't know, go ask a tree (no... I don't believe I can talk to trees). We surely would not drop dead if we had no opinions or made no judgements. Best thing I can say is "try it, then you tell me". I have seen it, but you may see something different which is probably the way it's supposed to be.

Autonemesis

That IS my position. I am an atheist, specifically I am what they like to call a non-cognitivist atheist. There has not yet been presented a coherent idea of God to refute OR to accept, so I do not believe. Your post did nothing to change that (**nor did you answer my question), although I thought it was interesting.


**The question you didn't answer was "Who sets God's level of responsibility just so, and no more?" I didn't ask anything about whether God can do evil or lie or whatever.