The Problem of Evil: Toy Worlds

[seeds]

...if you think that an omnipotent Creator could have (should have) provided us with invincible (pain-free) bodies, how would that work when it comes to death?

Should our bodies stop aging as of, say, 18 and simply drop dead for no apparent reason at the age of 90 without ever having experienced one instance of physical pain throughout our entire lifetime?

Should no one ever physically die?

Or are you just assuming that all of those concerns are something that the omnipotent Creator needs to sort-out before awakening us into existence?

Many theists believe that people live forever in a Toy World they call Heaven: thus one answer that's apparently already commonly accepted is indeed that perhaps death doesn't need to occur at all.

Well (at least according to Biblical metaphysics), physical (corporeal) death is a prerequisite before one's (incorporeal) soul can be delivered into a transcendent heaven, as in "...flesh and blood cannot inherit [enter into] the kingdom of God..."

So, your analogy has a flaw.

Furthermore, your answer sidestepped the question of how the look and age of our body would progress through time. I mean, in Toy World, would we all stay frozen at some ideal age (perhaps 18) and remain that way for eternity?

Likewise, would we each be locked-in to a specifically gendered body - forever?

And lastly, would we each be locked-in (again "forever") to the specific genetics we were born with that gave some of us beautiful faces and perfect bodies, while others of us were cursed with ugly faces and less perfect bodies?

How would any of that play out in Toy World in a way that would seem fair to everyone?

Another possibility is that death could be an optional decision people can make for themselves when they tire of existence. The solutions to these problems can be truly exotic since we're talking about an omni-being that can do the fixing. For instance, we might object, "if people lived forever, we'd run out of space on the planet!" But an omni-being could make a living space that's literally infinite, filled with infinite resources.

Again, you are proposing solutions wherein any resemblance to scientific logic is simply not a requirement. You just need to have a world full of low-conscious idiots who, in essence, are the equivalent of video game characters who have no need or desire to know how the virtual reality they are immersed-in, works.

Come to think of it, if an omnipotent Creator would have simply limited us to this level of consciousness,...



...then the so-called "Problem of Evil" would no longer occupy our minds.

Wouldn't that be easier?
_______

I think a hidden premise of the argument, since it already makes the assumption that the omni-being wants free agents to exist, is that the omni-being probably also wants its free agents to hold a certain level of intelligence and awareness as well.

Yes, a certain level of intelligence, just as long as it's not intelligent enough to be curious as to how and why the ever so accommodating conditions of Toy World came about.

The bottom line is that Toy World is obviously concocted by the same low level of human consciousness that came up with (or believes in the plausibility of) the standard (and ridiculous) Christian concept of Heaven. For neither the Christian Heaven nor the Toy World you are proposing offers any suggestion of a logical (or higher) purpose for an entity who is in possession of eternal life.
_______

[seeds]

_______

Sorry, double post.

_______

[attofishpi]

The bottom line is that Toy World is obviously concocted by the same low level of human consciousness that came up with (or believes in the plausibility of) the standard (and ridiculous) Christian concept of Heaven.

Hello seeds.

What do you think defines the "Christian concept of Heaven" ?

[Walker]

...then the so-called "Problem of Evil" would no longer occupy our minds.

Wouldn't that be easier?
_______

Would that the topic occupy completely, in order to understand completely, without experiencing.

Because of any human’s limited capacity to account for the causational relationship of every element comprising any compounded situation, and because all situations are compounded, then we can say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can say that because obviously, given the personal historical records of Everyone, good intentions are no guarantee that the effects of good intentions won’t have hellish results.

That accounts for Good. What about Evil?

Evil intends harm. Even though a human’s limited capacity cannot account for every element of a situation, a human’s capacity can account for the significant elements of a situation that will cause harm, and act accordingly with the predicted results.

That accounts for Evil.

* When Truth, Justice, and The American Way are in play, Evil is stymied.

When they are corrupted, Evil throws a party and multi-manifests simultaneously with rioting, with wrong political decisions that cause pain and suffering for folks everywhere, that sort of stuff.


*

I am unable to see how your post relates to anything I was saying to Astro Cat.
_______

After the first sentence of my response that you can’t decipher, the rest of the writing is example by doing what the first sentence says, that is, a doing with a more complete occupation of the topic* designated by your quoted words with the intent of understanding the topic, a more complete occupation without experiencing or displaying the topic* in action, a more complete display of attention occupied with the intent of understanding, than you provided with your short quip of dismay, I must say.

