On The Argument From Design

[acomiclife]

Let's assume for a moment that God exists and that he/she created the world and everything in it. In the conventional (Christian) sense of God that he is a good and benevolent God, how do we explain the existence of evil?

[sahyo]

no imagining "good" without "evil"

[Taeguk]

Hi!

acomiclife, you wrote:

Let's assume for a moment that God exists and that he/she created the world and everything in it. In the conventional (Christian) sense of God that he is a good and benevolent God, how do we explain the existence of evil?

Which I think is a very intriguing question!

I think everyone has probably asked themselves this question at some point in their lives. It's one of those questions that seems to come along with being human :)

As for the answer, I think it's one of those things we all have to answer on our own. It's not something that can be answered by any logical demonstration! :lol:

But there have been a number of answers proposed over the centuries!

For many atheists, the existence of evil is proof that God does not exist, or if he does, he's not all-powerful. Some especially sarcastic atheists will challenge your assertion that Christianity's conception of God is "benevolent" and will cite chapters from the Hebrew Scriptures describing God as vengeful, angry, or violent!

For most Christians, it think it boils down to free will. If you want an especially interesting look at the problem of evil from a Judeo-Christian perspective, go grab a Bible and read The Book of Job. It's message is especially subtle and nuanced. Amongst other developments, it describes Satan as being part of God's household! Certainly not how most Christians view the world! :)

If you have a lot of time on your hands, and you are really interested in this question, I suggest reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Aside from being one of the greatest novels ever written, it's directly concerned with this problem (amongst other things). One of the main characters is a strong atheist who cites this reason (in graphic detail) as why he can't believe in God, and at one point he confronts his brother (a former monk) about it. Very dramatic, thought-provoking reading!

Of course, by staying within a Judeo-Christian framework, you're only seeing two sides of the question! I'd suggest you can find many more answers by looking at other religions. For example, to the Zoroastrians, the universe is defined by a cosmic struggle between good and evil. Spenta Mainyu ("good") and Angra Mainyu ("evil") are locked in combat, although Ahura Mazda (God, who is on the side of good) will eventually prevail. To Buddhists, suffering is ultimately a matter of karma (and can be averted through the Eightfold Path). You may find the perspective of another religious tradition to be more helpful!

Perhaps the major limitations I have with the question under a Judeo-Christian framework is how poorly defined the terms are! What is "good"? What is "evil"? And just as importantly, who or what is "God"?

asheera says:

no imagining "good" without "evil"

:tao:

All under heaven see beauty as beauty
only because they also see ugliness.
All announce that good is good
only because they also denounce what is bad

Have you ever heard the Taoist tale of the famer and the horse who ran away, acomiclife? It may also help you deal with this question. :tao:

[Noway2Zero]

True 'good' doesnt have any need for announcements

bad things however.. people cant seem to stop talking about :(

good/bad is mere opinion, drop your 'ego' and watch what unfolds :)

[scameter]

We don't. :P But, Christians, depending on if they're fundamentalist or a different kind, explain it thusly: to a fundamentalist, as usual, their reply is "God works in mysterious ways"; to a more thinking Christian, it is "God is capable of creating anything", generally. Although, of course, there are many different replies to this possible from the general Christian community.

[acomiclife]

Originally posted by @--
Have you ever heard the Taoist tale of the famer and the horse who ran away, acomiclife? It may also help you deal with this question
No I've never heard the tale before, I'm immensely interested in Taoism though and would love a link to it.

Thanks for your reply, I wanted to stay within the scope of the Judeo-Christian concept of God as that's how my philosophy professor scoped the question. I'd certainly love to hear the other ideas as well; and I can understand why as in answering such a broad question one gets lost in the subjective nature of 'god' as well as 'good' and 'evil'

I think it's interesting to note that you mentioned it is a personal endeavor, as this is the conclusion that my professor and I came to. The Catholic at church, at one time (according to Bertrand Russell) claimed that it was possible to prove the existence of God through rationale means and began to adopt the various philosophies in its own thinking and teaching. Other Christian sects, most notably the Lutheran branch, deny this completely and teach that God cannot be known though rationale means. the WELS synod has 'sola fides' on its seal to illustrate that one can only know God by faith alone. It's this area specifically that i wish to delve deeper into.

One cannot deny a universal idea of what is essentially 'good' and 'evil'


Thanks for your time.

