theodicy

[Belinda]

It's like arguing over the "Trinity". Only Christians have a problem with the Trinity because they're going off a book written a couple of thousand years ago by human beings from a couple of thousand years ago. The Trinity is not a "problem" for non-Christians.

It is and it isn't. There are arguments with regard to other religions whether monotheist or polytheist.

So if I were arguing with a Christian about whether the Yazidis are monotheist or polytheist (are the seven "angels", considered to be emanations of God, part of god or fully separate entities?) and the Christian was saying "polytheist, I might respond, then how is the Yazidi supposed to think about your "trinity"?" As a non-Christian and non-Yazidi) I have a hard time considering these different with regard to monotheist?

I am still waiting for a response to my argument (from the East) that NO, an omnipotent and benevolent god could NOT create a universe that included living beings without introducing suffering and experiencing evil. That suffering and experiencing evil is precisely the difference between "living thing" and "non-living thing".

So an answer to the question of theodicy MIGHT be:
Could create a universe without suffering and evil if a universe without living beings.
Could create a universe without suffering and evil with living beings if not dynamic; without time, static, a tableaux (if nothing happens then evil doesn't happen)
Otherwise not. Omnipotence can't produce "life" without the attributes of "life

God could create a universe without suffering. There would be no natural disasters, or else humans could be made not to fear death. And we would be able to realistically satisfy all of our desires, or else not have desires at all. But neither of those two possibilities is reality for most of us. Maybe some are better suited to the world than others, good for them, though not good for the rest of us.

"A natural disaster " is a human evaluation . God is a human concept.
We can't satisfy all our desires. If we had "no desires at all" we would die.

The only way to remain a theist and avoid the problem of evil is to divest the deity concept of its attribute of omnipotence . Similarly we could divest the deity concept of its attribute of omnibenevolence. However I bet most people would prefer to worthship a benevolent deity than a powerful one.

If you are someone who believes that might makes right then you would worthship the omnipotent deity.

[MikeNovack]

I hope people have been paying attention, that I have proposed we consider the eastern view that ALL living beings suffer and experience evil. Please do not replace "living beings" with "humans". The claim is that "suffering and experiencing evil:" IS the difference between the living and the non-living. That whatever does not suffer and experience evil is non-living.

And no, this is NOT arguing God lacks omnipotence. It is suggesting "omnipotence" relates to the power to do what is possible. Lacking the power to do the logically impossible not at issue.

Let me reformulate: IF "living beings" means "beings that suffer and experience evil" then of course God (however omnipotent and benevolent) could not create living beings without creating suffering and evil. Nobody is saying God couldn't create things/beings that were non-living without introducing suffering and evil.

For any still not getting it, I will substitute, eliminating "living beings"
However omnipotent and benevolent, God cannot create that which suffers and experiences evil without creating suffering and evil

[Belinda]

I hope people have been paying attention, that I have proposed we consider the eastern view that ALL living beings suffer and experience evil. Please do not replace "living beings" with "humans". The claim is that "suffering and experiencing evil:" IS the difference between the living and the non-living. That whatever does not suffer and experience evil is non-living.

And no, this is NOT arguing God lacks omnipotence. It is suggesting "omnipotence" relates to the power to do what is possible. Lacking the power to do the logically impossible not at issue.

Let me reformulate: IF "living beings" means "beings that suffer and experience evil" then of course God (however omnipotent and benevolent) could not create living beings without creating suffering and evil. Nobody is saying God couldn't create things/beings that were non-living without introducing suffering and evil.

For any still not getting it, I will substitute, eliminating "living beings"
However omnipotent and benevolent, God cannot create that which suffers and experiences evil without creating suffering and evil

I agree. When I recommended eliminating omnipotence from God's attributes I meant the Abrahamic God

[MikeNovack]

I agree. When I recommended eliminating omnipotence from God's attributes I meant the Abrahamic God

But I am not. I don't think I need to go there (doesn't mean I disagree; just that's an assumption I don't think I need) I am arguing "omnipotence does not include being able to do the LOGICALLY impossible". That's a commonly given solution to the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox.

Remember, I am not saying that omnipotent benevolent God could not create a universe without suffering and evil. That's easy peasey, just populate it with the non-living. In other words, in a universe without suffering and evil, what would distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing?

[iambiguous]

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

I am reminded of an analogous problem that has arisen with the increasing power of humanity as a result of technological advance. The philosopher Thomas Metzinger fears that we may be able to create conscious computers.

Now, from my frame of mind, that sort of AI would surely shake things up. Why? Because it's one thing to communicate with an AI entity that basically consists of programming and inputs from other mere mortals, and another thing altogether if that entity really acquires some measure of autonomy. Assuming of course that we ourselves are not just nature's own...automatons?

As readers of this column may recall, I believe this is a fantasy (see ‘The Fantasy of Conscious Machines’, Issue 152) But the improbability of conscious machines is, for Metzinger, beside the point. In ‘Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology’ (Journal of AI Consciousness, 2021), he argues that, so long as it is even remotely possible that artificial consciousness might emerge, there should be a ban in the medium-term on all research that directly aims at or knowingly risks this outcome.

One word: capitalism.

If there are big bucks to be made here then, sooner or later, those interested in accumulating big bucks [and they are everywhere] will soon find a way to rationalize, well, practically anything, right? For some, think boiler rooms all the way down.

Unless, perhaps, all of this does unfold given the only possible reality. Then they're off the hook too?

Central to his argument is the strong possibility that conscious machines might be obliged by humans to experience states they find unbearable. The moratorium may not need to be permanent; but, Metzinger argues, it should not be lifted until it has been tied “to an ever more fine-grained, rational, evidence-based, and hopefully ethically convincing set of constraints.”

Compare this frame of mind to my own considerably more fractured and fragmented mentality.
Given a No God universe/multiverse. But this seems "here and now" to be the equivalent of the animal rights folks insisting that no harm should be done to animals. Now, what, that commitment is extended so that no harm shall be done to artificial human beings?

On the other hand, if anyone here comes across a source that explores this more in depth, please link it to us.

[Gary Childress]

I agree. When I recommended eliminating omnipotence from God's attributes I meant the Abrahamic God

But I am not. I don't think I need to go there (doesn't mean I disagree; just that's an assumption I don't think I need) I am arguing "omnipotence does not include being able to do the LOGICALLY impossible". That's a commonly given solution to the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox.

Remember, I am not saying that omnipotent benevolent God could not create a universe without suffering and evil. That's easy peasey, just populate it with the non-living. In other words, in a universe without suffering and evil, what would distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing?

Except it's not logically impossible to eliminate suffering.

[Belinda]

I agree. When I recommended eliminating omnipotence from God's attributes I meant the Abrahamic God

But I am not. I don't think I need to go there (doesn't mean I disagree; just that's an assumption I don't think I need) I am arguing "omnipotence does not include being able to do the LOGICALLY impossible". That's a commonly given solution to the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox.

Remember, I am not saying that omnipotent benevolent God could not create a universe without suffering and evil. That's easy peasey, just populate it with the non-living. In other words, in a universe without suffering and evil, what would distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing?

Except it's not logically impossible to eliminate suffering.

Mike okay.

Gary okay.

Read the Noble Truths from Buddha and learn the only unfailing solution to suffering . Note that Buddha advocates no deity whatsoever as instrumental to the solution.

[Gary Childress]

But I am not. I don't think I need to go there (doesn't mean I disagree; just that's an assumption I don't think I need) I am arguing "omnipotence does not include being able to do the LOGICALLY impossible". That's a commonly given solution to the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox.

Remember, I am not saying that omnipotent benevolent God could not create a universe without suffering and evil. That's easy peasey, just populate it with the non-living. In other words, in a universe without suffering and evil, what would distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing?

Except it's not logically impossible to eliminate suffering.

Mike okay.

Gary okay.

Read the Noble Truths from Buddha and learn the only unfailing solution to suffering . Note that Buddha advocates no deity whatsoever as instrumental to the solution.

I looked it up on ChatGPT. If the Buddha is right, then God is not a personal God or anything remotely like it. However, the notion that life must necessarily be suffering is perhaps an unwarranted assumption. Life could be very fulfilling and satisfying (if there were a benevolent God out there to make it so).

[Gary Childress]

I think it's just as probable that the universe is one big petri dish and God is the observer watching his creations create and destroy themselves over and over again. Or maybe God will get pissed off at his creations and destroy us all himself. Apparently, he uses floods for that purpose. (Like father, like son, I guess.)

[Walker]

Except it's not logically impossible to eliminate suffering.

Mike okay.

Gary okay.

Read the Noble Truths from Buddha and learn the only unfailing solution to suffering . Note that Buddha advocates no deity whatsoever as instrumental to the solution.

I looked it up on ChatGPT. If the Buddha is right, then God is not a personal God or anything remotely like it. However, the notion that life must necessarily be suffering is perhaps an unwarranted assumption. Life could be very fulfilling and satisfying (if there were a benevolent God out there to make it so).

Total acceptance and surrender to the moment requires never needing to remember that every problem is caused by self-cherishing.

If one is not attached to self-cherishing, then one is a true bodhisattva (even if one doesn't know the meaning of the word) who, if and when finally cornered and being eaten by a tiger, sees no problem with that situation, because of non-attachment.

This is incomprehensible to some folks, and other folks, likely old folks even with no connection to Buddhism, nod in recognition ... if only of the metaphor.

[Gary Childress]

Mike okay.

Gary okay.

Read the Noble Truths from Buddha and learn the only unfailing solution to suffering . Note that Buddha advocates no deity whatsoever as instrumental to the solution.

I looked it up on ChatGPT. If the Buddha is right, then God is not a personal God or anything remotely like it. However, the notion that life must necessarily be suffering is perhaps an unwarranted assumption. Life could be very fulfilling and satisfying (if there were a benevolent God out there to make it so).

Total acceptance and surrender to the moment requires never needing to remember that every problem is caused by self-cherishing.

Does hoping for a quick and painless death count as "acceptance and surrender"?

[MikeNovack]

Does hoping for a quick and painless death count as "acceptance and surrender"?

Uh, since I wasn't intending to be discussing Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, etc. beliefs in detail, just the life <=> suffering part, I did not point out that not only do they believe life => suffering but also that you can't escape that easily, simply by dying. They believe you will be reborn, trapped on the "wheel of life" until you achieve awareness you are of the ONE.

[Gary Childress]

Does hoping for a quick and painless death count as "acceptance and surrender"?

Uh, since I wasn't intending to be discussing Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, etc. beliefs in detail, just the life <=> suffering part, I did not point out that not only do they believe life => suffering but also that you can't escape that easily, simply by dying. They believe you will be reborn, trapped on the "wheel of life" until you achieve awareness you are of the ONE.

Yes. I know. I studied some Buddhism in a college course that surveyed "Religions of the East". Not everyone in life is always suffering. It's logically possible for there not to be suffering in the world. I don't go for arguments that there must be suffering in order for there to be happiness. That's not true. Suffering and happiness are two different things, and if God is some kind of master creator of all that is, then is he somehow restricted in what he can create in a world? God is not benevolent.

If God is, and if God is the creator of all that is, then s/he/it is not benevolent (not malevolent either). Either that or there is no God.

[Belinda]

Except it's not logically impossible to eliminate suffering.

Mike okay.

Gary okay.

Read the Noble Truths from Buddha and learn the only unfailing solution to suffering . Note that Buddha advocates no deity whatsoever as instrumental to the solution.

I looked it up on ChatGPT. If the Buddha is right, then God is not a personal God or anything remotely like it. However, the notion that life must necessarily be suffering is perhaps an unwarranted assumption. Life could be very fulfilling and satisfying (if there were a benevolent God out there to make it so).

Since you are such a Pollyanna , sorry but I cannot talk you you any more.

[Belinda]

I agree. When I recommended eliminating omnipotence from God's attributes I meant the Abrahamic God

But I am not. I don't think I need to go there (doesn't mean I disagree; just that's an assumption I don't think I need) I am arguing "omnipotence does not include being able to do the LOGICALLY impossible". That's a commonly given solution to the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox.

Remember, I am not saying that omnipotent benevolent God could not create a universe without suffering and evil. That's easy peasey, just populate it with the non-living. In other words, in a universe without suffering and evil, what would distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing?

But to stop life from happening would have taken a miracle.