theodicy

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: theodicy

Postby Sculptor » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:Theodicy:

Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil. wiki


Otherwise known as Theidiocy
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:46 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

Critics of the free will response have questioned whether it accounts for the degree of evil seen in this world. One point in this regard is that while the value of free will may be thought sufficient to counterbalance minor evils, it is less obvious that it outweighs the negative attributes of evils such as rape and murder. Particularly egregious cases known as horrendous evils, which “[constitute] prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole,” have been the focus of recent work in the problem of evil.


Of course what is the rape and murder of one individual by another compared to such things as the "Final Solution"...or any of a number of other historical accounts of actual genocide. Most of which were justified on moral grounds. Either sacred or secular.

Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child may prevent the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.


It doesn't have to be clear. In fact, the more obscure His motivation and intention is here the more it reinforces the belief that the whole point of making a distinction between God and mere mortals lies in this gap itself. As long as we can believe in turn that, in the end, God is loving, just and merciful, and that we are on the road to salvation, we can leave all that stuff to the ecclesiastics. Like moral objectivists of a secular persuasion leaving all that technical stuff to the epistemologists.

Another criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, or evil action and suffering impossible by allowing free will but not allowing the ability to enact evil or impose suffering. Supporters of the free will explanation state that that would no longer be free will. Critics respond that this view seems to imply it would be similarly wrong to try to reduce suffering and evil in these ways, a position which few would advocate.


And on and and on and on with these intellectual/spiritual contraptions in which everything is shuffled around in a world of words. The bottom line however is that given one or another context in which human beings suffering you need to square your own belief in God with that suffering itself. Pick an argument from the ones above or make up your own. All that matters ultimately is that you can live with it.

And it's not like this God has ever actually been shown to exist "in reality".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:19 pm

Problem of Evil (Responses)
From the lumen website

A third challenge to the free will defense is natural evil. By definition, moral evil results from human action, but natural evil results from natural processes that cause natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes.


Now we're talking.

Natural evil? How can anything related to "natural disasters" be construed as evil unless one construes the God that brought into existence the planet that creates and then sustains them as evil? Sure, when "human action" is involved you can rationalize ways to keep God out of it. We brought it on ourselves. Even though many, many, many of the victims of "human evil" derived from free will are completely innocent.

It's "acts of God" that I come back to time and again when those who defend God speak of His mysterious ways. Why? Because that's all there is to fall back on. These terrible natural disasters -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disaster -- claim the lives of tens of thousands year in and year out. Or for things live the covid-19 virus, hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Or for medical afflictions like cancer, millions and millions.

And that's before we get to those calamities that are described as "extinction events".

So, how do some rationalize nature on a rampage?

Take your pick:

Advocates of the free will response to evil propose various explanations of natural evils. Alvin Plantinga, following Augustine of Hippo, and others have argued that natural evils are caused by the free choices of supernatural beings such as demons. Others have argued

• that natural evils are the result of the fall of man, which corrupted the perfect world created by God or
• that natural evils are the result of natural laws or
• that natural evils provide us with a knowledge of evil which makes our free choices more significant than they would otherwise be, and so our free will more valuable or
• that natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment for moral evils that humans have committed, and so the natural evil is justified.


That's the beauty of having a belief in God that is derived largely from faith. With no actual God around to provide "the final answer", you just have to think up one that makes sense to you. Or be indoctrinated by others to accept their explanation.

Then this part:

There is also debate regarding the compatibility of moral free will (to select good or evil action) with the absence of evil from heaven, with God’s omniscience and with his omnibenevolence.


Same thing. What do you think is true "in your head" about this given that no one seems able to actually demonstrate that what they think is true is in fact true. Everyone here is basically in the same more or less blind faith boat. You can't prove that your explanation is the optimal assessment but then neither can they.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:39 pm

This post is as a result of an exchange between myself and FreeSpirit1983 here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198062

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

Reality of evil

It is a sad fact of the world that it contains many instances – even a superabundance – of evil: injury, disfigurement, disease, disability, natural disasters: hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, drought. In addition, there are man-made evils: injustice, violence, rape, torture, all manner of cruelty, murder, war, genocide. Disturbing examples of all this evil could be recounted indefinitely, to horrifying effect. In the face of all this pain and misery, it is obviously a challenge to believe that there is an all good, all powerful God who has loving care for his creation.


