The bolded part is not true at all, if it was it would make no sense. A loving god would not create evil so it would torment us.Originally Posted by chrismythoi
I'm not saying God isn't good, i'm saying your concept of evil is incorrect. Evil is not a 'thing'. Evil is the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light. Thus God couldn't create 'evil'.
if god didnt create evil but he created the world and lucifer, who created evil? god's creator?
you dont even realise the screaming contradiction in that.
light and darkness are the same thing, differing only by intensity. and point of view.
^^You are begging the question good sir.
I am saying evil is not a thing that is to be created. It is not tangible. It is the absence of good. It is the same as light. We don't have a thing called darkness. You can't give me a jar of darkness (or cold for that matter). You can only have darkness if you DO NOT have light. Darkness is not a thing, it is a concept.
God didn't create anything called evil. He created everything (..."and saw that it was good.."). The good in it disappeared because of sin.
youre justifying a logical flaw with a materialistic attempt to elaborate a paradox of an abstract concept. good and evil are relative judgements of value, and they arent absolute concrete objects. and yes you can have a jar of darkness, sir, allow me to prove you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
what you call god obviously didnt create evil, because good wasnt created as well, since those things are human judgements of value, and are not in any way absolute beings of existence in tangible reality. if im a general in war and i pray for god to protect my army, am i not being unfair, since my enemies are people too? and why would god protect me and not my enemy? why would he save me and not my enemy. how could i be right absolutely?
if there is no absolute right, then there is no absolute wrong, and both of those things are relative, varying in intensity according only to the one judging, by using subjective standards of value.
Last edited by weltanschauung; 02-11-2009 at 06:09 PM.
Since i'm not a fan of semantics, I won't bother to continue. I think you know exactly what I am saying and just want to go on. With your idea, I could substitute "give me darkness" for "give me cold" and you would say to stick liquid nitrogen in the jar. That solves nothing.
While my argument is indeed based on my preconceived notion that good would be the 'thing' and evil would be its absence, it is not true that I am calling it a tangible thing. The tangibility of hot and light was to explain my reasoning.
The human judgement of value comes from the existence of God. It is also a preconceived idea to me (being a Christian) that God is good. I believe "good is what we call an absolute being of existence in tangible reality", because the good is God.
As for your war idea, read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" and you'll know my view of it.
I like you.
Still your conception of christianity is wholly based on the views the millions of yokels who seem to flourish within the context of religion preach.
To me, the devil is part of God's glory as much as the mountains or the sunset. He vindicated God's creation of a race of beings with free will. The devil isn't evil nor is he some trickster being floating around putting ugly thoughts in our heads. He is the vindicator of God's glory, just as we all vindicate the Glory of God. The role of Satan in our life's has been grossly exaggerated.
heat is tangible because its a physical phenomenon and so is light, also tangible, especially because they are made of fotons who have mass. you are saying you cant have a jar of darkness and im saying you can, because there is this tangible object called dark matter, with mass. however, good and evil arent tangible because they are values and not objects, therefore you cant really define what they are, because they are submitted to the valued judgement of a person and they dont exist without these conditions, whereas light and heat do. the human judgement of value comes from men, because god, as far as reality is concerned, is nothing but a wishful thought, and thoughts arent tangible, according to the argument i've evolved, and since it isnt tangible it cant be absolutely observed therefore it only exists in a thought, which is a subjective object deprived of independent existence. so i believe i can declare god is a "being" that only exists in humankind's mind. otherwise, prove me wrong. or show me.
Um..I'm no scientist, but dark energy and dark matter aren't the same as "darkness" itself. In both the articles you offered, "dark" is an adjective and not the noun - hence it is merely a descriptor of the thing it preceeds, rather than the thing itself.
What we call "God" is the source of all Life and good in the universe. Tyler is correct in that evil is both an absence of good and a distortion of it as well. Evil is parasitic in nature - it has no existence of itself - it is created when a rational creature exercises its free will (a gift of God) to choose what is not God.
Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities. We cannot be the definers of "good" and "evil" because our selfish, self-interested selves will twist, massage, and spin our conception of morality until evil becomes "good."
Good is that which is contradictory to God's character.
Completely problematic. Without an absolute standard, morality is up for grabs and it is only a matter of time before we descend into sterile pragmatism or "might makes right." Both end up victimizing society.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
To put believers and non-believers on an “equal ground” is a famous trick to transfer the responsibility of proof from the one who believes that something exists to the other. We are all equals of course, but if one has a theory, he is the one who has to convince us – not us who has to convince him that his theory is wrong.
If I say to Redzeppelin that at that moment I have in my refrigerator a cream, which – if apply to my skin – will make me invisible, the least he will ask me is to prove it. And he would be right.
However, if I say to him that next to my bed I have a book that was written thousand years ago under the guidance of a powerful supreme power and establishes moral values for humanity, and those who don’t follow them will be tortured and burned in a place called Hell after their death, he won’t ask me for proofs.
