Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:40 pm Your excuse for God, that He has to allow some suffering to exist ,

It's not an "excuse." It's just the obvious admission of an obvious fact: that God has, in fact, allowed that some latitude for suffering will exist in the world.

But while you are without explanation for this fact, I'm suggesting there could be an explanation for it. And I think that you, yourself, have provided at least part of the answer, in that most of the "evils" you mention are not even potentially God-caused. They're manifestly the evils created by men themselves.

So as a starting point, we might ask, is there any reason a good God could stand by and allow men to do some evil? And it's a question I'm prepared to respond to.

This world is totally either made by God or made by Nature,

No, that's mere Determinism. It fails to account for the very evils you, yourself listed. It turns them all into mere phenomena, mere "happenings" inside a rigid and closed Determinist system. As such, they cannot actually BE "evil," only things-that-happen, devoid of moral quality; and then the question itself turns unintelligible. For "evil" can only exist where its opposite "good" can be otherwise expected; and nothing but what-happens can be expected inside a Deterministic system. So there is no "evil' existing at all, then.

Moral evil as committed by fallen man can be explained by man's fall.

But in a Determinist system, there's no "Fall." Nor is anything man does "evil" -- it's just "what man does." So as you rightly intuit, you'd have to be a Christian, or at least adopt a Christian-style suppositonal value structure, in order even to lauch the question, "Why would God allow evil?"

...you consistently ignore, the fact of suffering that is not manmade;

I protest: I do not. I have repeatedly pointed out to my interlocutors that there are two types of things human beings tend to call "evil." One is human-caused, and the other is not. And I have insisted that any good theodicy should have something to say about BOTH.

You really should read what I have written, B., before investing in a false claim about what I "consistently ignore." That's verifiably false.

Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.

Then we are doomed -- especially if secular Determinism is true. For man himself IS the problem, or at least half of it, and man is nothing but an accidental, helpless, programmed product of the same universe that generates so readily the non-human kinds of "evils."

Your problem, B., is that you think you're a Determinist, but don't really know what Determinism would entail. You want the easy half of it, but think you can get away from the nasty half without paying any price. But let me spell it out for you.

Determinism would entail that there is, and can be NO ROOM AT ALL for human freedom or responsibility. So human beings cannot "fix" anything. They are simply pre-programmed to do whatever it is they do: be it giving ice cream to orphans or butchering millions of innocents. And there's no longer any objective value-difference between the two, because there are no objective values.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:44 pm ...you are....

The "puppy" again.

That's ad hominem.

See? You can't help yourself. You can't face the arguments, so you resort to slander. It's all you've got.

It's funny...but also, I have to confess, a little sad...to see somebody who SHOULD be capable of rational though lapse into name-calling and caricature. But it's also not terribly surprising.

To quote Hamlet, it seems "all your golden words are spent," and you are quite out of rational options.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:27 pm Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

So how did every created conscious thing become every created conscious thing then? And why do these created conscious things inflict brutality, pain and insufferable cruelty upon other created conscious things? Why would any creator want to create a reality like that?

Please explain?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:41 pm And there's no longer any objective value-difference between the two, because there are no objective values.

There's no such thing as objective values. If values were objective we would all be forced to share the same ones, which is clearly not the case.

26  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.



So is this what compelling evidence looks like?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:50 pm If values were objective we would all be forced to share the same ones, which is clearly not the case.

No, it would still be possible that people would subjectively value (verb) things that are not objectively valuable (noun). And we can see, obviously, that that is exactly what happens.

If somebody values "racial purity," that doesn't mean that you and I have to take that value ourselves. Nor does it mean that they are objectively right. You can I can perfectly cogently say, "What you are valuing, Mr. Hitler, is not an objectively correct value."

And that is, in fact, what I suspect we do both say.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:02 pm 26  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So is this what compelling evidence looks like?

No, it's what a quotation looks like. And it's what a declaration, a statement of fact looks like. But that declaration of fact can be examined by way of evidence. However, it is not, itself, evidence. It's a declaration.

Now we have to decide whether or not the declaration is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:02 pm No, it would still be possible that people would subjectively value (verb) things that are not objectively valuable (noun). And we can see, obviously, that that is exactly what happens.

So there are subjective values that we can adopt in addition to the objective values that exist whether we like it or not? Could you give a few examples of objective values that we do not have any choice over?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:05 pm
No, it's what a quotation looks like. And it's what a declaration, a statement of fact looks like. But that declaration of fact can be examined by way of evidence. However, it is not, itself, evidence. It's a declaration.