First, of course, in describing natural disasters as evil, we have to go back to the entity who created the planetary components that made them possible in the first place: God.

Then we can delve into the man-made rationalizations for why God might have done this. The first and the foremost being His "mysterious ways". All of these terrible, horrific, ghastly catastrophes -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll -- are somehow a part of a loving, just and merciful God's righteous plan. And what can we mere mortals possibly even begin to grasp about that?

On the other hand, there are those who do in fact think deeply about these "acts of God" and suggest an alternative explanation. That while God is indeed loving, just and merciful, He is not omnipotent. He set into motion all that He created -- including planet Earth -- but it all got out of control. He is just as appalled by these disasters as we are. But for reasons even He does not understand, it's now "beyond His control".

Though even in regard to the "terrible, horrific, ghastly" events down through the ages that were clearly as a result of human involvement, an omnipotent God could have intervened and prevented them.

Indeed, the problem of evil is the major challenge to theistic belief in general, and Christian belief in particular. If anything could definitively prove there is no God, evil is the only reality that might. Indeed, what in philosophy is termed the “problem of evil” is just such an argument which purports to prove that the reality of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.


Yes, that's the conclusion I have come to myself. But even here it is necessary to first make the assumption that "a God, the God my God" does in fact exist. Which, aside from theodicy, brings into focus these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

Subjects for other threads.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:07 pm

No Good… no privation of it. No fracture. No fragment. No mark to miss.

Try again.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:10 pm

:lol:

No, seriously.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:03 pm

Really? Truly? Referentially?

Why so serious?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:30 pm

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

Evil is a privation

First of all, we need to understand that evil is a privation. What does this mean? It is sometimes thought that theists are saying that evil is nothing. This is only sort of right. Evil is not some thing in its own right – like some kind of dark seeping ooze that invades goodness and destroys it.

No, evil is not a “thing” at all, but the falling-short, an emptiness or non-functioning, in something else. As Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, evil is a privation: the lack of being in something good which does exist.


Right, a privation. Though for some here the first order of business will be to define it. What, technically, does "privation" mean such that when we finally do get around to discussing it in regard theodicy, we're all on the same page "philosophically".

So let's start with the dictionary:

"Privation: noun: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scarce or lacking.

formal: the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present."


Okay, in regard to...

"...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."

...how is evil as a privation to be understood? The privations above are derived from God. Either formally or otherwise. What quality or attribute of God that is there in the good times is lost or absent in the bad times?

Existing itself chiefly has the nature of being desirable, and so we perceive that everything by nature desires to conserve its existing and avoids things destructive of its existing and resists them as far as possible. Therefore, existing itself, insofar as it is desirable, is good. . . . Therefore, evil, which is universally contrary to good, is necessarily also contrary to existing.


As "general description spiritual contraptions" go, this "explanation" is to be expected. Now connect the dots between it and your own "loving, just and merciful" God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:59 pm

From PN: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 11&t=35269

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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jul 17, 2022 9:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
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.


Harold Kushner.. Google-search


Kushner’s books include the huge bestsellers When Bad Things Happen To Good People and When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough

Next up, the sequels.. When Good Things Happen To Bad People, and, When All You've Ever Wanted Is Enough

Do things for people not because of who they are or what they do in return, but because of who you are

Who am I? Who are you? Who is anyone?

You don't have to be perfect to be loved, nor should you expect people you love to be perfect

So much for perfectionism then.. :icon-rolleyes:

It is true that those we meet can change us, sometimes so profoundly that we are not the same afterwards, even unto our names

Cue, the less fractured and fragmented, Iambiguous.. who is he!? who is he!? What’s in a name anyway, but an allegory/an allusion, to whom a person may or may not be.. for what’s in a name, but a keepsake, that alludes to a thing

How Good Do We Have to Be: Harold S Kushner? Acceptance and forgiveness can change our relationships with the most important people in our lives and help us meet the bold and rewarding challenge of being human

Then don’t do anything that requires acceptance and forgiveness in the first place then, innit.. said the foresighted to the non/the wise to the not
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25047
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:22 pm