But, hey, I forgot. God cannot be comprehended and we, humans, should not question his existence. Either we believe or not. We should be grateful for what we have – our own existence is somehow a proof that he exists...
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
What "theory"? Christianity isn't a "theory" - it is a system of belief. Beliefs and theories are not the same thing - but you knew that, right? We don't need to prove anything to anybody because God is not provable - and certainly not to the individual whose heart is not open to believing in God. I Corinthians 2:14 makes this plain:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
God reveals Himself to those who love Him - but not in a way that science can measure. Just as you know when someone loves you - something that science also cannot measure or prove. Science cannot prove that your parents loved you, or that you love your spouse or children.
Certainly. But your example requires me to believe in something that physics suggests is impossible. Granted, a belief in God requires something similar, but there's a difference: the invisible cream has to have a cause - and there is no known cause on earth to produce such a thing. When Christianity asks you to accept the contents of the Bible, this is based upon the idea that behind the Bible's events is the cause of all things: God. Remember your Aristotle (yes, we "brainwashed" and "limited thinking" believers know how to read) from the Metaphysics - there can be no infinite regression - there is a cause for everything, and there must be an initiating cause that is self-existent (not caused by anything else). As such, the existence of the universe requires a cause because physics already tells us that matter is not eternal and that all things have a beginning.
Experience and knowledge tells me your invisible cream doesn't exist - but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, the same logic doesn't work with God because He exists beyond our limited 3 dimensions. We can't prove Him scientifically because we cannot access the realm within which He exists.
Because there is a difference between the claims. One is in the existence of a material thing that the physics of the world denies. The other asks you to enter into relationship with the Being outside of this world that created it. Relationships aren't about "proof" and such - nobody conducts relationships like that and expects them to last. Christianity is about entering into a relationship with the Creator of the universe. He need not be proven - He will reveal Himself to those who seek Him - and at that point, He will be fully real to you. But not before. We don't demand that those we enter into relationship with "prove" to us ahead of time that they'll be a good friend or spouse. God won't do that either.
Oh you're quite free to question God's existence. He can handle that. If you've read the Bible closely, many of His servants questioned Him, challenged Him. See the book of Job. You're free to be discontent with what you have if you wish.
How else would you like to explain our existence that doesn't sound just as impossible as a divine being creating us?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
"Um..I'm no scientist, but dark energy and dark matter aren't the same as "darkness" itself. In both the articles you offered, "dark" is an adjective and not the noun - hence it is merely a descriptor of the thing it preceeds, rather than the thing itself."
it isnt? because you said so? youre trying to tell me darkness isnt an actual object, and is just a name (value) used to describe the absence of light, and im saying no, it is an actual object, and the core of its existence is dark energy. so youre saying dark energy isnt really dark energy, its just a name used to describe something that isnt light?come on man.
"What we call "God" is the source of all Life and good in the universe. Tyler is correct in that evil is both an absence of good and a distortion of it as well. Evil is parasitic in nature - it has no existence of itself - it is created when a rational creature exercises its free will (a gift of God) to choose what is not God.
Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities. We cannot be the definers of "good" and "evil" because our selfish, self-interested selves will twist, massage, and spin our conception of morality until evil becomes "good."
Good is that which is contradictory to God's character."
all life and good? define good here, but dont give me fiction, give me facts. and if god isnt the source of "bad", what is? satan? and what is the source of satan? contradictions contradictions. youre saying tyler is correct with what authority? who are you to define right and wrong? what you say doesnt mean a thing, youre just some guy, like the rest of us. you dont know anything.
youre saying evil is parasitic in nature, and now we're entering the world of poetry... what the hell are you talking about? "good" has no existence in itself either, its just a value, its not a thing.
you said "Good and evil are not random human values because to lower them to that status is to pave the way for horrific atrocities." which could be read as "good and evil arent the same thing otherwise christianity is absurd". well, now we're getting to the core of the problem.
"the consequences of a claim that something is true are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the claim is true" (steven goldberg)
the flaw is that you cant define "good', because its not an absolute value.
and dont give me this sentimental aproach. just think of it as a rational thing.
"Good is that which is contradictory to God's character."
oh give me a break. just go ahead and say "god is that which i have no idea."
I know, of course. It’s the same conclusion of all discussions. How easy... We cannot prove, so we say that there is nothing to prove, because it’s beyond our comprehension and we will only find out when God chooses the time. Brilliant, but you realize that we have to conclude that there is no point for humans with only 3 dimensions to discuss...
Once they asked Bernard Russel what he responds to all those who claim that it’s vain to question the existence of God with his logic, because we cannot comprehend or understand God. He replied that, “if you’ve noticed, those people imply that we cannot understand, but somehow they can!” That’s exactly what you do when you write that “we cannot access the realm within which He exists”. In other words, we can not know anything, but ...eh... He exists!!!
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an ANGEL OF LIGHT.