I must also say, from you I expected a more stimulating response concerning the content that was the doing described in the first sentence that I wrote, that was in response to your written interest concerning the topic of evil, and in part this was why the content following the first sentence was directed your way, and intertwined with the topic of your interest. Great expectations. Objectively speaking, I think it not too bold to suggest that it would be a great kindness on your part to not disappoint us twice by failing to philosophize with the now, rather than demand more.


* evil

[seeds]

The bottom line is that Toy World is obviously concocted by the same low level of human consciousness that came up with (or believes in the plausibility of) the standard (and ridiculous) Christian concept of Heaven.

Hello seeds.

What do you think defines the "Christian concept of Heaven" ?

Hi atto,

There are several ways I could answer that question.

However, for the sake of brevity, I have already uploaded (many times) one of my illustrations that I think perfectly "defines" (perfectly encapsulates) the absurdity of the Christian concept of Heaven (and Hell).

Here it is again (with clarified captions underneath the image)...



Captions:

Little girl: “Please help me daddy, they’re hurting me! Please daddy, help me!”

Daddy: “Sorry punkin, but daddy’s in heaven now and heaven wouldn’t be ‘perfect’ if I had to worry about you.... Besides, we told you what would happen if you didn’t believe in ‘our’ concept of God.... By the way, how’s your grandma doing?... Oh never mind, why should I care?...I’m in heaven.”

God: “After she has suffered a billion years of unspeakable burning agony, she’ll be sorry she ignored me!... I will then continue her torture throughout all eternity.... Does anyone doubt the fairness of my judgment?”

1st angel: “Your fairness and mercy are without equal.”

2nd angel: “In the name of love she’s getting exactly what she deserves.”

And, of course, beneath the daughter and the demons is not Satan, but God; the creator and sustainer of all realities - including Hell.

If this thread is truly concerned about the "Problem of Evil," then I don't think there can be a greater evil than that which is implied in the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell as depicted in my illustration.
_______

[Walker]

If this thread is truly concerned about the "Problem of Evil," then I don't think there can be a greater evil than that which is implied in the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell as depicted in my illustration.
_______

I too prefer the declarative-slanted posting. As the great philosopher Gump tells us between mouthfuls of chocolate bonbons earned by his tenacity, “Physicist is as physicist does”.

When you get right down to it, being a physicist is making one’s best guess concerning some aspect of the universe, a best guess based on available data and knowledge*, but eventually the data runs out and the boss wants a justification for whatever it is you do around here at the university, with all those government grants flowing in that allow for all the free and unaccountable speculation.

Thus, a plus for the posting that declares, rather than only questions.

Scientists and philosophers can get away with saying, “I don’t know,” for only so long before rejoining the realm of land dwellers moving about way down there below the ivory tower.

You have to admit, scientists are pretty smart to devise a gig subject to their condition of: Based on my credentials and because I have no accountability, I can tell you what the climate will be in a hundred years and its effect upon the earf and mankind, not to mention how minute changes in humidity and altitude will affect all the flora and fauna that manage to survive until then.

(As an aside, no accountability is why the enormously broad brush of Climate Change Legislation that allows for government control of life has such an appeal to the totalitarian non-scientist, such as politician Brandon.)

Here’s the philosophical question relevant to the thread topic, although it may not be relevant to any particular musing …

Is being a fully conscious and aware mouthpiece for a political ideology such as the Climate Change Movement, which is a pseudo-science that government sponsors in order to justify regulating major aspects of human existence … is being this an evil act?

* education

[Walker]

Here I would like to present my version of the Problem of Evil (PoE).

The gist I gather is that a world of words is a Toy World. Existence here in this mind-realm is existence as words. Thus the questions: how does evil affect words, how do words affect evil, do words effect evil, is evil a problem and if so, why. The aim is for murky definitions to clarify in dialogue.

With only that to work with and since declarations can't say it all without riding off on assumed premises, would you agree in part?

[iambiguous]

Well, there is theodicy/PoE as a philosophical or theological conundrum, and then the part that revolves around the actual suffering of flesh and blood men, women and children throughout human history.

This part:

"...the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-an ... ons/a-to-z

That taking us around to this:

Epicurus wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

Then taking some around to Harold Kushner.

[attofishpi]

If this thread is truly concerned about the "Problem of Evil," then I don't think there can be a greater evil than that which is implied in the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell as depicted in my illustration.

Heaven is awesome mate.

Our Father, who arts in Heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On Earth as it IS in heaven
etc..