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

Natural vs. Moral evil

Philosophers make a distinction between two kinds of evils according as each kind has a different cause. Aquinas distinguishes them as evil suffered (malum poenae – literally, evil of punishment) and evil done or committed (malum culpae – literally, evil of guilt). Now-a-days, it is common to call these natural or physical evils, on the one hand, and moral evils, on the other. Natural evils occur without any human intervention. One often thinks of earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis, but these are natural evil precisely because they bring about the privations of physical goods: injury, disease and death – primarily in humans. Whether they come in large numbers owing to major weather or geological events, or arise spontaneously in individuals: cancers, infectious diseases, birth defects, these natural evils identify what deprives their victims of perfections which should belong to them: bodily integrity, health or life.


Yes, this is my own main focus. The terrible suffering endured by millions not as a result of their own transgressions or the "inhumanity of man" but simply as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of being born with one or another horrific medical condition, of getting infected with some deadly disease simply because they touched a doorknob teeming with this or that deadly microbe.

In other words, something that, if it came about as a result of human behavior -- someone blowing up a dam precipitating a devastating flood, killing hundreds -- we would label evil but if God constructs planet Earth out of tectonic plates and an earthquake destroys the dam killing hundreds, it's rationalized as instead just a manifestation of God's will. And thus not evil.

Or something along the lines of this...

The natural evil we know about is all grounded in the destruction of the body of living things. Living things suffer natural evil precisely because they are material, because their nature enlivens matter, and life is a process of acquiring matter to sustain bodies, and shedding or excreting matter so used. Material life is a transitory process. And the matter of any given thing is itself susceptible to becoming the matter for different creatures. Just what it means to be a material living thing is that it has a tenuous and transitory hold on matter which is sought by other material living things. So, material nature just seems to require the good, perfection, and existence of one thing sustaining itself by causing other material things to suffer loss, the privation of their perfection.


Nature in a nutshell. At times a ghastly and gruesome slaughterhouse of predator and prey. But who calls that evil? On the other hand, how does it fit into the conviction that God is "loving, just and merciful"? It's not like the creatures being hunted down, killed and eaten are guilty of original sin. Why the way nature is and not one considerably more tranquil and benevolent.

Of course: God's will.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:09 pm

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

For Aquinas, moral evil too, (wrong doing, crime, – in a word – sin), is a privation, or lack of a due good, since an action is morally good only insofar as it tends toward the good that is appropriate to human nature as determined by reason.


Again...

"Privation: noun: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scarce or lacking.

formal: the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present."


Is it any wonder then that, along with Aristotle, Aquinas was one of Ayn Rand's favorite "great minds" from the past.

Reason. Clearly as fundamental to her "well-being" as food and water. And to do evil is to act irrationally. Only the "goods" that are "due" are always as she construes them. The classic moral objectivist.

Only for Aquinas a "due good" must revolve around God. And just as for Rand, who insisted it was ever and always her Reason, for Aquinas it was ever and always his God.

The rest of course is history. Just different Reasons and different Gods.

"We must therefore say that every action has goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is lacking in goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its fullness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or something of the kind." Aquinas


And who needs a context here, right? As long as you have access to the right Reason or the right God, just make the "set of circumstances" all about them. That's why objectivism basically works the same for both the religious and the humanist zealots.

And that's why I am such a threat to both. I dare to suggest that in the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating religiously the existence of a God, the God or, philosophically, a Goodness, the Goodness, it largely comes down to the subjective, existential parameters of dasein.

Unless of course I'm wrong. So, by all means, explain that to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:01 pm

Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website

So, for Aquinas, even moral evil is a privation of a due good, insofar as human actions ought to follow reason’s judgment about what is the true or appropriate good. Rape or murder is wrong because the victim is owed life or the respect of her body and consent, and the aggressor fails to apply this judgment in his actions.


Ayn Rand was drawn to Aquinas because he too followed "reason’s judgment about what is the true or appropriate good."

https://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/05/t ... -ayn-rand/

She simply insisted that her own ontological and teleological conclusions were rooted secularly in philosophy rather than theologically in God. But make no mistake about it: both paths shared in common the need to make morality objective. The need, in other words, to have a particular font [God/Rand] that others can fall back on as the One True Path.

