Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Guest antaran

Evil&Good

Recommended Posts

Guest antaran

Is it good to use Evil to commit Good?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Duke Nukem

I am evil. If you don't believe me meet the new duke nukem. Deathmatch. anytime.

Share this post


Link to post

It depends on how good the good is and how evil the evil is. Killing 30 innocent people to save a sappling to save the environment to me isn't good to use evil to commit good.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Kracov

if it's about survival, yes. in the natural survival, there is no good or evil involved. as for using evil powers to commit good, i don't know. probably. but evil can be used to save lives. some people think evil and good is just a point of view. and that you are 100% responsible for your actions.

Share this post


Link to post

Because no Higher Power is telling us how to be (though some "higher power" may try to do so). Also, the question goes "does the end justify the means?". Maybe ends are illusions we should not take too seriously, and should instead concentrate on making the means as pleasant and best as possible. We are alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest nitsud

What are your definitions of good and evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull

The answer to that question has everything to do whether or not you believe in God, I guess. What I mean is that you will get two entirely different answers depending on the theological position of who it is you are asking. Logically speaking, without an "absolute" to compare to, the term evil and good really has no meaning. Evil is merely the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat. "Cold" and "Dark" really have no meaning by themselves, at least in the scientific world, and if there is no spritual world then science is all we really have, right?

In the case that evil and good is determined by mankind and "invented" by mankind, it still has no meaning because it would then be controlled by the majority. But what majority? Of people on this planet? This country? This city? For instance, if child molestation is ever accepted by a majority, then it is placed in the catagory of "not bad", right? In some countries, making children serve as prostitutes is, indeed, a common practice, but we cannot call it "evil" because they accept it in that country, right? Without an absolute to compare to as a measuring stick, good and evil become mere opinions, with everyone having their own, so it would be impossible to really classify anything as good or evil with any degree of certainty...it becomes meaningless. How can one man judge another man's actions when they both have their own idea of good and evil? Which one is "right"? In times of slavery, the majority of white people though that black people should be slaves, or thought there was nothing especially wrong with it. They were in the majority, so slavery was, therefore, right going by the "no God" definition of good and evil. Hilter's actions were "right" in Germany, because might makes right, going by the same definition. See my point?

If you ask the same question to someone who believes in God, then the answer would be far different. In that case, there are some absolutes that stand even if no one believes them. Slavery was wrong even though most people accepted it. Hitler was wrong even though there was not a sufficient amount of influence in Germany to enforce that fact.

Good and evil is a foundational concept in human beings. When someone takes something from you as a small child, you know that something is "wrong" with the action of stealing. It is more than just displeasure with your possession being taken. Think about Bill Gates and what his reaction would be if someone stole his car. Another car would be easily gained by him, right? But he would still be pissed, because there is something fundamentally wrong with someone getting something they didn't earn, and we all feel that on some level within ourselves. Oh well...lemme get some sleep...this is reminding me too much of Philosophy 101. :)

Share this post


Link to post

If you believe in god you recieve answers to live with, if you don't you all have is your questions to live by. I noticed that DOOM is a game that often attracts people of both extremes. There are those that like to feel they are heroes battling Evil, and those that simply relish the excitement of being in hell. Of the two ways of playing the game, SP/COOP is more for the hero types, while DM is more "atheistic". This does not imply that I do not greatly enjoy both, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Hellbent said:

It depends on how good the good is and how evil the evil is. Killing 30 innocent people to save a sappling to save the environment to me isn't good to use evil to commit good.

Each situation is different, and you never gave any specific examples, so there's no clearcut answer. Like, if you went back in time to before Hitler got into power, and killed him, that would be evil, but you would have saved millions of lives and prevented World War II, which is good, and so that would be acceptable. But if the evil outweighs the good, then you have just made the situation worse, not better, like the post earlier about killing 30 people to save a tree. You lose 30 people for 1 tree, and that is wrong. It would not be right to sacrifice 30 people for 1 million trees because killing a person is way different than killing a tree. So if your're asking whether it is OK to ever use evil for good, the answer is yes, but not in every situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Matt

I play Doom not because I think its good or evil, I play it because its fun. Another thing, arent you guys getting pissed about how whenever some stupid kid does something retarded like go shoot someone they sometimes blame it on a game they played. And then the media gets hyped up about it and as an example of a violent videogame shows Doom! Its rediculous to blame something in virtual reality on something that happens in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull

Sure it makes me mad...the media are a bunch of morons when it comes to being objective. I am old enough to remember firsthand the backlash that came from those kids years ago that killed themselves and also happened to play Dungeons and Dragons. I feel if someone is THAT unstable, ANYTHING could set them off. What kills me is they mention how realistic Doom is as a "killing simulator". lol...maybe journalists and other people that think it's too realistic should be sentenced to witness a real war firsthand to see how it really looks. Some dork that used to be in the Marines said they used a modified version of Doom to desensitize the soldiers to killing. WRONG! It was used to test hand-eye coordination and judgement reflexes to keep them from being trigger-happy. Never trust the masss-media to give the real story.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull
Myk said:

If you believe in god you recieve answers to live with, if you don't you all have is your questions to live by. I noticed that DOOM is a game that often attracts people of both extremes. There are those that like to feel they are heroes battling Evil, and those that simply relish the excitement of being in hell. Of the two ways of playing the game, SP/COOP is more for the hero types, while DM is more "atheistic". This does not imply that I do not greatly enjoy both, though.

I dunno...to me DM is just a digital version of Paintball, which I would not label "atheistic" or "non-atheistic", any more than I would be able to say the same thing about multiplayer Starcraft or Command and Conquer. FPS's are just a smaller scale, and more personal, but the result is the same. I kinda get what you are saying, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Matt said:

I play Doom not because I think its good or evil, I play it because its fun. Another thing, arent you guys getting pissed about how whenever some stupid kid does something retarded like go shoot someone they sometimes blame it on a game they played. And then the media gets hyped up about it and as an example of a violent videogame shows Doom! Its rediculous to blame something in virtual reality on something that happens in reality.

Very true; however, have you seen the 13th Floor? It brings about an interesting idea about virtual reality although I don't see it ever happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Ty Halderman
geekmarine said:

Like, if you went back in time to before Hitler got into power, and killed him, that would be evil, but you would have saved millions of lives and prevented World War II, which is good, and so that wo

We assume (1) that killing Hitler would have avoided someone like Himmler taking over instead, but granted that it would have made a difference, and let's assume it would have avoided at least the war between Germany and others (though there was always the Pacific conflict, not particularly related, if you think about Japan hitting the otherwise uninvolved U.S. on December 7, 1941). Anyway...

Now, would you kill your own child or parent, if you knew that in doing so, Hitler would have capitulated and not "cleansed" Germany and other countries (actually Poland, mostly) of the Jews?

Where before, you were getting rid of someone that you (in hindsight) know was going to have millions killed, now you're asked to believe on faith that killing a loved one would have the same effect. If you're right, and you do in fact save millions of lives, you wouldn't ever actually know that without the benefit of seeing the actual alternative future. That would require some time travel at a minimum, of course, bringing up all the usual paradoxes.

This is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Firebrandt

Okay, here's the non-atheist view of good and evil: Given the fact that God does indeed exist and is the sole creator of the universe obviously would make him the "ultimate" good, simply for the fact that he has no one greater to fess up to if he did something "bad"--making his actions always "good". Now any of his creations that turn against him or do anything unfavourable in God's eyes, makes them "evil". It's simple logic; you create something--it doesn't like you--you squash it. Right? So in turn all things other than God are evil. We can never be like God so we are evil.

Now God sees that in order for him to be side by side with his creations he has to find some way for them to be purified before he can truly be with them. God doesn't want be alone let's not forget that. He searches for some way that humans can retain freedom of will AND still be clean from sin. How can that ever happen? The answer is: somehow all the sins ever committed have to be punished/payed for. This requires SOMEBODY to pay for the sins, somebody to be punished. Now the only way God sees this can ever happen is if he himself pays for humanities sins. Part of God, his son Jesus Christ, comes to earth and is captured, tortured and crucified. "So what? Many people were crucified!" Yeah, but Jesus was crucified with the entire sin of the human race on his shoulders!

Now that the sin is paid for God can finally be close to the human race that he holds so dear. However, a limit he imposed on himself is to *never* interfrere with the free will of a person. So in order for someone to be saved, cleaned from sin all they have to is accept God's offer of salvation. Then they are good.