So much for the smelly horned deamon image, derived by the Catholic Church to terrify people into believing their own dogma was correct. The more terrifing the image of evil, the worse people fear it. That's why HP Lovecraft was such an enduring horror writer. The Mystos he created is one of blinding terror.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
No, it's not. That's why I qualified my statement by admitting that I'm no expert. I said nothing about the nature of dark energy. I was talking about darkness itself. The word in and of itself refers to the lack of light - not the presence of an actual thing. I gave an observation based upon experience. Darkness happens because light goes away. Darkness isn't a force that drives the light away from the earth. I won't pursue this because I'm out of my element, but I think your point is kind of stretched in terms of credibility. "Dark" describes the character of the matter and energy - "darkness" is the characteristic of something without light.it isnt? because you said so? youre trying to tell me darkness isnt an actual object, and is just a name (value) used to describe the absence of light, and im saying no, it is an actual object, and the core of its existence is dark energy. so youre saying dark energy isnt really dark energy, its just a name used to describe something that isnt light?
God and Christianity aren't about "facts" - you've apparently not read the Bible closely, and if you have, you've not understood it. The Bible is about the character of God - a being who wishes to be in intimate relationship with us.
God establishes what "good" is - but you want "facts" - can you provide me "facts" as to what good is? I'd certainly like to hear your "facts" about what good is - because from my understanding, greater minds than ours have been pondering that question for quite some time and they are not in agreement. You speak as if you know "Good" or could recognize it, so let's hear your factual definition of good.
Bad/evil comes from choosing that which is not God. God is the source of all good in the universe; that which is contradictory to his character is bad. God created Satan, but He gave Satan free will and Satan chose to try and exalt himself by making himself - a created being - equal to God (the uncreated being). No contradictions that I can see.
But you certainly speak as if YOUR opinion is authoritative. Why is that so? Why is my opinion worth nothing while yours - "some girl" - is supposed to carry any weight whatsoever?
I don't define right and wrong - I pass on what the Bible and my experience as a Christian has taught me it is.
Umm..to say I don't know "anything" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? I know enough to be having a discussion with you. And, only God really knows what I know. Should I assume you're speaking "factually" when you say I know "nothing"? To quote you "don't give me fiction, give me facts!"
Is your definition of evil any better? Evil is an absence of good or a distortion of it. What's so difficult about that to understand, so objectionable that you refuse to entertain it as a possibility?
Not sure what the point is here.
I'm not giving you a "sentimental" approach. My belief system establishes God as the standard by which good is established. Nothing sentimental about that.
But saying that would be a lie. I do have plenty of ideas about God because the Bible - the revelation of his character - tells me plenty about who he is.
What I don't understand is the shrill nature of your reply. I'm just expressing an opinion and you seem really bugged that I have one that you don't agree with or don't understand.
What's "easy" is your dismissal of what others believe because you can't access it. Your failure to understand doesn't establish reality. You may not comprehend the physics of a black hole, but that doesn't mean that those physics aren't real. God is not some "obseravable" phenomenon in the universe that we can just go find if we wish. By very definition as a Being who can create the universe with his voice, God exists beyond our ability to find, examine, and measure him. Your stubborn insistence that we or he prove his existence is beyond absurd, and even a little childish in my opinion. There are plenty of things that you believe that you have no factual "evidence" to support. Life is like that. Very little of what we believe to be true can be factually verified or personally observed. Since you didn't see Lincoln assassinated, then how do you know it happened? What - scholars/historians wrote it down? It's a conspiracy, that's what it is - Lincoln never existed...I mean, come on - once we do this "facts - only facts" game, everything can be brought into doubt.
You're oversimplifying, and Bertrand Russel was a mathematician - not a theologian, so I forgive his misunderstanding of God.
I have no access to the realm of God - wherever he's at I can't see Him or heaven. What I do understand is that you too can understand who he is, but only if your heart is in the right place. Like any relationship, if you don't seek God with the right attitude, he won't reveal himself to you. It's that simple. He doesn't accept demands from those who only seek to attack him, disprove him, or interrogate him. He is interested in a love relationship with his creatures - and this includes you. But he won't force himself on anybody, and will only make himself known to you when you're ready. No being on planet earth would reveal him/herself to you if you approached him/her as you attempt to approach God - "Prove you exist! Prove you love me! Prove to me that your feelings are real!"
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I surely don’t understand many things in this world and I’m eager to learn more. That’s why I like research, education, science, ARGUMENTS. On the other side, you believe that you do understand, that you have “put your heart in the right place”, that you adopted “the right attitude” and therefore god was revealed to you. And his existence is as certain as Lincoln’s assassination. Now, this is childish, my friend...
Which bring us exactly to what Brenard Russel said. We cannot understand – you can. Now, it’s of course awkward that you dismissed the mathematicians for being able to understand god (I never thought that only theologians are!). But I’m sure that Russel can finally rest in peace now that you forgave him.
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote