IC please clarify for us

[Fairy]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.
Included in everything are individual needs to change things, when such needs are present.
This makes perfect sense, in reality.
The material world is constantly changing, much to the annoyance of attachment.

The observer is detached from the things they are witnessing. "Looking in I see nothing" represents the observer itself. The eye cannot see itself; the consciousness looking inward cannot observe itself as an object, leading to the perception of "nothing," which is actually the pure, unattached Self.

Looking out I see everything, looking in I see nothing - is the illusion of duality and the ego. It means that while the external world is vast and full of distraction, looking inward requires observing the "witness" or "watcher," where emptiness is actually the pure, unconditioned state of being.

The illusion of separation makes us feel like we are searching for answers outside of ourselves, but the ultimate reality is that the questioner and the answer are both the same infinite consciousness.


The individual asking the question already possesses the truth and is simply using the act of asking to externalise or awaken their own inner knowing. It represents self-realisation, where the seeker and the source of ultimate truth are one and the same.

God is not some externalised thing to be sought which only implies a hidden object to find.
God is already this transcendent uncaused cause identified as God, viewed not merely as a powerful being, but as the ultimate ground of all existence and the necessary foundation of reality.

This is the peace that passes all understanding. Be still and know that I am God, ever present, always, infinitely for eternity.

[Walker]

Escapism …

Science is a means to escape the harsh realities of nature.

Computers, cars, houses, climate control, food additives … all scientific ways to escape nature, and tedium.
What are all those folks doing with their faces glued to their phones?
Are they not escaping into distraction from the immediate reality of their environment?

Of course they are.

[promethean75]

"This is the peace that passes all understanding. Be still and know that I am God, ever present, always, infinitely for eternity."

Thank you, Fairy.

And now... can we get a muthafuckin' moment of silence for this small chronic break?

[Immanuel Can]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.

That's no answer to the problem of evil, of course...it amounts to "just pretend it's not real."

[MikeNovack]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.

That's no answer to the problem of evil, of course...it amounts to "just pretend it's not real."

Presupposes that there IS a "problem of evil". IC, you just have to face the fact that while all religions are answers to questions about the human condition, they aren't all attempting to answer the same questions. They aren't using the same fundamental assumptions.

Asking why is this other religion is ignoring the "question of evil" would be a FAR better way for you than asking why does it "just pretend it's not real". You have to look at why YOUR religion sees the "problem of evil" as real and that other religion does not. Your religion has to deal with "the problem of evil" because of a fundamental belief "the universe came into existence as the creation of an all good, benevolent, kind deity". Maybe that other religion is not starting from the same assumption. Maybe is isn't even trying to answer "where did the universe come from".

If you want to study "comparative religions" you need to at least temporarily suspend "my religion is the one and only true religion; all others are false". You have to take these other religions on their own terms. Otherwise you get this sort of thing.

Buddhist: Why do you not treat "the problem of suffering" as real?
Christian: Oh but we do. We explain how people can escape the suffering from the burden of their sins.
Buddhist: Uh .... that is certainly not the only sort of suffering. You are pretending the problem "why do we experience life as suffering" does not exist.

The Buddhist is not "pretending" the problem of evil does not exist. Buddhism (Hinduism, Jainism, etc) believe the universe just eternally is, not the creation of some deity, good, kind, benevolent, or otherwise. Hence no "problem of evil".

[phyllo]

The problem of evil is only a problem if there is a benevolent, all powerful and all seeing god behind everything.

Without that god, evil is just something that happens.

[Immanuel Can]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.

That's no answer to the problem of evil, of course...it amounts to "just pretend it's not real."

Presupposes that there IS a "problem of evil".

I'm quite certain we all know there is.

And yes, various religions and ideologies all have to deal with it in their own ways. Some say, "Just imagine it's not real." Other say, "It's real, but proof of a demiurge." Others say, "Suffering is just part of what we are, so suck it up, Chuck." Some say, "It's not actually evil -- it's just lack of evolving." There are all kinds of attempts to deal with it.