See, it doesn't matter what you did or what you do, it's all in accepting forgiveness. Nothing else.

Speaking hypothetically of course. If God doesn't exist than who gives a fuck what "GOOD" and "EVIL" mean. Nobody to judge you and nobody to care so you're really only responsible for your own actions, nothing more. In a god-less world "GOOD" and "EVIL" are completely subject to change at the whim of someone in power. As mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Firebrandt said:

... so you're really only responsible for your own actions, nothing more.

I accept all that you say (though in my personal opinion the hypothetical and concrete appear to be inverted), except for this conclusion. No matter what we believe in (though this can certainly get in the way) we will have to deal with each other. Of course that an egoistic viewpoint is the only way that we can see who we are, but when we start to ponder we do notice that we ourselves are not really unities, and are made up of a multitude of selves in relation to every moment of our lives, and that each of us is actually a "community" of interrelated organisms (which in themselves...). We are alone and we are more ourselves than we are others, but there is no concrete wall between us, we dont' become monsters just because there is no one leading us. No sad old man in the sky. Bah, I hope someone enjoys reading about my viewpoint, that last thing I'd like is to share it with those who don't like it. See ya at the shores of hell ;) Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull
Firebrandt said:

I agree with you 100%...

An interesting thought...if we are mere products of evolution, why have we forgotten that we must let our sick and old die instead of taking up resources? They are not productive, correct? If someone pisses me off, why NOT kill them and make my existance easier? It's what the animals do. Morality is a weakness in such a world right? As is our need for shelter, medicine, and most of all, love, right? Evolution is supposed to make each following incarnation stronger than the last, but with respect to apes and such, we have actually become softer than our ancestors if such a system is truly in effect. And really, if the primates needed to evolve in order to survive, then why are there still primates? And is a race of beings capable of world-wide destruction really an advancement from a mostly peaceful species? Which is more conducive to survival of the species? Evolution does not sufficiently answer these questions for me. In the "watch-maker" scenario, you are walking through the desert and happen upon a pocket watch left on the ground. You can make two assumptions: 1)Some intelligent force or person created the watch or... 2)Through a freak accident of nature, a tornado or some other phenomenon took some minerals and metals from the earth and -just happened- to put them together into the form of a perfectly formed watch. Both are possible, but it actually takes more faith to believe in the latter.

Neat discussion...and please, for those of you who get all offended at the implications of this discussion, don't take it personally. No one is judging anyone here...it's a mature "meeting of the minds". Keep it civil, please.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed, it is easier to believe in a cosmic mind, we are human and have a hard time seeing things except when it is in our terms. Thus, we personalize existence (or "the universe"). Hey, evolution is not the same as progress (that would be a misconception). Things just interact and change. Whether they get "stronger or better" or not is another matter, and even so all things are closely interrelated (things are in conflict/competition but at the same time benefit from each other - and all this is not nacessarily in harmony), and it is not easier to define what improvement really is. You mention chance. Chance and reason are our own concepts. They cannot explain the complexity of existence. At its best, believing in a god can simplify things, it is like an analogy or a code for reading life and experience. So believing in god is a choice one can make in order to put order into what exceeds us, but stating he exists is, I could say, inappropriate. Chairs and tables exist, god...??? What I say may not seem clear, but I would not force my ideas to attain clarity, for the best they could ever do once I emit them is make someone ponder about things. Answers to questions are made, they do not "exist". Absolutes are abstractions. Do numbers exist? Fill your belly with numbers, if so. I don't know anything for sure ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by evolution not being progress, because that is the whole reason things survive, speaking in evolutionary terms. If no condition exists that threatens a species,(hunger, being overly-hunted, pollution, environmental changes, mankind) then there would really be no reason to change. Is it "easier" to stay the same or to change? Not that it's in the same scientific field (however all sciences are tied to gether in some form), but it is closely related to the conservation of energy in physics, or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If a turtle is getting along well being a turtle and survives enough to keep the species going, no reason to put huge claws on him or give him the ability to fly. So, indeed, a creature that gains the boon of flying to avoid being hunted down to extinction is making progress in surviving, right? In evolution the species that does not progress or change to meet the challenges of life are doomed. Grow a shell, attain wings, get some huge teeth, get the ability to reason things out...progress. Reason, to me, is simply the thought process that allows deduction. The monkey that will not unclench his fist from the food in order to free himself from the hole in the tree is an example of a lack of reason. (If you don't know the experiment I speak of, let me know) Sure, mankind made up the word "reason", but is it not "real" because of this?