[Noway2Zero]

ha, no good/evil = good :D

[Taeguk]

Hi!

acomiclife, you asked:

No I've never heard the tale before, I'm immensely interested in Taoism though and would love a link to it

Sure! Here's a pretty decent version:


There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "Maybe," the farmer replied. "who is to say what is good and what is evil?"

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "Maybe," replied the old man. "who are we to say what is fortunate and what is unfortuante?"

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "Maybe," answered the farmer. "who are we to say what is a blessing and what is a curse?"

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "Maybe," said the farmer. "maybe."

I'd be most interested in hearing what you think! Please let me know! :)

And if you're interested in Taoism, I have a quote that I think is very Taoist, and may be helpful in interpreting the horse story as well! This was originally quoted by asheera (who now goes by sahyo, I see :thumbsup:) and also by Starry Canopy. It's not techincally from a Taoist source, but it's very much written in the spirit of wu wei:


Effort is a distraction from what is. The moment I accept what is there is no struggle. Any form of struggle or strife is an indication of distraction; and distraction, which is effort, must exist so long as psychologically I wish to transform what is into something it is not.

. . . It is only if you are aware of inward insufficiency and live with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that you will discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a tranquillity which is not put together, made up, but a tranquillity which comes with understanding of what is.

J Krishnamurti


You also write:


I think it's interesting to note that you mentioned it is a personal endeavor, as this is the conclusion that my professor and I came to. The Catholic at church, at one time (according to Bertrand Russell) claimed that it was possible to prove the existence of God through rationale means and began to adopt the various philosophies in its own thinking and teaching. Other Christian sects, most notably the Lutheran branch, deny this completely and teach that God cannot be known though rationale means. the WELS synod has 'sola fides' on its seal to illustrate that one can only know God by faith alone. It's this area specifically that i wish to delve deeper into.

The question of faith and reason, and how they fit together, is very interesting indeed! Are they opposed or complimentary? Does one underly the other? Do both underly each other?

"The Tao is like a bellows: because it is empty, it is inexhaustible
The more it is used, the more it produces
But when spoken of, it is not understood
Better to hold fast to your center!" ;)

You finish by saying:

One cannot deny a universal idea of what is essentially 'good' and 'evil'

Perhaps, but what is that idea? What is good, and what, evil?

Can they exist together? Or would their mutual presence cancel each other out?

Do they exist in things? Are they things themselves? Or do they exist only in the mind?

That is certainly quite the question you've chosen to tackle, acomiclife! I wish you the best of luck with your philosophy course, and more importantly, with discovering an answer to it for your own life! :)

[Starry_Canopy]

As far as I can make out,

Good is that which takes us towards God realization/ end of suffering. Evil is that which hinders this. We have the free will to adopt either and the conscience to help us see which is which.

[Taeguk]

Starry Canopy, you wrote:

Good is that which takes us towards God realization/ end of suffering. Evil is that which hinders this. We have the free will to adopt either and the conscience to help us see which is which.

I agree with you on this, my friend! :)

And I would add that if we aren't seperate from God, to attain that realization and the cessation of suffering we must simply be present to "what is"; which brings us back to the quote from Krishnamurti I mentioned beforehand. :) That statement you and sahyo quoted in the Buddhism forum is elegant in its simplicity and beautiful in its lucidity. Thank you both for sharing it, I find it inspiring! :)

This position I think also brings us back to a statement Noway2Zero made earlier:

no good/evil = good

When one is fully "in the moment", when one fully accepts what is, there is no struggle, no conflict...no seperating of "good" from "evil"! One is present equally to pain as one is to pleasure, and always in tranquility.

[Noway2Zero]

if you liked that quote by Krishnamurti

i suggest going to his site.. (http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/)

unless you've already read his works

[Zoid]

Let's assume for a moment that God exists and that he/she created the world and everything in it. In the conventional (Christian) sense of God that he is a good and benevolent God, how do we explain the existence of evil?
Of course, assuming that "God exists and that he/she created the world and everything in it" is a very big assumption! Also that "he is a good and benevolent God"...

What if we were to adapt this slightly and assume that all those who say they have had experience of God, who genuinely believe they have had experience of God, are being truthful and are referring to genuine and authentic experience?

God may exist.
God may be something akin to the Christian version of God.
God may have, throughout human history, communicated to his "subjects" and told them he is "good and benevolent."
God may Himself have believed the above.

