Religion
Related: About this forumIs the universe evil?
Some people postulate that because bad things happen, this is proof that God is evil. Some go so far as to say this is incontrovertible proof that God is evil.
Other people postulate that there is no God, that the universe sprang into existence due to a big bang, or some other as yet unknown and unexplained cosmic event.
No matter which belief you wish to support, if the mere existence of evil, or the fact of bad things happening, or natural disasters occurring, if this constitutes proof for you that God is evil, I have one question:
In your universe, the one where there is no God, is it the universe itself that is evil? Because the same disease and the same natural disasters and cosmic occurrences are still occurring.
Either way, according to my understanding of your logic, it seems to me that evil is seen as the default position.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but I am fairly convinced that whatever "good" is, you can't have one without the other.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Darkness/light
good/evil
etc.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)Not "evil".
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Just from Wikipedia, to say nothing of more academic sources:
In religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.More at Wikipedia
Related Topics
Good and evil Meanings
Conflict between good and evil - The conflict between good and evil is one of the precepts of the Zoroastrian faith, first enshrined by Zoroaster over 3000 years ago. It is also one of the most common conventional themes in literature, and is sometimes considered to be a universal part of the human condition.
Beyond Good and Evil - Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy
Iggo
(47,565 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)The fact that he can't or won't abolish evil, leaves him holding the bag. Otherwise evil is hard to differentiate from 'bad news.' And that would depend on to whom the bad news is given, or the evil being done to.
On balance the universe appears neutral.
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the argument then becomes:
Is the universe evil because evil things happen.
Are parents evil because occasionally a child commits a murder?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The universe just runs down. Having no sentience, it has no intentions. Evil implies intent.
--imm
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)Our neuronal response time has order of magnitude 0.1 sec
I don't know what we should look for if we wanted a comparable figure for a "sentient universe"
Should we search for events at the Planck time scale? That's about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec. If the universe could "think" that much faster than we can, it would outsmart us at every turn
On the other hand, the time required for a photo to traverse the diameter of the visible universe has order of magnitude 1000000000000000000 sec. If it took the universe that long to "have a thought" then the universe has not even had one complete thought since the Big Bang
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)It works out to being closer to neutral. Or slightly better than nothing at all.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Not exactly neutral, but allowing what was created to freely develop.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)... many predetermined structures. And only some freedom.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We are bound by laws of physics, as well as the limitations of our bodies.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)and if it's not your opinion that the universe thinks, then you wouldn't use "evil" for it. If you apply "evil" wider, you might call parts of the universe evil - a smallpox virus, say.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If we determine or agree that sentience is a necessary prerequisite for making a good/evil determination, the answer is no, smallpox is not evil. Nor are earthquakes, or floods.
A lion does not eat because he hates his prey, he eats because he is a hunter.
And in making a judgement about the actions of a sentient entity, the law suggests that intent is to be considered. If I drop a hammer off a roof and it kills someone my intent is key. If I did not intend the act, and if I am not seen as grossly negligent, did I intend on committing murder?
If the Creator created existence and allowed it to develop, and if sentient creatures have the free will to act, the results of those actions reflect on the actors, not the Creator. So unless one believes in predestination, one must accept that sentient creatures are capable of making decisions and acting on those decisions. The concept of free will.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)than "something thinking beings can be".
Yes, intent is key to deciding if a thinking being is "evil". If a 'god' exists in the universe, then we need to consider its intent. If the intent is to allow suffering that it could stop (and a god has huge power, by the common usage of the word 'god'), then we can call it "evil". The god's free will is to allow suffering. As various people have put it, "with great power comes great responsibility".
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The insight to know that sentient beings must be allowed the freedom to grow.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Sentient and non-sentient beings suffer pain from disease, famine and other things. Is it 'great insight' that makes a sentient god indifferent to that?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)no falling objects, no slipping and tripping hazards also?
That sounds like a Thomas Kincaid painting.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)diseases that humanity is now doing itself, but has not bothered to do so, then we can conclude humanity is ethically superior to that god.
Yes, I could design a better universe than the one we have if I had the powers that are attributed to a god. We all could.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If the Creator sees human progress as progress toward perfection...........?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)If it's powerless, there's no evidence that it exists - it's outside the universe, with no way of changing anything in the universe. If it can change something, then it should, to be considered 'not evil'. I don't really give a toss about what a Creator that just 'sees' feels. Fuck them. No need to bring humans into it - rinderpest is another example.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)However, it seems the world is full of constraints on our freedim. I can't grow wings and fly; I have to obey the law of gravity, or die.