Evil from the perspective of Aquinas/God or from the perspective of Rand/Philosophy.

The starting point either way being Reason itself?

Furthermore, the moral act has this privation as a result of the free decision; this freedom is what makes the action morally wrong and its perpetrator guilty of a crime. Even when human actions result in a victim suffering a physical or natural evil (in injury or death), what makes the action to be a moral evil is the free choice to deprive the act of the rationality that would make it good.


Freedom. You are free to live your life through the Christian God or through Objectivism. For Christians that freedom revolved around the congregation...flocks of sheep...while for Objectivists it revolved around, well, flocks of sheep. After all, if you dared to reject Rand's own conclusions, you were "excommunicated" from the tribe...the "Collective". You became evil personified.

Evil was whatever she said it was. Rape it would seem is immoral because it is not rational. Unless, of course, the woman is a Dominique Francon and the man is a Howard Roark.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:56 pm

Objectivism is simple.

If anything is bothering anyone, existence isn’t working.

The problem is that the sheer magnitude and vastness of that problem overwhelms people.

Even you iambiguous.

So you shut down and keep posting like a robot.

You realize your limitations. You can’t think. You can’t create. You can’t add. You can’t use inference.

I’d say that it scares you how incompetent you are when objective reality is so simple.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:29 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Objectivism is simple.

If anything is bothering anyone, existence isn’t working.

The problem is that the sheer magnitude and vastness of that problem overwhelms people.

Even you iambiguous.

So you shut down and keep posting like a robot.

You realize your limitations. You can’t think. You can’t create. You can’t add. You can’t use inference.

I’d say that it scares you how incompetent you are when objective reality is so simple.


Look, I have patiently [and, sure, at times, polemically] attempted to explain to you why I believe that you are afflicted with a "condition" -- clinical or otherwise -- that prompts you to assert things that are often way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way "out there".

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that, among other things, you have in fact spoken to God, the Devil, Mr. Death and Buddha.

Just for starters.

Either that or [again] ecmandu is just this "online" character that you invented in order to entertain yourself. For whatever reason.

And, if so, I would certainly not suggest that that is evil.

Well, given your motivation and intention rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Objectivism is simple.

If anything is bothering anyone, existence isn’t working.

The problem is that the sheer magnitude and vastness of that problem overwhelms people.

Even you iambiguous.

So you shut down and keep posting like a robot.

You realize your limitations. You can’t think. You can’t create. You can’t add. You can’t use inference.

I’d say that it scares you how incompetent you are when objective reality is so simple.


Look, I have patiently [and, sure, at times, polemically] attempted to explain to you why I believe that you are afflicted with a "condition" -- clinical or otherwise -- that prompts you to assert things that are often way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way "out there".

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that, among other things, you have in fact spoken to God, the Devil, Mr. Death and Buddha.

Just for starters.

Either that or [again] ecmandu is just this "online" character that you invented in order to entertain yourself. For whatever reason.

And, if so, I would certainly not suggest that that is evil.

Well, given your motivation and intention rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein. 8)


Interesting how you approached my post.

I stated that objective morality is rooted in anyone being bothered by anything.

Knowing you can’t approach or defeat the topic, you brought up 4 failed beings who failed.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:29 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Interesting how you approached my post.

I stated that objective morality is rooted in anyone being bothered by anything.

Knowing you can’t approach or defeat the topic, you brought up 4 failed beings who failed.


Ah, of course: proving my point.

Or are you just channeling Meno here?

Waiting patiently for the next pinhead post from her? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:26 pm

Charles is writing a terrible song about you. Out of my hands.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: theodicy

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:34 am

Interesting.

I see it all now. If you feel hurt if anyone’s hurt, you’re eternally damned.

I’m the only hyper empath on earth with a conscience.

Interesting.

So. I cast my gaze to life.

All I see is evil.

It makes sense why I tried to destroy existence.

But that’s impossible.

My curse forever is to have a conscience and know how to reach perfect for all beings, but nobody wants goodness for themselves except me.

It’s not enough to be eternally damned because I have a conscience. It’s that nobody else has one forever.