But there is, of course, the possibility that the God who believes he is the Judeo-Christian God, and whose subjects believe is the Judeo-Christian God, is mistaken! Let's say, at the risk of positing a theory straight out of an episode of the original Star Trek, that God is indeed some kind of Supreme (ish) Being, Divine Creator of (virtually) all things, who believes He is the Creator, the Supreme Being, the Creator of All Things, but in actual fact... He is fallible! He is not all that He believes He is and by extension He is not, despite His genuine and heartfelt assertions to the contrary, all that His "subjects" genuinely believe him to be...?

Would this not explain, in a logical and rational way which even the great Mr Spock might accept, why in a universe where exists a "good and benevolent" God, there is Evil as well as Good?

Just a thought... :rolleyes:

[acomiclife]

Originally posted by @--
God may exist.
God may be something akin to the Christian version of God.
God may have, throughout human history, communicated to his "subjects" and told them he is "good and benevolent."
God may Himself have believed the above.
The question is not about the arguement of the existence of god but rather that if we assume that god exists and that god is good...how can evil exist?

to just change the definition of god is to avoid the question, you make good points but without the scope provided it loses its relavency. it doesn't matter what you personally think of god...whether god is a real body or merely a force of some kind.

in philosophy we often times must make assumptions in order to arrive at a point...jump across gaps in order to build bridges across valleys.

[Zoid]

Speaking as a "lay"-philosopher...

I suppose the premise I'm coming from is that to presume God exists and He is "benevolent and good" are two very big assumptions, which raise a lot of questions before you can even ask the question of Good/Evil... What is God? What do we mean by "benevolent and good"? There is no standard defintion of God, even within Christianity, even probably within the various versions of Christianity, so it seems, perhaps, that you (or your philosophy professor!) are asking us to start from the presumption that a Squiffit exists, without us really knowing what a Squiffit is!

As to, "What is Good?"... well, I have to get off home now, so I'll come back to that one... ;)

[acomiclife]

Originally posted by @--
Speaking as a "lay"-philosopher...
we're all lay philosophers in a way, i don't think we'll ever get paid for our endeavors.

i do not intend to just make the arrogant assumption that god exists and that he is good. i'm merely trying to provide scope for my question. i will go on to define benevolent and good as those are certainly necessary to be defined in order that we may view the scope of the question. i'm not so much interested in the truth of these matters as much as i am the ethics of the world within these assumptions.

benevolent: serving the well-being of others rather than the well-being of the self. in the sense that it is commonly excepted by christians that jesus died on the cross to save humanity from their damnation to hell.

good: along the same lines as benevolent but with the addendum that with god being good, good always prevails.

and with that, i think lies the seeming hypocricy of this assumption. if god is good how does evil exist? how do bad things happen?

i figure that the easy way to go about it is to say that obviously god isn't good, or god is fooled. but let's take the difficult path and see where it takes us. i still have to think about it, but when i do know what i think...i'll be sure to post it here.

[schrodinger]

But there is, of course, the possibility that the God who believes he is the Judeo-Christian God, and whose subjects believe is the Judeo-Christian God, is mistaken! Let's say, at the risk of positing a theory straight out of an episode of the original Star Trek, that God is indeed some kind of Supreme (ish) Being, Divine Creator of (virtually) all things, who believes He is the Creator, the Supreme Being, the Creator of All Things, but in actual fact... He is fallible! He is not all that He believes He is and by extension He is not, despite His genuine and heartfelt assertions to the contrary, all that His "subjects" genuinely believe him to be...?


Would this not explain, in a logical and rational way which even the great Mr Spock might accept, why in a universe where exists a "good and benevolent" God, there is Evil as well as Good?—Zoid—

This just adds an unnecessary complication to the question. If this pseudo-god is mistaken, is fallible, then he isn’t the real god in the truest sense. If indeed there is a supreme being, there can only be one, by definition of ‘supreme’. So no matter how many intermediate gods we may inject into the argument, the buck still stops with the true supreme being, so the question remains intact: “Why is there evil in the world if God is good”?

good: along the same lines as benevolent but with the addendum that with god being good, good always prevails.

and with that, i think lies the seeming hypocricy of this assumption. if god is good how does evil exist? how do bad things happen?—acomiclife—