Now we have to decide whether or not the declaration is true.

And what is the name of the particular science that is devoted to its study?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:02 pm No, it would still be possible that people would subjectively value (verb) things that are not objectively valuable (noun). And we can see, obviously, that that is exactly what happens.

So there are subjective values that we can adopt in addition to the objective values that exist whether we like it or not? Could you give a few examples of objective values that we do not have any choice over?

Well, let's be clear, first: there are two different issues. One is what the objective values ARE, and the second is what given people THINK they might be. The variances in the second say nothing whatseover about the existence of the first.

So we have "choices" always as to whether or not we adopt the objectively right values. But our "choice" won't make a good value bad, or a bad value right.

Given that, let's take a simple case. In my last message, I implied racism and genocide are objectively evil. Does that mean nobody ever committed racism or genocide? Obviously not. But their having done so does not cause our objective rejection of racism and genocide to be merely a subjective valuing; we are quite right to deplore racism and genocide, if racism and genocide are objectively wrong -- which, we both hold, they are; but our "holding" doesn't make them so. They just really are so.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:05 pm
No, it's what a quotation looks like. And it's what a declaration, a statement of fact looks like. But that declaration of fact can be examined by way of evidence. However, it is not, itself, evidence. It's a declaration.

Now we have to decide whether or not the declaration is true.

And what is the name of the particular science that is devoted to its study?

The study of what? Of declarations? Or of the Bible?

If you mean the Bible, the term is, obviously, "Theology." If you mean "declarations," it would be "Linguistics."

But I'm puzzled by the reason for such an easy question, so maybe I'm misunderstanding...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:27 pm Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

Observed implies an observer.

No human being has EVER observed the observer. So how can you even assume the idea of something being ''observed'' IC ?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:52 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:52 am Is it mental illness or is it simply unawareness?

And does it matter if it's an illusion from the human perspective?

What else are we supposed to be doing?

It's a terminal mental illness, a delusion, because the mind is a myth, and we all live this myth as a reality.

If there is no mind... and nothing is actually happening... then there's actually no 'mental' and no 'illness'... right?

I'm more inclined to think of it as a 'very real-feeling dream' to our flicker of 'awareness'. Dreams aren't mental illness... but they can be very, very weird and twisted, as well as horrific and euphoric. All potential being explored, without eternal consequence. God's dream?

Thank you (by the way) for keeping your communication in a form that I can engage with. I hope you can continue like that as we talk about this, because I find it interesting.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:52 amNothing ultimately matters because nothing is making what is happening happen.

Well, we're experiencing or aware somehow... even if it is temporary and means nothing... so how might we dance with that 'imaginary' or 'flickering' moment? Like a candle flame. Momentarily ignited... from a tiny spark of awareness... and then extinguished. No big deal... burn brightly then let go.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:52 amWe are not supposed to do anything, for we are being done. There's just doing.

Then all is fine, yes?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:27 pm Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

What iF evolution is what got you here, the one who is able to say the words....Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

Otherwise, who is it saying those words? who is this (nobody) that has never observed human "evolution." And who is it that don't "see it happening" now, either...yet is able to say IT?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:45 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:52 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:52 am Is it mental illness or is it simply unawareness?

And does it matter if it's an illusion from the human perspective?

What else are we supposed to be doing?

It's a terminal mental illness, a delusion, because the mind is a myth, and we all live this myth as a reality.

If there is no mind... and nothing is actually happening... then there's actually no 'mental' and no 'illness'... right?

Yes that's right, there is no mental illness, except in the conceptual dream of separation in this artificial conception of I.
I can only exist in the dream, which is nothing, as nothing ever happened in a dream, and yet the dream is all there is.
Nothing is everything, and everything is nothing. And that's all that's happening. Nothing is Everything simultaneously.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:45 pmI'm more inclined to think of it as a 'very real-feeling dream' to our flicker of 'awareness'. Dreams aren't mental illness... but they can be very, very weird and twisted, as well as horrific and euphoric. All potential being explored, without eternal consequence. God's dream?

Thank you (by the way) for keeping your communication in a form that I can engage with. I hope you can continue like that as we talk about this, because I find it interesting.

Thank you too Lacewing.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:45 pmThen all is fine, yes?

Insofar as there's just what's happening, and whether it is fine or not is also what's happening.