Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on April 17, 2016, 09:13:03 PM
-
Over two hundred and thirty dead in an earthquake in Ecuador.
What part did the supreme cosmic mega-being play in this tragedy?
Was he unaware it was happening?
Was he aware but he didn't want to stop it?
Was he aware but unable to stop it?
Did he deliberately cause it?
-
Over two hundred and thirty dead in an earthquake in Ecuador.
What part did the supreme cosmic mega-being play in this tragedy?
Was he unaware it was happening?
Was he aware but he didn't want to stop it?
Was he aware but unable to stop it?
Did he deliberately cause it?
Try asking Him........but be sure to wait for the answer.
-
Tried asking. Still waiting.
Can you askit for me?
-
Try asking Him........but be sure to wait for the answer.
And accept the fact that you will die before you get it! :)
-
Human suffering gives a satisfying buzz to god's day.
-
Try asking Him........but be sure to wait for the answer.
Tried that years ago. Still waiting for an answer.
-
Human suffering gives a satisfying buzz to god's day.
If there really is a supreme cosmic mega-being out there then that is the most likely answer.
Rather than being an all-loving god, it probably hates its creation and gets off on all the suffering.
-
Maybe 'death and suffering' don't mean the same thing to Him...that they do to us. People who have had NDE's lose their fear of death, for example.
-
The only answer I've ever heard that made some sort of sense is that God preserves the integrity of the universe, so that it is intelligible. This requires the absence of miracles, so that natural laws are consistent.
Of course, this strikes against the view of some theists that God does work miracles, i.e. intervenes in the world. So they are in a kind of cleft stick.
-
Tried asking. Still waiting.
Can you askit for me?
It says death isn't what you think it is- the end..... It wanted their company.
;)
-
If there really is a supreme cosmic mega-being out there then that is the most likely answer.
Rather than being an all-loving god, it probably hates its creation and gets off on all the suffering.
There is no sign of 'love' in the Biblical accounts of its activities.
-
Wiggs,
The only answer I've ever heard that made some sort of sense is that God preserves the integrity of the universe, so that it is intelligible. This requires the absence of miracles, so that natural laws are consistent.
Of course, this strikes against the view of some theists that God does work miracles, i.e. intervenes in the world. So they are in a kind of cleft stick.
But what then would be the difference between that universe and a universe in which there was no god at all?
And if there would be no difference, would not Occam's razor apply?
-
For those who do not know, no shame in that at all, here is a brief outline of Epicurean philosophy"
For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia—peace and freedom from fear—and aponia—the absence of pain—and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are measures of what is good and evil; death is the end of both body and soul and should therefore not be feared; the gods neither reward nor punish humans; the universe is infinite and eternal; and events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.
Epicure also refers to a gourmet, someone who enjoys fine dining.
-
Wiggs,
But what then would be the difference between that universe and a universe in which there was no god at all?
And if there would be no difference, would not Occam's razor apply?
I think you are right. Isn't there a joke about this? God doesn't make a noise or appear visibly, or intervene anywhere, why, it's almost as if he doesn't exist!
-
For those who do not know, no shame in that at all, here is a brief outline of Epicurean philosophy"
For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia—peace and freedom from fear—and aponia—the absence of pain—and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are measures of what is good and evil; death is the end of both body and soul and should therefore not be feared; the gods neither reward nor punish humans; the universe is infinite and eternal; and events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.
Epicure also refers to a gourmet, someone who enjoys fine dining.
Just to add a little more about Epicurean ideas.....from wiki.
"When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul."
— Epicurus, "Letter to Menoeceus"[11]
It is considered by some people as similar to Buddhism because of its emphasis on reducing pain and increasing pleasure while maintaining a moral and ethical lifestyle.
-
The only answer I've ever heard that made some sort of sense is that God preserves the integrity of the universe, so that it is intelligible. This requires the absence of miracles, so that natural laws are consistent.
Of course, this strikes against the view of some theists that God does work miracles, i.e. intervenes in the world. So they are in a kind of cleft stick.
We need the odd miracle to inspire faith in God for some and as a discipline for the deist.
Can one be a bigger fool than insisting an omnipotent God cannot at anytime be involved in the universe.
The universe should be intelligible and God should reveal himself according to his own choice. There is no contradiction.
-
We need the odd miracle to inspire faith in God for some and as a discipline for the deist.
Can one be a bigger fool than insisting an omnipotent God cannot at anytime be involved in the universe.
The universe should be intelligible and God should reveal himself according to his own choice. There is no contradiction.
I don't think the argument is that God cannot be involved, but that he chooses not to, in order to preserve intelligibility. However, it's an argument that runs into the buffers.
-
I think you are right. Isn't there a joke about this? God doesn't make a noise or appear visibly, or intervene anywhere, why, it's almost as if he doesn't exist!
Yes, firstly you'd have to abandon any concept of a loving personal omni-deity. So then you are left with non-omni-deities, such as those in some forms of paganism, or God is just a kind of animating energy.
-
Yes, firstly you'd have to abandon any concept of a loving personal omni-deity. So then you are left with non-omni-deities, such as those in some forms of paganism, or God is just a kind of animating energy.
It's interesting that Judaism used to have an argument called tzimtzum, which says that God withdraws, in order to permit creation. It's sometimes called divine exile, and has all kinds of interesting connections, found in kabbalah.
However, it has the same problem - that a withdrawn God is prominent by his absence. As Vlad seems to be saying, God has to peek out now and again, just to say, here I am. But not when there's an earthquake or a genocide, sprained ankles are more his cup of tea.
-
Well indeed. We get a little God again.
-
But sprained ankles are jolly important.
-
Do you reckon he answered the Leicester fans' prayers with that penalty?
-
Wiggs,
It's interesting that Judaism used to have an argument called tzimtzum, which says that God withdraws, in order to permit creation. It's sometimes called divine exile, and has all kinds of interesting connections, found in kabbalah.
However, it has the same problem - that a withdrawn God is prominent by his absence. As Vlad seems to be saying, God has to peek out now and again, just to say, here I am. But not when there's an earthquake or a genocide, sprained ankles are more his cup of tea.
You've touched on something here that always strikes me too, namely how parochial, unambitious, domestic this god is for those who claim that he does miracles from time-to-time. He'll fix granny's cataracts alright, but will sit on his hands when it comes to childhood leukaemia or breast cancer in general. Surely if he'd wanted to persuade anyone other than the credulous he'd have junked the party tricks and instead said something like, "from here in typhus will be eliminated across the board".
That may or may not have persuaded more people but it sure as hell would have been a more impressive achievement than the parlour magic we're told about in the "holy" texts.
-
Wiggs,
You've touched on something here that always strikes me too, namely how parochial, unambitious, domestic this god is for those who claim that he does miracles from time-to-time. He'll fix granny's cataracts alright, but will sit on his hands when it comes to childhood leukaemia or breast cancer in general. Surely if he'd wanted to persuade anyone other than the credulous he'd have junked the party tricks and instead said something like, "from here in typhus will be eliminated across the board".
That may or may not have persuaded more people but it sure as hell would have been a more impressive achievement than the parlour magic we're told about in the "holy" texts.
So let me get this straight Hillside.....God responsible for all the bad things and we need to take note but we should forget about things such as the immune system and extinction in order for another classic Hillside argument to fly?