One possible answer is that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are simply subjective measurements of the same thing, in the same way that ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ are subjective measurements of velocity. As long as velocity exists, we humans will always see some things as being fast and others as slow. But in Nature, is anything really fast or slow, or is it all human perception? And in Nature, is anything good or bad, or is it all human perception? When a string of comets struck Jupiter, cosmologists watched in fascination and joy at the show. It was a good thing to see. If the same thing happened to our precious Earth, we would certainly consider it a bad thing, for about one microsecond before we all died! So even a neutral cosmological event becomes either good or bad only because of human perception, it has nothing to do with the existence of good or evil in God. In the same way, most of us perceive kindness as a good thing and cruelty as a bad thing. But is a lion cruel for killing and eating an antelope? The lion is only following natural instincts and feeding. I propose that good and evil do not exist in Nature, but exist only in the human mind. The question should then be: “Why does evil exist in the mind of man, when it does not exist in Nature or in God?” <_<

[sahyo]

good’ and ‘evil’ are simply subjective measurements of the same thing,


what is measuring?

what is being measured?

[Ryker]

I propose that good and evil do not exist in Nature, but exist only in the human mind. The question should then be: “Why does evil exist in the mind of man, when it does not exist in Nature or in God?”Fascinating! You know, I've never quite looked at it that way, but it indeed makes much of sense & reason. I think this is something that I would like to contemplate more on, so that I can better take it in.

[acomiclife]

Originally posted by @--
Why does evil exist in the mind of man, when it does not exist in Nature or in God?”
That i can dig on. on the one hand it suggests that we've managed to create something without the aid of God. On the other it lends itself to the nature of our unusual existence.

it's strange how we generally accept that we are not really a part of nature...but separate entities; as if aliens put on here to screw everything up.

[Zoid]

So hang on...

Good/Evil is relative... Each exists by merit of its comparison with the other (Fast cannot exist without Slow)... So by definition, if Good exists, then Evil must exist. But hang on... must it? I mean, in practice? Aren't we just arguing here that for the concept of Good to exist, then the concept of Evil must exist? Theoretically, but not necessarily in actuality? If God is the purest possible manifestation of Goodness and the one and only, unique and omnipotent Supreme Being, even though we may accept that the concept of Evil may (and even necessarily does) exist, could we still not question why physical manifestations of Evil exist? In the Platonic sense, we can accept the notion of a pure and theoretical form of a Horse, but that notion can exist irrespective of whether or not a single actual living horse exists... (can't it?)

[ ... my brain is starting to ache ... ]

:wacko:

[sahyo]

[ ... my brain is starting to ache ... ]


:wacko:



http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/71.gif

[Zoid]

:nono:

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Zoid, you asked:

Aren't we just arguing here that for the concept of Good to exist, then the concept of Evil must exist?

Excellent question! But what schrodinger is suggesting is that good and evil do not exist outside of the minds of human beings! He says:

I propose that good and evil do not exist in Nature, but exist only in the human mind.

So far, I don't think anybody has challenged this assertion! I'm not sure if that's what you're doing
<_<
Zoid, you speak of "manifestations" of evil, of the actual existence of good and evil.

But tell me, if good and evil actually exist, what are they? And where are they?

acomiclife, you wrote:

it's strange how we generally accept that we are not really a part of nature...but separate entities; as if aliens put on here to screw everything up.

It seems to me that this notion is the cause of much suffering! Which is ironic, because I think it develops in people's minds only after they see or experience suffering! :lol:

[schrodinger]

acomiclife, you wrote:

it's strange how we generally accept that we are not really a part of nature...but separate entities; as if aliens put on here to screw everything up.

It seems to me that this notion is the cause of much suffering! Which is ironic, because I think it develops in people's minds only after they see or experience suffering! --Taeguk--

I think acomiclife makes an important point here, that we humans do see ourselves as somehow disconnected from Nature. And Taeguk makes an equally good point about this being the cause of suffering. It seems to me that this feeling strikes at the very core of being “human”. We are capable of understanding cause and effect, which in turn makes us introspective about such things as death (where do we go when we die) and beginnings (where did we come from) and religion (is there something transcendent or supernatural which is the ultimate cause of everything else). Maybe this trait is the key to our success as a species, the key to our survival and at the same time the source of much of our suffering? On the one hand, this amazing human intellect has enabled the puny human race to survive and be the masters of much more physically powerful animals and insects, which seems a good thing. On the other hand, this same intellect compels us on what must be an impossible quest to challenge and master Nature itself, leading to the great loss of mental tranquility, which surely must be a bad thing. Does this explain why good and evil exist only in the human mind? Are we intelligent goldfish, doomed to go insane when we finally understand we are trapped in a bowl from which we can never escape? Or does the quest itself give us a purpose for existing and some semblance of sanity?

[sahyo]

zoid

what were assuming when responded with " :nono: " ?

:)

[Zoid]

I was telling you off for laughing at my brainache!

[sahyo]

:)


laughing at my brainache


that wasn't happening

[Zoid]

Then I forgive thee... :peace:

[Taeguk]

Hi!

I've recently posted some thoughts in the Religion Forum that might be pertinent to the discussion here! :)

schrodinger has suggested that good and evil do not exist outside of the human mind...

I think this is a very interesting possibility! And I'm very nearly convinced this is so!

In fact, if we're talking about what most people mean every day when they say "good" or "evil", I'm 100% completely convinced you're right!

When most people use "good" or "evil", what they actually mean is normally "pleasurable" or "painful" or "gain" or "loss". Maybe they mean "morally good" or "morally evil", but, as schrodinger and venomgirl have both pointed out in the Religion Forum, the natural world is devoid of good or evil! There's nothing intrinsically evil about volcanoes or "natural disasters"! So if we're talking about the specturm of pleasure and pain or about moral categories, I'm totally on board!

But, I wonder if it's possible that there's a different meaning to the word "good"! If you go to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.com) and look up the word "good" you'll find over 50 different defintions for the word!

Which isn't to say any of these definitions are helpful for this dicussion! :D But the fact remains that good is definitely what I'd call an equivocal term! And it's possible that when religions use the word "good", they might mean something other than "pleasant" or even "beautiful"!

For example, the Shambhala Buddhist Tradition speaks of a sort of intrinsic, existential "goodness" which is in all beings. Whatever they may be talking about, they're definitely not refering to "pleasure"!

And correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Genesis creation myth I believe God looks at each of his creations and says, "This is very good." While I realize that the three abrahamic religions often anthropomorphize God, especially in their mythology, I wonder if maybe God means something else, other than merely "pleasant"! This question I think goes to the heart of the matter, since unless I'm mistaken God says things are "good" before he creates human beings! So it would seem in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, there's the notion of goodness apart from human thought!

The question is, does "good" in this context mean the same thing that we've been taking it to mean?

[Noway2Zero]

good/bad = opinion ..?

[Taeguk]

Noway2Zero, you wrote:

good/bad = opinion ..?

If good means "pleasurable" or "moral" and bad means "painful" or "immoral", then yes!

What I'm wondering is if there's some sense of the word "good" that doesn't imply an opposite! :think:

After all, looking at the judeo-christian creation story, God says "it's very good", independantly of a human mind! Does God have "an opinion"?

This doesn't mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic framework is true, of course! It could simply be an exercise in understanding how the concept of "God" is ultimately inadequate if "God" is understood as being "anthropomorphic"!

But given that acomiclife originally intended this discussion to be within the framework of Christianity, and we seem to be continuing this trend throughout the discussion, it might be helpful to continue to look at things from a Christian view!

[Noway2Zero]

hello Taeguk!

you seem to be very interested in this topic(as you should be i spent much time pondering on it myself) so i will try to keep my response in a 'Christian' standpoint.. as much as i can anyways ;)

in Genisis it says the woman took part in the 'forbidden fruit' first right? so what is a womans qualities 'generally speaking' is to give birth so to speak(zen might call this 'make something') to have something of our own.. if you will separation of things

then the the man followed next in eating of this fruit.. so what is a mans qualities dominance, control, men like to decide what is what ..a system of grading if you will(judging?) you have to have at least 2 things before you can even say 'good/bad' for good is one and bad is another that makes 2
this would have happend instantaniously (this is my take on it anyways)

also in a couple ancient languages the same word was used for God and for good

true good happens naturally ..you dont brag about helping someone out in a time of need nor do you see much 'good news' on tv like i stated before truely good things go unnanounced

mabey this is why its important to keep a 'clear mind'

you cant sin and have a clear mind its impossible i assure you :)

"If you love me, keep my commandments." -Jesus the Christ, John 14:15

[schrodinger]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Genesis creation myth I believe God looks at each of his creations and says, "This is very good." While I realize that the three abrahamic religions often anthropomorphize God, especially in their mythology, I wonder if maybe God means something else, other than merely "pleasant"! This question I think goes to the heart of the matter, since unless I'm mistaken God says things are "good" before he creates human beings! So it would seem in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, there's the notion of goodness apart from human thought!—Taeguk--

