Yes, No, I don&#39;t know

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,241

09.29.2021 12:39PM

-->

@949havoc

God/Universe is not perfect. Where you get these ideas are irrational, illogical and lack common sense.

1} Occupied space reality { observed time } ---see sine-wave existence--- has charge { plus or minus }, mass { weight }, spin{ left-right, hp-down, etc }, frequency ---aka vibration-- ergo quanta and quantifiable.

2} Meta-space mind/intelllect/concepts have no charge, no mass, no spin, no frequency ergo are perfect/pure, no time ergo no quanta or quantification.

Your lack of more comprehensive understanding leaves you clueless on so many issues I feel sad regret in my efforts to attempt rational, logical common sense conversation with you.

You quoting bible text is more evidence that have no interest in rational, logical common sense discourse. Waste of effort for me to continue on this dreary pathway. Sorry. I better place to place y attention.

#153

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

09.29.2021 02:55PM

-->

@ebuc

1. You equate God and the universe as a single concept. I maintain they are separate entities, Further, God is perfect, the universe is not. Though Genesis describes creation as a formation of Earth, the sun, moon, and some stars [but only those of the latter that figure into being "for signs and for seasons, and for days and years." [Gen. 1: 14] for Earth. Most of the stars out there do not serve that purpose, so are for something else. We're talking about, perhaps, only a portion of the universe that was created by God for our purpose. But, that creation was not and is not perfect, including man. Perfection is, ultimately our purpose, and our local portion of the universe, but perfection is a learned process, and we are supposed to be about it, now, and always have been.

#154

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,241

09.29.2021 04:37PM

-->

@949havoc

1. You equate God and the universe as a single concept.

Finite, eternally existent, occupied space Universe is what some call reality and some call God.

It is well accepted that all evidence we have, our finite, occupied space is called Universe, or The Cosmos or All That Exists or Everything ---since God is omni-present in everything all things { occupied space } is God.

There is occupied space and the concept { Meta-space/intellect/Spiri-1 } of an occupied space. I'm not sure have the mind/intellect to be able to make the distinction between those two.

I maintain they are separate entities,

again, you dont appear to have the mental/intellectual faculites to comprehend that, there exists only two primary kinds of space;

1} eternally existent, macro-infinit, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces surrounds the following,

2} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Until you have the mental/intellectual ability to grasp this above truth, your a waste of my time and effort to have rational, logical common sense disscussion.

Further, God is perfect, the universe is not.

Here you talking non-sense again, as there is no occupied space that can be distinct from occupied space Universe.

God = finite, occupied space Universe. Is simple yet you have not the ability to grasp simple truths.

Though Genesis describes creation as a formation of Earth,

These types of biblical non-sense is again, what makes you a waste of my time to attempt rational, logical common sense discussion. You like talking to a drunkard who has no access to rational, logical common sense. Both are very sad and a fact of human existence, that God/Universe allows.

When you want to address #1 and 2 above with rational, logical common sense aproach, only then do want to have a sincere disscussion with me.

#155

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

09.29.2021 05:30PM

-->

@ebuc

Finite, eternally existent, occupied space

Some people may think of God in those terms, but it is nonsense to me. Omnipresence is not necessarily descriptive of God just because many perceive him that way. There's a difference between actually being all places at once, or existing in a finite frame of both time and space, but having an ability to alter occupation of both time and space on a moment's notice. And such does not mean that only where God is, in a finite frame of time and space, that there does not exist infinite frames to be in, nor that any other frame but where God is is non-existent.

Topic's author

#156

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

09.29.2021 08:35PM

-->

@Bones

I'm just invoking the ordinarily accepted attributes, being the 4 omni's.

But neither I nor you have accepted them lol, in fact you are arguing for their logical errors. We may have need to accept them, but we haven't made that progression yet. No need to invoke features that we have not agreed work.

This argument works completely fine even if we assume they are true.

Perhaps but they aren't my premises. Give me the benefit of the doubt that I can connect our reality with a Creator but you'll have to follow my own logic and concepts, until I invoke those particular ones...if I even do.