Even the structure of my brain is largely, if not entirely, determined.
So God - or Nature - constantly control us, to a fairly high degree.
And yes; our Maker is partly responsible. Even an unconscious nature constantly forces our hand. Even without a conscious will.
But we don't mind building technology that defeats say, nature's diseases.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and likeness of the sentient Creator. No, we will never evolve to be a super being, but our evolution is progress toward our ultimate destination. It is the journey that counts.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I cannot prove it yet, being alive and supposedly sentient.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you assume some intelligent agent created the universe (as you do), then you have to explain why such an agent would create something like smallpox. "Because free will" doesn't answer that, BTW.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)"Good" and "Evil" describe human actions only. The universe is not alive or conscious, and therefore does not make choices. It would make no more sense to describe the universe as evil than to call a falling brick evil for bopping someone off the head.
The "the universe is good/evil" point of view assumes that the universe somehow controls our lives in any way other than the laws of physics. As there is no evidence of the universe being anything but a chaotic place governed by physics, assigning morality to the universe is a pointless concept.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)People are free to act and the results and consequences of those actions reflect only on the choices of the actors.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)(I do not, but you seem to), then it becomes more complicated.
For me, not so much more complicated. The universe is ambivalent and people do shitty things.
For you, God created things like cancer and natural disasters and all sorts of things that do horrible things to innocent people. All on his watch and design. Now it isn't an ambivalent world in which things happen, but one designed to be this way by a being that doesn't want to even tweak his alpha test.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I believe that the Creator, after creating existence, allowed that creation to develop.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have no beliefs regarding god. I see no evidence for existence and do not believe in any gods.
To say that I believe there isn't a god or that I disbelieve in a god puts the onus on me to support my claim. I have no claim being made. Those that believe in a god are the ones with the burden of proof.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But as it relates to god, it is very frustrating for believers to tell me that I actually have a "belief" that god doesn't exist. That isn't true. I have no beliefs in a god. I do not take the position that a belief in god is the status quo and I am just choosing not to believe. Those that want to argue for a god are the ones with the burden of proof in this regard.
As it doesn't relate to god, there are plenty of things I believe in for which I have no empirical proof. I believe people are primarily good. I believe Hemingway is an overrated writer. I believe Ulysses is the best book ever written.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Both are unprovable.
I tried to wade through Ulysses but failed.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do you "not believe" in unicorns? Do you "not believe" in leprechauns? Do you "not believe" in the invisible dragon that I think lives in your garage?
I do not believe in a god. There is no evidence for one. If you wish to prove there is? Fine. If you wish to believe in one? Also fine. But don't try to put me in the position of having a belief in the thing you believe in. I am the null hypothesis.
I read Ulysses every summer. Learn more every year. Joyce was a crazy genius.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My point on the meaning of the word belief is that belief only applies when there is no provability.
I do not believe in gravity. I know that every time I drop something it falls. Belief is not necessary.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)My wife often gets offended because I obviously love the book and she has talked about reading it and I have told her that she shouldn't. She thinks it's because I think she's stupid. Which isn't the case. You need to have put in your literature chops to read Joyce and she just hasn't done that (an attorney--so her reading is elsewhere).
I've tried explaining this to others without much luck, but I'll give you a shot. The problem I have with that definition of belief is that it assumes--not with malice or even knowing it--that your belief is normal. Specifically in this case because the US and the west is primarily Christian. So people feel comfortable saying things like "well, you just don't believe in god, but that's just a belief you can't prove." No. When we prove things, the burden is on those making the claim. And in this case, a pretty big claim. That I "don't believe" in god does not mean that each is on equal footing. As the null hypothesis, I think my position is the default until proven otherwise.
I'm fine with you believing whatever you want. Really, I am. Your god is no more compelling than Zeus or any other god. And I don't see a lot of people running around saying that they "don't believe in Zeus" and that nobody really knows and that their belief in Jesus as god is no different than their disbelief in Zeus.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But it seemed more ordeal than anything else.
And I say this as a person with degrees in French literature and English literature.
My feeling is that taste in literature is, to a degree, familiarity with the various forms.
As to belief, we all have beliefs. I cannot imagine anyone not having beliefs. I never attempt to say my beliefs are better than any others. They are simply mine.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)Edit: To clarify, this is RE: the logic you described that God allows cancer and destruction, not your argument against the logic in the first place. I think we are in agreement.
I'm an Atheist, but many religious people (like Deists) would ignore the "PKG" God concept all together by saying that God didn't create cancer, nor does it intervene in this world. It simply started the clock, so to speak, and has been "hands off" ever since. This is the Alpha test argument you pointed to.
I dislike Deism, because I believe it was created to skirt around many logical paradoxes that arise from believing in God. Its explanations don't disprove atheists - its explanations simply dodge the questions.
First and foremost, if God were all Powerful, Knowing, and Good, why is its creation so "buggy?" A PKG God would not need to modify their work at a later date - it would always exist as perfection.
The rational answer is that humans are a product of evolution, which is imperfect. If the argument becomes "God created evolution," then that's both Deist question-dodging and flirting with changing the definition of God.
I have not found answers from theists as to why imperfections exist satisfactory.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)All we can do is determine what is good for humanity, or bad for humanity. From our human point of view.
In that process, we seem largely determined, but partly free.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The term does not apply to anything without sentience.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)The argument is that if a god existed in this universe, it would be uncaring or maybe evil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I was talking of the universe, of existence. Existence is of and apart from the Creator. Just as if you paint a portrait it is part of you and separate from you.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)and you have said you don't think 'evil' can be applied to your idea of a 'creator'. So I took that to mean you don't think your creator is sentient. Is there an excuse for why 'evil' doesn't apply to your creator?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Unprovable in regards to a deity.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)It would remove any point in religion, or believing in them.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If you get drunk and accidentally plow your car into a couple of pedestrians, you've still done evil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Otherwise I would call it poor decision making, or a problem with alcohol.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If you are aware that by drinking and driving one naturally risks harming someone and yet you choose to do it anyway, your decision is evil in addition to being bad.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Those who drink and drive are not exclusively alcoholics. Drinking is addictive, drinking and driving is not. And I doubt you'd suggest your deity is addicted or genetically predisposed to creating deathtraps.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Other times it, with the Bible, uses the Design argument; that the goodness of the created universe proves a good creator.
I'd say that any thing, reflects the character of whatever created it, to a degree. If some one makes bombs, and leaves them ticking all over your town, that's evidence of the creators malicious intent.
And if nature made disease, then nature is not really so good, from our point of view. Which is in many ways the only standard we can know.
We might not call nature "evil." But we could call it often, bad for us. And if nature had a sentient creator? Then being sentient, conscious, then he would be evil. Having consciously created an evil thing.
And in the bible? God creates the devil. And disease. And even directs an "evil spirit." So God if he exists, is partly evil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)So who controls the limits on the Creator?
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)would, in my opinion, have no limits.
But to ask can the Creator control creation asks about the motivation also.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We can try to understand them, but sometimes they surpass our ability.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)They shouldn't venture opinions that what exists beyond reality -- exists in reality.
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A 5800 year old flat earth.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Perception does not control reality.
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Witness the Electoral College voters who recently certified the new President. He was elected by people who believed what he said.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Believers, even true believers, don't determine truth. And it's doubtful that most people believe any politician these days.
It's interesting that in most of the postmortems I've seen, Trump voters freely admit that they knew he was full of shit.
--imm
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If they suspected he was lying, what were they voting for?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them. Who would shake things up?
They voted for style. They're Americans! Style beats substance. Who had the trademark?
--imm
nil desperandum
(654 posts)If you are a non-believer I suspect you find the universe is not at all an entity, and thus not capable of good or evil but merely a sandbox where a variety of organisms can achieve life and evolve into whatever version of that organism is best suited to survive in the sandbox of the universe. Consequently survival becomes the defining aspect of life in the universe, and some lifeforms evolve to eating other lifeforms as a means of advancing. The higher up the food chain you ascend the more likely your species is to survive and flourish, in that regard all lifeforms including humans are more like advanced viruses in that they seek to overwhelm the host and grow to the largest population possible, and like viruses once the host is overwhelmed they will also consume themselves and perish. Neither good or evil, just survival. Consequently good and evil can be defined by individual species and groups to suit their survival goals.
If you believe in God as the creator of the heavens and earth you are in a far different position, as in this universe your God created everything, your God created the things that kill other things and your God created the things that destroy the various species through disease and pestilence. If all things come from your God the universe in that scenario is created primarily as an unfeeling and uncaring sandbox of death and disease wherein a chosen few are given the chance to find God and seek a way out of the morass as only the human species is allowed to seek and find God in that universe. That is a grim assessment of a deity...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)your grim and negative argument. And you have that right, but that does not define the Creator. Rather, it defines your individual view.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)if one assumes that the biblical creator did in fact create the light, the heavens and the earth he would in fact by definition be responsible for everything within his creation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And it's not simply waved away by declaring "free will" - as your failed efforts have fully demonstrated.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We obviously have a far different view of this matter. You have the free will to believe in a world view what works for you, and so do I.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So you just go on to grab one particular phrase, and start a new thread about it trying to save face.
Hasn't worked yet, but it's fun seeing you fail over and over and over.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Perhaps inadvertent, perhaps intentional.
Do you see life so absolutely? Are there no gray areas?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apologize and I'll happily answer your questions.
But I know you won't. How amazing it would be though for you to prove me wrong for once.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)insults.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's a new one. I'm very sorry you were hurt by people proving you wrong.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I could copy and highlight your responses, but it would serve nothing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Glad you recognize it. You could put this all behind you with a simple retraction and apology - but you refuse. Is that Christian behavior?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Not about natural disasters, or illnesses.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)People who think it's all about them find that evil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The conflict arises when we argue over how the machine came into existence.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)It likely has no creator and no ultimate purpose except to exist.
It is, however, utterly impersonal.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)i.e. can and has intervened, then that being is, at the very best, indifferent to the suffering of other sapient beings. You can define that as evil. The universe itself though, that is also indifferent, but is no more morally culpable than a rock.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that Creator might prize free will, and the possibility of sentient beings making moral progress, over the idea of being a cosmic director.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Its a cop out, generally speaking over all of human history, harmful actions by humans against each other has only been a small fraction of the suffering that befell humanity from natural causes.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)everything does happen.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)hence the reason for no evidence of there being a interventionist deity acting on it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)mean that they do not exist? A tree does not understand the saw. But that does not mean that the saw and the person using it do not exist.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)for that matter. We don't lack in either.
Not to mention a saw is a man made tool with a specific purpose.
Can you think of a clumsier analogy?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A point that I have previously made here. What would make you feel that any human, with a human's limitations, would have the capacity to understand the motivations and abilities of a Creator?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)a being beyond good or evil, one that, at best, has motivations and/or desires that are completely inhuman. Such a being we couldn't relate to, we certainly wouldn't be made in that being's image, nor would that being show affection for us, if they expressed any emotion at all.
We are talking about the supposed Creator of the universe, of the cosmos itself, the creator of time, space, matter itself, the creator of trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each with billions(at minimum) of stars in them and orbiting those stars are quadrillions upon quadrillions of worlds. A universe in which space expands faster than light, where the true size of the universe is just beyond a horizon we can never cross. A universe where the furthest back in time we can see is the big bang, and we see millions of galaxies in slivers of sky no larger than a thumbnail extended a full arm length, and that isn't even close to being able to see far enough, for we are only seeing a small percentage of that universe in our little bubble of light that is only 93 billion light years in diameter.
Knowing all the facts that we know about the universe now, I find it frankly silly that people try to cram all that down, reduce its scope to something more palatable to human experience, and then claim some local Caananite god was the creator of it all. There may very well be a creator to the universe, but such a being certainly has no relationship with humans, nor would it bear any resemblance to the tribal, brutish and primitive god(s) of the Bible, Torah, Koran, Bhagavad Gita or any number of other legends, myths, and so called holy texts that humans imagined over the many centuries.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Edited to add: If there is confusion about the above statement, it refers to my personal belief.When you said:
I would partially agree. Man generally anthropomorphizes his gods. That is understandable because it does allow us to conceive of interaction with that god(s).
As to how the Creator perceives creation, I cannot answer that. I hope one day to be able to answer that but I also hope that day is many years off.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)How do you know this? Oh wait, this is again just another *belief* of yours, right?
You should preface statements of belief so they don't come off looking like statements of fact. It appears like you're attempting to give your religious beliefs a veneer of legitimacy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that, absent any attribution, a statement reflects the poster's views.
But for those who do not make that connection, yes my statement was an expression of my understanding. I will try to clarify to avoid future confusion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Saying, for instance, "you haven't provided one speck of evidence for this creator you believe in" is a statement of fact.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But given that faith does not need proof, why did you feel it was necessary to repeat what has been repeated here many times?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That is you attempting to shift the terms of debate to be much more favorable to your position. It's also dishonest.
It would be more accurate to say that proof destroys faith.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It would actually be more accurate of you to say that faith and science are not equivalent.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You carry on arguing with whatever straw man claimed that faith and science were equivalent. I won't get in your way.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Otherwise it is actually you who is using straw to build an opponent.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Read your post #163 again.
I know I'm stupid and cannot read well - you've made it perfectly clear you think so, and have steadfastly refused to apologize for the insults hurled at me (in lovely Christian fashion) - but why should I say that faith and science are not equivalent when I never said they were?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I have stated my belief that faith and science are not equivalent numerous times. So the straw man to which I was referring is the argument, never actually brought up by me, that faith IS equivalent to science.
Do only Christians use insults?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's all I needed you to do.
What does it matter whether non-Christians use insults? That's a red herring. What do you think about the insults you've used? Are they justified? Will you ever apologize?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Do you ever use insulting language when responding here?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)No matter. You've answered it indirectly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)provides the answer to any who care to look.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Give me an answer, and then I will answer your question. That's how it works.
But it is interesting that you do indicate that yes, you feel justified in flinging whatever insults you want. So much for turning the other cheek or loving your neighbor. Perhaps despite your claims, you aren't really a Christian? Fascinating.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And that is my personal interpretation of your behavior, based on your many responses in this group. And your avoidance of the issue is also, in my view, quite typical.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That you refuse to answer, and instead return to your tired personal attacks on me, says everything.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you want to know what it's about as opposed to, oh, I don't know, more personal attacks, start here:
For God formed us to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made us.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am trying to respond with politeness. So far I am succeeding, but it IS only January 10.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's not discussion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And very fond of the atheistic saints.
We can always hope for a Damascus moment of enlightenment.
rug
(82,333 posts)The same thing happens with the religious right. Every comment to the contrary becomes an attack. As you say, there is no intellectual security that would allow a calm and civil discussion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The intolerance for different beliefs even as the fundamentalist atheist complains about intolerance directed at atheists.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It seems likely that global warming and related climate change will bring about an extinction event. How that will affect the earth in the long and short term remains to be seen.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It evolved to fill a specific niche, and does not care that it steals the vision of a child.
In a godless universe, this is just life trying to find a way. But it negatively impacts our fellow human beings, and since we have the knowledge and technology we should work to eliminate it like we have smallpox. (Another one of your beloved creator's inventions.)
For a universe with an allegedly benevolent creator, this is a fucking huge problem that isn't solved by saying the magic words "free will" or dishonestly trying to change the subject to human-caused global warming. You insult victims and all truly compassionate people with your callousness.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Under the simplistic "God is responsible for anything that makes someone sad" meme that is apparently quite in vogue among non-theists here, the existence of sharp objects, gravity, claws, teeth, the sun and any other thing that can cause pain is proof that God is evil.
The utter silliness of such a contention makes any response somewhat unneeded.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Which is kind of a prize for the rest of us to watch, I guess.
BTW - you're doing it again. Asserting that the universe has a creator, asserting knowledge about that creator, but insisting that no one can know anything about your creator or how/why it created what it did.
This is indeed silly, but it's your belief system. So everyone else will laugh while you scramble around.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)as humiliation, and massive failure, and other terms that reveal how you think of those with whom you disagree.
A very Manichean and judgmental world view.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but it's not just me that "cannot accept" your inability to defend your position. Many others have demolished your attempts at arguments, so much so that you (as I have noted repeatedly) just go on to start another thread under different terms when you are defeated.
It's a pattern and clear as day - just like you then engaging in personal attacks and false accusations.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But consistency is not a virtue when one is consistently intolerant of other views. As you demonstrate here on a regular basis.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Guilty as charged.
Perhaps you could actually defend your position. Or at least apologize for your repeated insults and false accusations.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm not suggesting things that exist should be done away with.
The burden is 'why does this shit exist at all?' Why create it in the first place.
The rest of your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with an intelligent creator scenario for the universe, and what, if any, moral agency it has over that creation.
rug
(82,333 posts)Fry's rhetoric aside, from a purely objective scientific perspective, can you say the small risk of eaten eyes outweighs the benefits of acanthamoebae?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Any moral implications are viewed strictly through a human moral lens, for those humans that ascribe moral values to 'things'.
(I do not.)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But as to a creator, any attempt to define a creator who created all of existence through a human lens is destined to fail.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Having your cake and eating it too, it seems. You get to make all kinds of claims about your creator, but then back off and say no one can know anything about it. Funny.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And identify it as my opinion.
What is the good of having cake if one cannot eat the cake?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This is what many dishonest theists do - hold very concrete and definite positions - not just opinions - about their god, but back away from it when forced to confront contradictions into a nebulous "creator" about which no one knows anything. When the scrutiny is avoided, they slide back into all the trappings again.
Difference is, here you're not allowed to get away with that. No wonder you've lashed out with false accusations and insults.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)When confronted with a lack of evidence for their deity, many Christians will assert that they do not believe in a God who interferes in the affairs of men. But then, they'll tell you Jesus Christ is God the Son who was made flesh, and who suffered, died, and was resurrected to save us all from our sins.
In other words: "I don't believe God gets involved in the world of man. Except this one time..."
trotsky
(49,533 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Did that nuance escape you?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So yeah, maybe that's it. It certainly couldn't be your constantly shifting positions and statements that have confused many people in addition to me.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)From your various arguments here, you constantly like to point out examples of intolerance as it relates to people of faith, but in so doing, your own intolerance for opinions that differ from yours is also on display.
As is your penchant for reframing what people actually say.
You have repeatedly accused me of framing what Christianity is, without actually citing any of my posts to support your accusations. So I am left with two options:
1) To assume that you repeatedly misunderstand what I am writing, always in a way that frames my arguments negatively, or
2) To assume that you have an agenda.
I am open to either option.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Let me know when you are ready to defend your position that so many here have already obliterated.
You keep trying to attack me, when you should be defending your argument. Go ahead. Give it a try.
Of course I do realize, after having given you multiple opportunities, that you'll never do the "Christian" thing and apologize for your attacks and accusations, so just let 'em fly. It only solidifies for everyone here what you think "Christian" behavior is.
Yeah, fling some more. It only drives home the point that you can't defend your position.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A veritable mountain of projection.
I am not attacking you, merely pointing out my feelings about how you approach argument. And still waiting for your citations from my posts that support your regular contention that I am attempting to frame what being a Christian is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I challenge your position, and you spew a constant refrain personal attacks and false accusations. I've got an agenda. I'm projecting. I'm stupid. I blame all Catholics for Trump winning. Yada yada yada. All false, all bogus, but it's all you have. And you can't apologize, because then you dismiss everything you've been able to produce as an "argument" (in your mind, I guess).
So here's a crazy idea. Defend your position. Stop insulting me, stop making false accusations, and just defend your position.
But I bet you won't.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)(You could try apologizing and retracting your false accusations against me. What's the worst that could happen?)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That seems an unwise logical path to tread.
Most religions attribute unlimited power, capability, presence, etc to god(s). The Abrahamic god is defined as literally omnipotent.
An omnipotent being by definition, cannot fail to be understood by or known to us, if it wants to be known and understood by us.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)god allegedly created both........ No doubts in my mind and experience(s)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)It allows agnostics and atheists to see the root of their difference: the 1) scientific view of a neutral nature. Vs. 3) the religious assertion of a usually super natural, divine goodwill or providence, behind it all.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Probably more is needed. Since this is part of the heart of the agnostic vs. atheistic discussion, I would not assume that the agnostics or liberal Christians always have a leg up on liberal atheists.
Personally, the colder universe looks more like what we actually see out there. Even religion is a little colder, more murderous even, that our idealists assert.
Maybe periodic posts in this subject and related ones, every month or so, would be useful. In the meantime I've bookmarked and DU-approved and Facebook "liked" it, for future reference. And hopefully, future debate.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That was my reasoning behind the intolerance post. And the related Boston post. To point out the universality of intolerance.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Is it the way religion describes - or not. And if not? Then we should not follow religion. Since for that matter, not only is the universe, real life, important in itself. But finally it relates to moral issues too.
Lots of social scientists are looking into the evolutionary advantages to this vs.that morality or ethics.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And calling that behavior ethical because it promotes the literal continuation of the group.
Small groups of hunter gatherers need the entire group to survive.
How the universe is described by religion, or by science, is limited. Scientists obviously cannot explore what existed prior to the big bang. And religious thinking is, of course, speculative by nature.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Looking for and following mostly material proofs, should allow religion-based agnostics to interface more smoothly with science-based atheists.
Between religion and science, among other things, is rational ethical theory.
Beyond non-overlapping magisteria.
Walls of separation should be mostly maintained. But for anyone looking for any possible common ground for temporary use, pragmatic ethics would be part of the Venn overlap.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If by that you mean that which allows the group to survive I would agree as long as that pragmatism does not entail eliminating another group which poses a possible competition for resources.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)One of the main quasi-sociological pragmatic attempts to defend parts of religion, says that religions increase the strength of groups. For example Through following one god, the scattered Jewish tribes began marching to the beat of one drummer.
But you are exactly right. The downside of social solidarity, is that this newly, strongly unified group, typically sets out next, to oppose and kill all different, alien, dissenting neighbors. Who oppose the principles they had often rather arbitrarily chosen for themselves.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)So I don't know the answer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But one assumes that we are in the same one, unless our internet connections are far better than we know.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Therefore I doubt I could reach another 'universe.'
But, what IS this universe?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)So I mostly concentrate on the natural world that I can see. When I say "universe," that's mostly what I mean. Anything beyond the visible and measurable environment, is pure speculation.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)Things arise from their causes. Or every action has an equal reaction.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Or for that matter though? Given the fantastic success and brilliance of science from its concentration on nature, the most reasonable guess is that whatever it is, the universe is probably natural, and can eventually be grasped by science.
This appears to be far more likely than the supernatural ghosts and spirits and feelings of religion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)multiverse.
And I agree that the universe is natural in that it encompasses all that exists. But the why of existence is what religion concerns itself with.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)As Bertrand Russell partly noted.
So religion ALSO gave up on ultimate causes; and therefore ultimate "why"s.
Finally it's best to admit no one knows our ultimate origins; or ultimate reasons, therefore.
Better to be a liberal atheist than a liberal agnostic. Better to be liberal agnostic, than a liberal Christian.
Better to be a liberal, than a conservative, mostly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Liberals also generally have a world view.
And Christians believe that the Creator created.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)but I wanted to ask one of my teachers this question and here is his answer.
Geshe Topgyal: The material cause for the formation of our Universe is no other than the space particles- flying particles left after the destruction of the previous universe or Big Bang. The immaterial cause for the formation of our Universe is no other than the Collective Karma of the limitless beings bound to shared this universe as their natural Home for billions of years or Kalpas. Prayers !!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So if I understand the answer, (not a guarantee), your Teacher states that this universe was formed from the debris left over from a previous universe.
And does collective Karma refer to the souls, or the essences, of all sentient and non-sentient beings?
If so, could this Collective Karma be a way to state that all of sentient creation is a part of the Creator?
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)is the Creator. There can not be anything OUTSIDE the universe (especially if you think of God being the creator) because if god is everything, then god can't be outside of anything.)
Buddhists do not believe in a creator or personal god, but that ALL things come from causes and conditions...when the causes and conditions are right/ripe the event occurs. Because all is empty (can you tell me where you soul is? Or where YOU are?) that essence is a great way to explain the "flow" of karma.
I find Buddhist philosophy fascinating and as I study more, I find it to be more true.
If you are on Facebook and want, you can find Geshe Topgyal and follow him. He is a great teacher and has reached the highest level of Buddhist teachings.
I am a mere humble student and my answer may be incoherent.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)in the sense of sharing in self-awareness.
And yes, in my view Creator and created are linked by the act of creation and that shared sentience.
I must confess that I have never read anything about Buddhism beyond the superficial.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)A man said to the universe:
Sir, I exist!
However, replied the universe,
The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,852 posts)I'm starting to think the Universe /God has a wicked sense of humor.