The problem of evil: a theodicy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of evil: a theodicy » The problem of evil: a theodicy

The problem of evil: a theodicy

Page: 1 2 3

The problem of evil: a theodicy

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:51 AM:	#11
Aetixintro wrote: When it comes to perfection, there can be only one objective set of principles, qualities, whatever. I think it's impossible for God to hold subjective values. Generally, God's just spurting universes, quite unable to do anything else than what consists in perfection. God is necessarily a prisoner of perfection. Otherwise one faces a host of ontological problems, like having a Flying Spaghetti Monster around. Since there's no subjective values in God, there's only this one set of perfect principles that constitutes a "best possible world". There may be several worlds equally created to the same "best" standard. So your theodicy comes down to 'the world is as it is because God is as it is. There is evil in the world because there is evil in God.' This does nothing but push the problem down the line. It makes such a God superfluous to the explanation.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 07/03/09 - 05:07 AM:	#12
the PC apeman wrote: So your theodicy comes down to 'the world is as it is because God is as it is. This is correct! the PC apeman wrote: There is evil in the world because there is evil in God.' This does nothing but push the problem down the line. It makes such a God superfluous to the explanation. This is incorrect. I hold that Evil is outside of God. It's a contradiction to what is. Full evil is nothing. God is all. Nothing and all don't go together! Can nothing be part of substance? No! Besides, as I've stated before, God is the explanation to pre-BigBang and key to infinity. As God is the explanation to these and other anomalies, God is certainly not superfluous to the explanation.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/03/09 - 05:25 AM:	#13
Aetixintro wrote: This is incorrect. I hold that Evil is outside of God. It's a contradiction to what is. Full evil is nothing. God is all. Nothing and all don't go together! Can nothing be part of substance? No! Besides, as I've stated before, God is the explanation to pre-BigBang and key to infinity. As God is the explanation to these and other anomalies, God is certainly not superfluous to the explanation. Feh. What is this superontology then? Is evil everything that is outside of God or just some of the things outside of God? Is it as non-created as God? What else is there outside of God and its creation?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 07/03/09 - 05:37 AM:	#14
the PC apeman wrote: Is evil everything that is outside of God or just some of the things outside of God? Evil must in this sense necessarily be outside of God. It's the strange situation that origin of evil is as primordial as God. I'm a little uncertain about the status of evil, but there may be not other possibility than to put it this way. This may be something new to the philosophy of religion! the PC apeman wrote: Is it [evil/nothing] as non-created as God? Yes! This seems to be a necessary consequence to the equation. the PC apeman wrote: What else is there outside of God and its creation? That's just where nothing is! Thanks for your inquiries, the PC apeman. It's very interesting! It builds up. Edited by Aetixintro on 07/03/09 - 05:47 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/03/09 - 05:51 AM:	#15
Aetixintro wrote: Evil must in this sense necessarily be outside of God. It's the strange situation that origin of evil is as primordial as God. I'm a little uncertain about the status of evil, but there may be not other possibility than to put it this way. This may be something new to the philosophy of religion! So if there's evil in the world then that's just the part of the world that God didn't create, right? Did something else create that part? No, you don't seem to be saying that. Are we capable of experiencing and being affected by non-created aspects of the world, a.k.a. nothing? No, that doesn't sound right either. This isn't coming across as coherent.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 07/03/09 - 06:07 AM:	#16
the PC apeman wrote: So if there's evil in the world then that's just the part of the world that God didn't create, right? Yes! the PC apeman wrote: Did something else create that part? No, you don't seem to be saying that. You're right here! the PC apeman wrote: Are we capable of experiencing and being affected by non-created aspects of the world, a.k.a. nothing? No, that doesn't sound right either. This isn't coming across as coherent. There may be forces playing on us from the outside, nothing. It may seem strange that nothing can hold "force", but I see no other solution. Maybe I can point to relativity, where substance is creating a pull in the fabric of space. Maybe there's some strange way that nothing can create this pull as well toward God-all. As is demonstrated, a vacuum tends to be filled quickly with something. What do you think? Edit: Just a comment to Aquinas 1. way. Why can't God create or recreate God. Instead of the unmoved mover that I find implausible, one may point to a God in eternal cycle with itself? In ancient times, I believe, there has been an irrational fear to infinity and therefore Aquinas may have been forced to postulate an unmoved mover in the causation chain. Alright, there may be an issue with actuality and potentiality here. Maybe it can twist into "God (actuality) to medium (potentiality) to God (actuality)" in eternal cycle. The actuality and potentiality may not affect the nature of God on the other hand. Edited by Aetixintro on 07/03/09 - 06:31 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 170

Posted 07/03/09 - 07:58 AM:	#17
Aetixintro wrote: There may be forces playing on us from the outside, nothing. It may seem strange that nothing can hold "force", but I see no other solution. Maybe I can point to relativity, where substance is creating a pull in the fabric of space. Maybe there's some strange way that nothing can create this pull as well toward God-all. As is demonstrated, a vacuum tends to be filled quickly with something. What do you think? I think you haven't given this enough thought.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 07/03/09 - 08:31 AM:	#18
I think I'm on the right track. The vacuum analogy may be just it. Physics is also not entirely firm on the issue of how matter distribute relative to the vacuum in space, isn't this correct? I believe there's also speculation what the outside of universe effects on the universe itself. There's obviously difficulties with God in relation to evil in the traditional sense and to this, my new approach may be just what is needed. As a result, I'll eat the strange from the outside nothing effects for now. Vacuum it is! Thanks, the PC apeman!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/05/09 - 05:45 AM:	#19
In an absurd world people seek a justification for their existence. They want to know what is the right thing to do and are terrified that there is no real right and wrong, that they are completely responsible for making their own morals, that their actions will not be inherently good or inherently bad but completely down to their own interpretation. Therefore people are willing to fabricate all sorts of irrationalities -- God, sin, heaven, hell -- in order to justify a real good and evil. The problem of evil is that it doesn't exist. Nothing is good or evil. There are no moral actions, there are only moral interpretations of actions and the intepretation is down to the interpreter. People don't like to think that what they view as "good" and what they view as "evil" is merely individual preference. That it is irrational. That it, overall, is: "this is good because this is what I think is good." If an objective morality exists then moral actions lose their worth. If I do something good for the sake of God then it is because I am afraid of God and His punishment; it is fear and cowardice. If I follow a subjective morality, my own morality, then I do something good for my own sake, it is because I am brave enough to will my own morality, to gaze into the world and accept its absurdity rather than flee from it; it is strength and courage. This is why a subjective morality is greater than an objective one. I believe we should cease imagining fantasies to justify a ludicrous objective moral code, to stop looking for good and evil. We should put this objective morality, that has existed in our mind for millennia, below us; I already consider it beneath me. Just like the problem of slavery existed only for the less developed civilizations of the past, the problem of evil will not exist for the civilizations of the future. Today we are beyond slavery. Tommorrow we are beyond good and evil. (Perhaps the biggest problem caused by evil is that it ruins art; who wants to hear another story about the "struggle of good against evil" and how "good will triumpth in the end"?)

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 07/05/09 - 06:07 AM:	#20
Crackers, dear, "the problem of evil" is only considered in the case of a "God". I read you, but your post doesn't add to the thread. That you throw "the problem of evil" out the window suggests that you don't believe in a God either, simply. Enjoy your journey with Nietzsche!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.