Welcome to the proverbial smoke-filled hall of mirrors! The question you raise here breaks down when you consider that we are reading words written down by Man, which says that God said “good”! So the notion of goodness still springs from the mind of Man, and cannot be directly attributed to God, “apart from human thought”. In fact, nothing that we can conceive of can possibly be “apart from human thought”, including God. :P

[Noway2Zero]

schrodinger have you ever experienced 'no thoughts' ?

these are the 'smoke' infront of your 'mirror'

i assure you it is entirely possible as well :)

what you would see is far greater than the word 'good' is capable of suggesting

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Noway2Zero, you wrote:

you seem to be very interested in this topic(as you should be i spent much time pondering on it myself) so i will try to keep my response in a 'Christian' standpoint.. as much as i can anyways

:lol: Oh, what the hey, I think at this point we can break from a "Christian standpoint"! I personally don't know enough about Christianity to really take a purely "Christian standpoint" throughout an extended discussion!


in Genisis it says the woman took part in the 'forbidden fruit' first right? so what is a womans qualities 'generally speaking' is to give birth so to speak(zen might call this 'make something') to have something of our own.. if you will separation of things

then the the man followed next in eating of this fruit.. so what is a mans qualities dominance, control, men like to decide what is what ..a system of grading if you will(judging?) you have to have at least 2 things before you can even say 'good/bad' for good is one and bad is another that makes 2
this would have happend instantaniously (this is my take on it anyways)

Thank you very much for explaining that, Noway2Zero! You seem very knowledgeable about Christianity!

Your interpretation, especially of the man eatting the "fruit" seems very akin to the Taoist view of "good" and "evil"! I find this especially fascinating because I have often seen a connection betwenn the two. It's nice to see somebody who is far more versed in these matters than I agreeing! :)

Come to think of it, the whole notion of "the Fall" is somewhat similiar to the Taoist notion of most people and societies having lost their "original purity"! Of course, Taoists believe this purity has never actually "left" us (as much as it has been obscured or forgotten!), so it can be rediscovered at any time!

Christian Orthodoxy (as I understand it), teaches that this "purity" can only be regained through faith in Jesus Christ. Personally, I prefer the Taoist world view! :lol:

Although there's nothing to stop a highly-concious, broad-minded, UN-orthodox Christian from synthesizing the two views :)

You go on to say:


also in a couple ancient languages the same word was used for God and for good

true good happens naturally ..you dont brag about helping someone out in a time of need nor do you see much 'good news' on tv like i stated before truely good things go unnanounced

mabey this is why its important to keep a 'clear mind'

I have often thought it was interesting that "God" is literally just one "o" short of "Good"! And Plato refered to the highest principle of the cosmos as "The Good".

I agree with you about "true good" Noway2Zero! I also think it's something natural, something intrinsic, something that doesn't require an ego or even the label of "good". Perhaps we could say true "good" is not "good" because it is beyond good and evil! Hey! That sounds very similiar to Lao Tzu's idea of the "virtuous man who is without virtue" or Chuang-Tzu's "perfect joy is to be without joy", now doesn't it?

schrodinger, you wrote:

Welcome to the proverbial smoke-filled hall of mirrors! The question you raise here breaks down when you consider that we are reading words written down by Man, which says that God said “good”! So the notion of goodness still springs from the mind of Man, and cannot be directly attributed to God, “apart from human thought”. In fact, nothing that we can conceive of can possibly be “apart from human thought”, including God.

Touche, my friend! "apart from" was a very poor choice of words on my part! Certainly I wasn't trying to suggest that anything we can think or speak of is "apart from" our thoughts! :lol:

I think what I meant to say was that perhaps "true good/natural good" (not "pleasure" or "moral good") exists independantly of human thought!

And of course you are right, the words in the Bible were definitely written by men. But I wonder if they weren't inspired by insight into what goes beyond the affairs of men?

[Noway2Zero]

hello Taeguk,

i have to agree with schrodinger, your post are always well assembled and the way you compliement the person you are responding too before you respond is very well done.. we could all learn something from this technique :)

i agree completely the purity hasnt left us ..mabey we just left it(or covered it up/lost sight of it) im far from 'Christian' ..far from any 'set way' for that matter(Bruce Lee's the 'style of no style' is very well rounded and can be applied to anything which makes it 'Truth')

Jesus said i am The Way the Life the Truth,.. the Father and I are one,.. the Father is in Me and I in Him,.. If ye know Me then ye know the Father..

i doubt he was reffering to a 'Self' when he said 'Me' but mabey what all of us are when we dont see any 'Self' ?.. Purity

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." -Jesus the Christ, Matthew 13:15

i highly recommend finding a Bible that has Jesus's words in red and read them for yourself.. hardly the same teachings you might hear from an 'orthodoxed Christian'

[sahyo]

i have to agree with schrodinger, your post are always well assembled and the way you compliement the person you are responding too before you respond is very well done.. we could all learn something from this technique

learn what?

[Noway2Zero]

its was a compliment..

it is a nice way to respond it makes the reader(and the person to which he responded) much more receptive to what he is about to say.. it shows kindness to the person and interest in what said..

its hard to do that over the internet but he pulls it off nicely :)

why are you questioning?

[sahyo]

learn what ?

[Noway2Zero]

how to show such politeness through words over the internet

why are you questioning a compliment given to Taeguk ?

[schrodinger]

it is a nice way to respond it makes the reader(and the person to which he responded) much more receptive to what he is about to say.. it shows kindness to the person and interest in what said..Noway2Zero

I agree. I also think you may have come the closest yet to answering the question "What is good?".

“What is good?”
I asked in musing mood.
Order, said the law court;
Knowledge, said the school;
Truth, said the wise man;
Pleasure, said the fool;
Love, said the maiden;
Beauty, said the page;
Freedom, said the dreamer;
Home, said the sage;
Fame, said the soldier;
Equity, the seer;
Spoke my heart full sadly:
“The answer is not here.”
Then within my bosom
Softly this I heard:
“Each heart holds the secret;
Kindness is the word.”

______ John Boyle O’Reilly

[sahyo]

not referring "compliment"

referring:


we could all learn something from this technique





how to show such politeness through words over the internet


loving isn't always polite so you'll feel comfortable, settle for comfort

[Noway2Zero]

we could all learn something from this technique

this is a compliment, im not directly stating we should all take notes and study his posts ..he compliments me.. and i inturn to him..

"one kind deed deserves another"

loving isn't always polite so you'll feel comfortable, settle for comfort


no not always but politeness is a form of compassion

i dont think complimenting someone is settling for comfort and sometimes is quite the opposite and it takes traveling outside your 'comfort zone' to compliment someone

[sahyo]

this is a compliment, im not directly stating we should all take notes and study his posts ..


there wasn't any indicating you were suggesting to "take notes and study his posts"



he compliments me.. and i inturn to him..

"one kind deed deserves another"


compliments aren't always kind



politeness is a form of compassion


often not



i dont think complimenting someone is settling for comfort and sometimes is quite the opposite and it takes traveling outside your 'comfort zone' to compliment someone


wasn't saying "complimenting someone is settling for comfort"



sometimes is quite the opposite and it takes traveling outside your 'comfort zone' to compliment someone


it does?


:)

[Noway2Zero]

compliments aren't always kind

example please

often not

explain please

wasn't saying "complimenting someone is settling for comfort"

i said: how to show such politeness through words over the internet(which is a compliment)

you said: loving isn't always polite so you'll feel comfortable, settle for comfort(its appears you are saying my compliment is an attempt to 'settle for comfort') ..if not explain to me the relevence of your response


you still have yet to answer why you are questioning a compliment i gave to Taeguk

[sahyo]

you still have yet to answer why you are questioning a compliment i gave to Taeguk


not referring "compliment"

referring:


we could all learn something from this technique

[Noway2Zero]

we could all learn something from this technique

this is a compliment

[sahyo]

example please

please explain

circumstances don't repeat so learned-imitated-automated politeness isn't compassion, isn't kind


you said: loving isn't always polite so you'll feel comfortable, settle for comfort(its appears you are saying my compliment is an attempt to 'settle for comfort') ..if not explain to me the relevence of your response

wasn't referring the compliment

was referring:


we could all learn something from this technique



how to show such politeness through words over the internet

[sahyo]

we could all learn something from this technique
this is a compliment



was not "we could all learn something from this technique" a suggestion?:


your post are always well assembled and the way you compliement the person you are responding too before you respond is very well done.. we could all learn something from this technique