We want to build the most accurate consistent model of God that reflects reality, we don't want to use nor do we need to use other people's ideas or assertions about God. If God exists (which God does), then we want to show it is certainly possible and there are no logical inconsistencies. We have no use for the proclaimed "Omni's" as there are no real reasons to accept them as fact. I haven't asserted them and I don't want to waste my time arguing concepts that aren't my ideas or premises. This is our discussion so we have no need to rehash BS that has already been discussed over and over. I'm not your average Bible thumper so please leave me the opportunity to show you fresh ideas and concepts. If I use any religious depictions it will because they are useful and portray an accurate reflection of God and reality. If I don't bring it up, don't argue it.

If you want to agree on some basic attributes we should probably get that out of the way, but I'm not going to argue over concepts that I have not suggested.

But why then create a world in which unnecessary suffering exists.

God didn't create a world where unnecessary suffering exists, that's where you lose sight of what I'm saying...there is a difference between what God created and what "could" possibly happen. Suffering didn't exist as God created the world, it was produced after God created the world.....What you should ask if you wanted to really be perfectly accurate is "why then create a world where unnecessary suffering COULD occur"? as it is also free NOT to occur.

I can't answer for your question because it is nonsensical, it is worded in a way that is not true to reality. I'm not denying suffering exists, I'm denying that it existed prior to its own cause. Suffering did not exist until there was a reason behind someone's suffering. So God did not create a world where suffering existed, the world was free of suffering before it was caused.

I will go into more detail as to why suffering CAN occur as I've already laid out some factors that need to be acknowledged before we move forward.

You seem to imply that suffering is simply "part of the package", but remember, an omnipotent God could have made the package any way he wanted.

It is part of the package, as that is the very nature of duality. Either duality exists or it does not exist, you can't have it just one way otherwise it is truly not a dual environment....Where one thing can occur so can another thing, as well they are free not to occur, don't forget that rule of thumb. Just because something "could" happen doesn't mean it needs to or even will.

God's omnipotence is irrelevant, God wanted a world where we have complete freedom of expression while at the same time we must learn from our choices of expression.

Again though, we are arguing a premise I have not proposed but I do agree God could have created a world where we are bound to only good choices and happy experiences, but I think God wanted something more than loving conditioned robots. Maybe a world like that exists somewhere or maybe it was created before our world and God thought it lacked real substance and experience, perhaps thought it lacked freedom of expression and character. Perhaps God thought we were deserving of all things being possible?

He could have given creates complete and free will while only subjecting them to necessary pain.

Logical error, God cannot create complete free will where only one feature could occur. Otherwise you have a totally different product with totally different terms.

There is distinction between evil and gratuitous evil. Evils can serve God. Gratuitous evils, on the other hand are tautologically bad, that is, they cannot be justified, they bring no pleasure and they do not improve well being in any meaningful way.

There is no distinction between evil and greater evil other than your perception of which is more evil. Do you like a little bit of milk in your cereal or a lot of milk? it is still milk no matter how much you use or prefer. Evil and suffering can not be justified, but the reasons why they occur in light of an existing God can be resolved. In other words there is no real reason to assume God does not exist because they happen. And I'm trying to give you some reasons to believe that.

I think you are missing the point about evil and it's occurrence....there are no limits on what you can and cannot do other than laws that provide consequences for your choices but even then it doesn't keep you from doing them. If you want to commit gratuitous evil you must learn from gratuitous effects and that can play out in any way your Karma requires. Whatever your desire is, there must be an equivalent lesson or experience you must face. This is the only way improvement can progress as you chose things and the experience things. If no lesser desire for evil will suffice then no lesser punishment and consequence of evil will suffice. So...the level of evil is determined by the pursuer not God.

They are only free to occur because God allows them to occur. God, being omnipotent, could have created this exact world, free will and all, without the gratuitous evils.

You keep making this same mistake...God didn't create a world with gratuitous evils, they are not the product of God. What God is responsible for is creating a world with a dualistic environment, where evil could occur as well as not occur. God being what you assert as omnipotent is irrelevant. Whether or not evil occurs is our responsibility. God can only be charged with giving you opportunity, and who is going to charge God?

I'm glad you agree, I usually have trouble getting theists to admit that evil even exists. But then that leads to the question, why do you think gratuitous evils exist? Tautologically, there seems to be a contradiction.

Number 1, there is no reason why some evil could occur as opposed to greater evil occurring. There is no contradiction....ironically, what would be a contradiction is if some evil could occur but not others.

Lets cut to the chase here, it sounds to me like you wish to take part in a controlled environment. What you may not be aware of is that is precisely the reason why Karma exists and why there are consequences and punishments for gratuitous evil and everything in between. But there can't be a limit put on evil without it violating the very freedom of expression you innately have.

And BTW, just because others may abuse this freedom does not mean you have to. So as long as you personally exercise control you may never experience gratuitous evil, so to you it may never exist anyways.

But remember, God is the one setting the rules here.

To me it sounds like you are the one setting rules.

You assert that either we don't get trees i.e,. we do die, or we get trees and they have the potential to fall on us.

If we want trees like the ones we have then yes trees fall. Whether or not you will be under a tree when it falls is unknown. What is known is that the trees we do have are marvelous. Personally I love them. The chances of one crushing me the moment I walk under it is very slim. I'm confident that my love for trees justifies the rare possibility one would kill me.

These are not the only two options.

Actually they are, we either have trees or not. Trees need seeds to produce more trees, trees grow from seeds into many shapes and sizes and the taller the more magnificent. Trees must die like everything in the material world as being products of physics and chemistry, they birth, they eat, they drink, they grow and they die. When they die they fall, in the rare event one would fall while you were under it without you hearing it falling will probably never happen. And probably never happen to anyone so I think the existence of our trees works fine.

I, as a finite being an imagine a better or more just situation where oxygen comes from say little plants on the floor.

So you opt for no trees?

Moreover, even if we were to accept these two situations as the only possible ones, why does my hypothetical deer have to suffer for exactly the amount that it does? Why didn't God marginally reduce the pain? Surely the deer can learn the lesson of being more careful with less pain?

I can't answer for hypotheticals. I also don't think that deer need to learn lessons from accidental pain. The more rare the hypothetical the more ridiculous it is to ask me to answer for them. What I can do is explain why we have trees and why I think they should exist even if they present a rare danger. Remember though, that much of creation is God's taste and it just so happens that the world is unremarkably beautiful. Trees are very much a part of the unmatched beauty of Earth. How many trees do you believe have fallen on deer throughout the history of them both? it's not like trees were created to fall on deer, it's only a possibility not an intention or a likelihood.

You can take it from me, some form of gratuitous evil is plaguing some animal somewhere in the world as you read this.

I can't assign gratuitous evil to nature sorry, that is not logically coherent. The very nature of evil is only perceived through conscience. A tree falling on a deer is not evil lol. It may be perceived as unfortunate but not evil. Evil is assigned to intentions.

Sure, we do not know these things for certain

Then it follows asking for justification is impossible. I can make sense of why trees and deer exist though despite there being a risk they could collide.

I do not know with 100 percent certainty that deers suffer, but from my observation and the available information on the neural system of deers, I can conclude that they likely do.

But we do not know how much. Like I said previously, there is a "shut off switch" to a certain threshold of pain. To me that is an indication of mercy, so if we all want greater sensation we must suffer the possibility of pain. Either we have a nervous system or not. Do you opt for the type of feeling and sensation a nervous system delivers in spite of the possibility of pain? I mean God could have left out nervous systems but then you would have no awareness of experience of touch sensation. Also, pain can be an indicator something is wrong....you wouldn't want to leave your hand in a fire for example...

This is only the case because God made it the case.

Without duality there can be no creation. Creation is driven by opposing forces and the continual fluctuations between contrasting events, the push and pull of everything that occurs. Creation begins with duality and must be so for there to be any separation from one thing to another....every single thing must have a contrast to show that it even exists. Without one thing you cannot have another, instead of criticizing it you should appreciate the beauty of it. Without a male there can be no female, you like women right? would you prefer a world with only the female principle? would you like a world where there is no beauty of the night and only the beauty of the sun?

God is omnipotent, I'm positive he could have created a world with marginally less suffering whilst retaining all the good that we have.

So you want restrictions to your personal experience and expressions? as I've said, God hasn't created a world with suffering God has created a world where suffering could occur as well as not occur. If you want a world without suffering then you have to have a world without desire, expression and intentions. You would have to have a world without the root of suffering and evil.

Topic's author

#157

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

09.29.2021 08:36PM

-->

@Bones

Of course, the idea of punishment is valid

Okay great.

but surely there are degrees for which one faces discipline?

Discipline must be the equivalent of the mistake... Degrees of discipline should correspond with the degree of action, this is how Karma works.

If you punch someone in the face you won't know what they suffered until you get punched in the face. Eventually you won't punch anyone in the face because you know it sucks and someone might punch you in the face. Whatever you put someone through you must eventually experience. Whatever desires you abuse you must eventually learn through depravity of those desires.

If you kept stealing from someone without there being some kind of equal consequence what motive would you have to stop stealing? perhaps if someone stole your car or your favorite thing it would leave you with a distaste for stealing. Now...the more serious the action the more serious the consequence. Sometimes jail sentences are not enough to teach a soul of their crimes. We know that because of testimonies where criminals still scoff at their punishments and delight in their work. That's because confining someone may not always be sufficient to deal with their level of evil.

Well guess what? if they murdered and raped women Karma will ensure that they return as a woman and be raped. Then it's not so funny anymore is it? That experience will stay in their conscious warehouse as a warning not to commit such actions in the future. This process is repeated until the soul eventually learns. The harder the conscience the longer the lesson, every soul can be broken at some point....they will surrender to the very consequences of their actions. This isn't anyone doing it to them, it is the works of their own hand.

This is true for every soul who occupies this planet, their death and loss of their earthly body is not the end of their Karmic debt/lesson. If they don't learn here they will learn elsewhere. So don't ever believe some criminal got off easy because they died and never experienced what they did to someone else. Karma is not limited to any lifetime. So, where you see suffering is where you see Karma playing out on many different levels of cause and effect.

Assume that I am teaching a child how to write the alphabet. In an effort to teach him the wonders of vocabulary and language, I vow that every time he makes a mistake, I stick a needle into his arm. Is this unjust? Well, one could argue that duality necessary for the pursuit of knowledge.

Duality does not ensure justice or punishments, it is not a moral dilemma. Duality is just a principle that enables one feature to occur with the existence of an opposing or contrasting feature. I only use duality as a justification for natural phenomenon and Karma as a means to deal with moral dilemmas and consequences.

One could argue that "the pain the boy feels is temporary, but the knowledge that he gains through language is forever". Of course, the idea of punishment is valid, but surely there are degrees for which one faces discipline? Instead of poking the boy with a needle, couldn't I just reiterate what I was teaching calmly and arrive at the outcome of learning language without the unnecessary pain? Though the concept of poking the boy with a needle is sound (I mean the idea of punishment for a greater good), surely needle poking is too extreme. Good can exist without gratuitous evil.

Yes, of course. Your illustration does not reflect the concepts I have presented. Where did I ever state that there should be unnecessary punishment? to the contrary, where there is punishment there is (should be) equal cause. Poking someone with a needle for grammar mistakes is not justified IMO.

I believe your conflating the two distinct problems of suffering, as suffering is not always related to evil. Evil can only be assigned to intention, whereas there "could" be suffering that is not related to intention and I guess we could call that accidental suffering. The two are dealt with differently and hopefully I made that clear in my responses.

Topic's author

#158

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

09.29.2021 08:39PM

-->

@Bones

I believe this to be a black and white fallacy.

This tendency for young atheists to claim fallacies needs to be controlled because honestly if you aren't following the logic thoroughly your assertion that I'm committing fallacies is subjective. You will have to trust me that I will not present any logical errors, we can be assured of that when you argue the premise of my content and I will refute your argument or objection to it. But before you claim any fallacies give me the opportunity to explain what I mean and expand on any point I make. Otherwise you might walk away perceiving that because you claimed my reasoning fallacious means you intellectually debunked my premise. If I can assure you anything it is that I will commit no logical errors.

the idea that good cannot exist without evil cannot be conflated with the gratuitous evil.

This is a lack of proper understanding here, basically it makes no sense. There is no reason to contrast evil with greater evil, my premises work for both factors. Either cases of evil are caused, they aren't objects that God creates so I fail to see any real logic on this one or any reason to bind God to your concern. It's not really that good cannot exist without evil rather if good can be committed so can evil, it is simply the nature of reality that if one is possible so is the other. And as I pointed out they are free to occur as they are not to occur.

Sure, maybe we can conjure up a world where only good can occur, but then we would have to question whether or not you're willing to give up your own freedom of choice and your commitment for self-improvement.

Interesting, but I'm not a believer of Karma.

Lol, you also don't believe in God so why is this relevant? you're completely dodging the premise by stating you don't believe in it. I acknowledge that but it is irrelevant. We are trying to ascertain what is possible and if the model works and reflects reality you need to concede the point, argue it but not ignore it. We want to advance our discussion here and the only way we can do that is if you are satisfied with a concept that works, not if you believe it. Belief will come later but for now we need working theories. The theory works very well and reflects reality, it means there is no needless or unfair suffering but all suffering are the results of people's Karma, this is simply a cause and effect scenario.

I believe our universe operates fine without that concept and thus is an ontological burden.

This doesn't make any sense, you presented the problem and I solved it by giving you an answer for why we see suffering. It is neither a burden nor unnecessary but absolutely warranted for this dilemma which in this instance looks like to you a serious concern. Now you claim the very equation for the problem is a burden, this is not the logical consistence we are searching for. Rather if you consider it as a means to solve this concern then we can expand on that concept (until you are intellectually satisfied) but I need you to be flexible and move with logic and reasoning before we determine whether or not you believe it or if your belief even matters.

True, I just assumed this to be true because it is commonly attributed to God.

Yet you don't buy it because they create logical inconsistencies about our world, so why would we need to use those models? Why do we need to assume God is this or that until we both show or agree it's necessary? I'm not even arguing that they are untrue rather I'm saying we don't use them until we come to a point in our discussion where we can no longer avoid claiming it. They aren't my own premises so why do I need to support your claims that they don't work?

I'm fine with discussing the nature of God if you want. We can leave this evil stuff aside.

Well to be clear I don't want to side step your concerns but I do want to start with a clean slate. The whole point here is that we deal with your concerns about MY propositions, I have no objection to satisfying your concerns with evil and suffering because I don't want you to walk away from this thinking that God cannot exist because evil and suffering exist and someone made a claim that God is all-loving and this creates a contradiction. On the same token, I don't want to deal with other people's assertions about God that I don't support. Now I'm not saying that God is evil either, the point I'm trying to make is that Karma itself is the key to understanding the problem, it is irrelevant to any attributes of God.

So whether or not God is good or bad has no correlation to why evil and suffering occur. Why God creates an environment where those features can take place have several factors involved and some of which I have already laid out. Some I have yet to touch on but first I need you to concede that Karma makes sense as to why we see patterns and behaviors of evil and suffering. If need be argue the content of that concept and I will rebuttal those concerns.

So let me know either way. We can tighten this up if you present any further problems of evil and suffering, or if I have given you good reasons to believe the existence of God can be compatible with our worlds suffering we can move ahead with anything you find an issue.

#159

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,241

09.29.2021 09:55PM

-->

@949havoc

Again, you dont appear to have the mental/intellectual faculties to comprehend, that, there exists only two primary kinds of space;

1} eternally existent, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces surrounds the following,

2} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Until you have the mental/intellectual ability to grasp this above truth, your a waste of my time and effort to have rational, logical common sense disscussion.

Space is fact of life. That you cannot address even the simplest truths of our existence is further evidence of just how clueless you brain is. Sad :--( *.. * )--: that seeming sane adult people like you exist, but that is what God/Universe allows, and unlike you, I'm aware of acknowledge truth of what exists, when it is presented to me.

#160