But everybody has to. Because everybody suffers. And we all need to know why, and what to do about it. That's just the human condition, one of the few things that has no variation among cultures.

[Immanuel Can]

...evil is just something that happens.

How does that answer sit with you? Sincere question.

[MikeNovack]

Presupposes that there IS a "problem of evil".

I'm quite certain we all know there is.

No IC, we do NOT all "know that there is". We all know there is evil. but the reason why evil exists might not be a problem for us. Having to say this over and over is annoying. Look at why YOU perceive there is a "problem of evil". Look at what your beliefs are that make the existence of evil problematical, that call for an explanation of "how could evil exist". Instead of assuming true (and that we all believe this) "the universe was created by an all good, all kind deity" accept that THIS belief of yours is why you see "the problem of evil" as real. Understand that people not sharing this belief would not see "the problem of evil" as real.

a) If a person believed the universe was not created, but always existed, would there be a "problem of evil"?
b) If a person believed the universe was created by an indifferent/neutral deity, would there be a "problem of evil"?
c) If a person believed the universe was created by a harsh/evil deity, would there be a "problem of evil"?

Would it shock you if I somebody said I can't understand why Christians think the "problem of evil" is real. They are being inconsistent. << is a deity who created according to his/her will and then punishes us for acting as we were created to act all kind, all good, etc.? Or a cruel deity? >>

[Immanuel Can]

Presupposes that there IS a "problem of evil".

I'm quite certain we all know there is.

No IC, we do NOT all "know that there is". We all know there is evil. but the reason why evil exists might not be a problem for us.

So you like sorrow, misery, pain and death? You're good with them, and have no questions?

Then you are most rare human being.

a) If a person believed the universe was not created, but always existed, would there be a "problem of evil"?

Yes. But you'd call it "samsara" or "maya," or by some other name. You'd still recognize that something was 'wrong,' in some sense, with the universe; but you'd label it your own way. It would still be what I mean by "the problem of evil."

b) If a person believed the universe was created by an indifferent/neutral deity, would there be a "problem of evil"?

Yes. He'd still be asking himself why he was born in the sort of universe we have, and why he's unhappy or frustrated, or in pain over things that happen. He might lack a good vocabulary for making his angst articulate...he'd still be having it.

c) If a person believed the universe was created by a harsh/evil deity, would there be a "problem of evil"?

Sure. He'd wonder why he was born in that sort of universe, too.

Would it shock you if I somebody said I can't understand why Christians think the "problem of evil" is real.

Well, it would tell me that the speaker knew almost nothing about Christianity or about Judaism. Evil is the very first problem that both Judaism and Christianity recognize.

But let me turn the tables, since you ask so many questions: how can an Atheist claim that the way the world is, is any problem for Theists? And how can it constitute any reason for them to disbelieve? Don't they think the world is the product of accident plus time? What then is this concept so alien to their own suppositions, called "evil"? And how can they ask questions about what they don't believe to exist?

After all, Atheists say they believe that things are the way they are because they are the way they are; they have no further answer than that. How then can they call on the existence of "evil" as a challenge to Theism? They cannot, can they?

And yet, they do. And they do so very often. Could it be that they have their own "problem of evil," namely, that they continue to believe in the real existence of a quality their worldview denies them can even exist? And do they suffer or experience pain, or die less often because they insist these things are not "evil"? Or do they suffer the same, but inarticulately, inexplicably and incoherently?

I think you know.

[MikeNovack]

No IC, we do NOT all "know that there is". We all know there is evil. but the reason why evil exists might not be a problem for us.

So you like sorrow, misery, pain and death? You're good with them, and have no questions?

Then you are most rare human being.