[sahyo]

rains

whispering

silent

lips

candle

flickering

[Noway2Zero]

k.. :rolleyes:

[Starry_Canopy]

Zoid wrote:

But there is, of course, the possibility that the God who believes he is the Judeo-Christian God, and whose subjects believe is the Judeo-Christian God, is mistaken! Let's say, at the risk of positing a theory straight out of an episode of the original Star Trek, that God is indeed some kind of Supreme (ish) Being, Divine Creator of (virtually) all things, who believes He is the Creator, the Supreme Being, the Creator of All Things, but in actual fact... He is fallible! He is not all that He believes He is and by extension He is not, despite His genuine and heartfelt assertions to the contrary, all that His "subjects" genuinely believe him to be...?


Probably there are different levels of Godhood.

The all pervasive, infinite, absolute God, as in the holy spirit.

The God who is one step closer to creation, in the sense that the undefined infinite God assumed relatively finite powers of creating a creation that He could see as apart from himself and say that it was good - God the Father

The God who could assume the Immanuel form that He could live amongst his creation - God the Son.

In all three of them, the essence of Godhood is the same.

To take this further, in all of creation, also, the essence of every thing/ being is Godhood. As it says in an Upanishad, "Infinite comes from infinite and infinite remains".

[Starry_Canopy]

The above post is intended to suggest a view in which all aspects of Godhood are real and each of them is saying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in claiming Godhood.

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Starry_Canopy, you wrote:

In all three of them, the essence of Godhood is the same.

To take this further, in all of creation, also, the essence of every thing/ being is Godhood. As it says in an Upanishad, "Infinite comes from infinite and infinite remains".

The above post is intended to suggest a view in which all aspects of Godhood are real and each of them is saying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in claiming Godhood.

Wow! :o

That is fascinating! :) Thanks for sharing, Starry!

I think this veiw relates to a point raised somewhat earlier! I wonder if indeed that is what the writers of Genesis were trying to convey by having God say "This is good"---God is recognizing the "Godhead" in all of creation!

This Godhead is the "natural goodness" of all things, which Noway2Zero spoke of! :)

And if so, then this would also explain the problem of the tree and its fruit---by that act of judgement, by saying only "this" is good, we are saying that other things are "bad". This creates an illusion in our mind, causing us to forget that Godhead is in all things, and behaving as if only certain things are sacred or "good"!

By locating good only in certain things or activities, we have limited its scope and set up an illusory opposite---"bad"! The truth, of course, is that all things have the Godhead.

God, of course, being able to "see" all creation, all things, is rightly able to affirm "goodness" or "God-ness" in everything!

But human beings, with their more limited conciousness, are unable to see the whole, only parts. Thus, any attempt on their part to mimic God in this way leds to problems! You can't judge a part as if it were a whole!

This also leads to problems because, of course, human beings are more likely to judge their own things---their own "creations"----as "good". This is good because it is mine! My family, my tribe, my ideas, my land. The problem comes from acting as if you're your own little God, with your own seperate creation, at war with everyone else!

Of course, there's still hope! I think many people have seen this! As schrodinger brought up:


Spoke my heart full sadly:
“The answer is not here.”
Then within my bosom
Softly this I heard:
“Each heart holds the secret;
Kindness is the word.”

[sahyo]

don't attach to the what are imagining kindness to be

sometimes kindness may a blow to the head

there is not consistent form

[Starry_Canopy]

Hi Taeguk

What you said in your last post makes a lot of sense - especially that the definition of 'good' and 'bad' might ultimately boil down to mine/ of me and not mine/ not of me :) Another layering could be that which does us 'good', meaning increases or maitains what is 'ours' or that wich is 'bad' for us, which decreases our 'domain'.

Another point is, God saying "it is good" also shows God's independence from any 'outside' "knowledge" (knowledge in the form of ordered or structured intelligence) other than what He decides knowledge to be. God can establish anything to be "good". However, mankind aspired to "knowledge" of 'good' and 'bad', 'outside' their own control/ will and thus lost the "independence from knowledge" (freedom) that they had as images of God. (Adam and Eve story)

The first Shiva Sutras says that the essence of everything is consciousness that has absolute independence of "knowledge" and "action". That is, it can create any ordering of inteligence (knowledge) as it pleases and can be the author of any action unlimited by any 'laws' (since laws arise from knowledge, that is ordered intelligence).

The second sutra goes on to say, "Knowledge is the bondage that prevents it from being fully itself."