I know this post doesn’t matter to you, and never will.

My only option is to patch analog with analog.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: theodicy

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:12 am

So. This patch. Is it gonna tear Biggy’s hole worse? Everybody knows if you patch old with new, it tears the hole bigger. And when people get comfortable in their holes, they don’t crawl out too easily.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:52 am

Note to Meno:

Complete this farce please. #-o
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:25 am

Ichthus77 wrote:So. This patch. Is it gonna tear Biggy’s hole worse? Everybody knows if you patch old with new, it tears the hole bigger. And when people get comfortable in their holes, they don’t crawl out too easily.


Iambiguous has never had a hole.

Just bothersome features of existence.

Those can be fixed.

What does iambiguous want?

Not to have dreams?

That can be done.

What else does iambiguous want?

No conflicting goods?

That can be done.

What else does iambiguous want?

No morality in a god or no god world?

Not even iambiguous is that stupid.

So what’s the last thing iambiguous is bothered by?

Being born as a unique being. The dasein topic.

You’ll just have to adapt to the fact that we’re all unique iambiguous. Obviously you hate yourself and others no matter what they think because nobody has a right to think.

You’ll adapt.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: theodicy

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:01 am

drillin a hole … past the old goal… mama said knock you out

https://youtu.be/FihnyDC6vbI
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: theodicy

Postby Sculptor » Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:26 am

iambiguous wrote:Theodicy:

Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil. wiki

Just as, in my view, the existence of God is often merely defined and deduced into existence, if we accept for the sake of argument that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist, how is the "vindication" of this God in the face of evil not also just defined and deduced into existence?

The point below [and my reaction to it] is taken from my own "on discussing god and religion" thread:

What’s New in….Philosophy of Religion
Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.

One argument [against the existence of God] which has shown no sign of diminishing in popularity, still less vanishing, is the problem of evil. This may be expressed very roughly as follows. The set of propositions (1)-(4) is inconsistent, so at least one of them must be wrong:

(1) God is good, and therefore wants to remove evil
(2) God is omniscient, and therefore knows that there is evil
(3) God is omnipotent, and therefore can remove evil
(4) Evil exists.


Now you're talking. This matter is by far -- by far -- the most important question of all in regard to any God and any religion.

Indeed, imagine that we lived in a world where there was no human suffering. A world where no one ever spoke of evil because there was nothing that could be thought of that would allow us to make sense of what some say that it was. Now, in this world, we may well still be unable to demonstrate that an actual God did in fact exist. But when people spoke of Him as loving, just and merciful that would certainly make a whole lot of sense. We may not be able to communicate with or interact with this God, but how could anyone doubt that something "up there" must be sustaining a world totally without pain and suffering.

Let's run this by the religionists here. But, really, how could they not all be reduced down to this: God works in mysterious ways.

Or, for the Buddhists, the universe works in mysterious ways.

But, fortunately enough, for both, one of them results in immortality and the other in salvation. And all the evil in the world doesn't make that go away.


Theodicy is most commonly expressed as a claim that things are the way they are because things are as good as they can get. The idea that all is for the best as we live in the best of all possible worlds.

The absurdity of this statement is best expressed by Panglos and his fellow travellers in Candide by Voltaire and was a tongue in cheek response to the Lisbon earthquake.1755. It was a witty satire on the notion.
After such a major disaster religious people respond in several ways; thanking god for their personal deliverance; looking round to explain what people had done wrong to deserve such punishment, and usually pointing the finger at minorities or minority practices; others fall into despair; but a small percentage question their faith.

The theodicy is a poor attempt to counter Epicurus' trilemma: "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?” Some complete it: “Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby Dan~ » Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:53 am

Most people have very small standards when it comes to God and Jesus Christ.

I asked if Jesus could cure everyone on earth in an instant.
He seemed unable. He had to manually do it one at a time.
My mormon friend said it was that way because it was
a test of people's faith.

Also Jesus could have taught medical science.
That way people could heal themselves throughout time.

I know I have gods on my side,
but those gods also have low expectations.

As far as i know, "gods" are beings beyond humanity.

However, on a deeper level, humans are low on the food chain.
What we call a god could be a common, average alien life form.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11084
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users