Non sequitor. The "problem of evil" is not the mere existence of evil. You don't have to like sorrow, misery, pain and death to have no questions about why they exist. You don't normally have questions about what is unless you have some expectation of it not being. The PROBLEM for some of us is that we believe a deity created all, and for some purpose, and that this deity is good, kind, etc. That raises the question WHY did such a deity create/allow evil.

But those who do not believe all was created by a good, kind, etc. deity, who might not believe a deity created all, have no such problem. They don't need an explanation for WHY is there evil. Why not?

And no, not rare, IC. It's not just atheists who disbelieve a good. kind, etc. deity created everything. So do Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, etc. Sikhs are monotheists who believe creation was by the ONEl, but I think they are vague about properties and are more or less Panentheists (the ONE is IN all of creation.

[Walker]

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.

That's no answer to the problem of evil, of course...it amounts to "just pretend it's not real."

It amounts to, accept that it is real.
The same acceptance applies to pain management.

Wishing things away with choice doesn't work.

[FlashDangerpants]

No IC, we do NOT all "know that there is". We all know there is evil. but the reason why evil exists might not be a problem for us.

So you like sorrow, misery, pain and death? You're good with them, and have no questions?

Then you are most rare human being.

Non sequitor. The "problem of evil" is not the mere existence of evil.

It's not really a non-sequitur so much as amphiboly. He is of course entirely aware of what the Problem of Evil is, but he is taking advantage of the possibility to deliberately misconstrue your intent and to pretend that you are only talking about whether evil things are in general sort of problematic.

If you want more info on the subject of amphiboly, you will find it mentioned often by IC himself because he knows all about it and is doing it deliberately to you today. Which is why nobody sane takes him remotely seriously. Here's an example of him explaining what it means 10 years ago.

So your OP doesn't work anymore, because it contains what we call and "amphiboly": an error in which you let one term slip into another.

We of course should never rely on Can for a definition of anything, here is an entry on it from an encyclopaedia :

Amphibology is a type of verbal fallacy that occurs when a sentence or phrase has more than one possible interpretation due to its grammatical structure. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. For example, the sentence "Save soap and waste paper" could be interpreted as a command to conserve soap and discard waste paper, or as a statement that soap is more valuable than waste paper.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/amphiboly

Technically you might be able to control this behaviour by referring to The Problem of Evil in strictly capitalised terms removing his ability to "accidentally" misinterpret.... But the truth is that when IC intends to argue in bad faith, there's nothing you can do about it except laugh it off. He is after all a hopeless loon, and he will never be brought to heel by shame or persuasion or anything involving the truth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...evil is just something that happens.

How does that answer sit with you? Sincere question.

This could be an interesting question: IC if there were no human creatures on the Earth do you think Christian philosophy generally would recognize evil? What I mean is a world, our world as it is. I.e.the world of nature?

[MikeNovack]

But let me turn the tables, since you ask so many questions: how can an Atheist claim that the way the world is, is any problem for Theists? And how can it constitute any reason for them to disbelieve? Don't they think the world is the product of accident plus time? What then is this concept so alien to their own suppositions, called "evil"? And how can they ask questions about what they don't believe to exist?

First of all, an atheist who argues "The Problem of Evil" is a problem for ALL theists is being silly. But they can argue it is a problem for that (important) subset of theists who believe an all good, all kind, etc. deity created the universe. Precisely because that subset of theists needs an explanation of why such a deity would create/allow evil. It's not just the atheist who considers it a problem but the people of that subset themselves.

For theists who do not believe the Creator has those properties, all good, all kind, etc. and those who do not believe in any creator deity do not have to consider "The Problem of Evil". The PROBLEM is not the existence of evil by itself but the existence of evil AND in the creation of an all good, all kind, all powerful deity.

Believers in Cthulhu would be unlikely to like evil any more than you or I. But they are not surprised by "evil exists" in the universe created by Cthulhu. To them, evil is real, but "The Problem of Evil" is not.