Absolutes are abstractions? That is an absolute. :)

If one relies too much on his senses to verify the existence of anything, it tends to get problematic. For example, does the wind exist? Sure it does, but you can not see it. You can see the effects of it, just as you can see the effects of God in peoples lives. How about black holes? No one actually can see one, rather they can see the effects they cause. Has anyone seen a quark or a tachyon? Before anyone could use an electron microscope to see an atom, people believed they existed, and rightfully so. Love and hatred are perhaps two of the greatest motivating forces of humankind and it is less than a vapor when one tries to prove it exists. To deny they do exist is foolhardy, though. Evolutionists who say that God's existence must be proven are asking that which they cannot even do. I agree that God cannot be proven in a scientific sense, but then again, neither can evolution really. There are always excuses WHY it can't be proven, and they are expected to be sufficient to silence any inquiry, but when deists give excuses in the same vein, they are accused of being unscientific and primitive. Not that you have done so, though...I enjoy talking about this kinda stuff, and you present your case well. I gotta get to work now...I will talk with you later!

Share this post


Link to post

Evolution: things may evolve into forms that fail, so, even though we could say that what we call species "want" to survive, they may make the wrong change. The idea of evolution as progress is tied more to the ideas of "modernism" or "humanism" than scientific evidence. Such ideas, I think, often lead the wrong way (i.e., racism or even the destruction of our environment). The idea of "humanity is getting better" is not very critical, so it often hides truths and flaws. Thus I cannot equate evolution (natural change due to interaction) with progress (a value judgement). Also, I wanted to give my (I think more vast) idea of evolution as distinguished from the two other opposing views (evolution as progress or evolution as chance).

Reason and chance: I really meant reason as "the reason we do this is...", which is the first definition we find in quite a few dictionaries :) And I was pointing at avoiding the same duality as above: of having to choose between "chance" and a supreme intelligence as the guiding force of the universe.

Abstraction: Concepts often lose their ties with reality. This, IMO, is because people are not aware that these in themselves are as temporary as anything else in existence, and die and turn to dust just like tree leaves and empires do. That was aonother point behind my words (or lets just say that I have now replaced the other dying words with new ones, all of the within the sphere of what I am trying to say).

Note that in many ways we say similar things (though, I think, we reach disparate conclusions). I also do not trust the senses too much (empirical "proof" is always pretty incomplete), and have said I know nothng for sure (that is like what you said about scientific proofs not being certain). Yet, as I see (paradoxically), we only have our senses when we deal with our surroundings. I would say: don't trust your senses, but use them.

Finally, if someone asked me "why don't you believe in God, and in Evil and Good?" I would tell him or her that it's simply because I do not agree with what it would mean to do so, and not 'cause such things can be "proven" or not. I simply do not find it pleasing to be told to be guilty of being myself, and nor have I found fear and guilt to be any real good (their benefits being stale and worthless). Repressing desires leads to stagnation or an explosion. And I do not think that if we are willful and proud in ourselves this will mean we will be "degenerates" or the cause of apocaliptic chaos. It may be sad to look into the void and see we are not ever truly safe and we will soon be dust and little more, but I would not cover this vision with promises or assurances. That would not really make me stonger. Your turn now, if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull

I suppose that there are not many people who DO find it pleasing to be told to be guiltyof "being themselves", but when these people are "being themselves" and commit crimes against their fellow man, should we really CARE if they particularly like it if we declare them guilty? Would not a little guilt or shame in that instance be beneficial to all involved? If this is considered an extreme in comparison to "everyday" people, where is the line where we start/stop expecting people to obey certain rules?
Almost every man has had the urge/desire to commit murder at one time or another...let's be honest about it. If the truth were known, I think many people actually have violent sexual fantasies at least once in their life as well...which can be considered a desire. Theft, arson, etc. are all other things we ,as humans, have desires to commit at one time or another. For all people who have repressed their desire to do these acts, you say they are either stagnant or are going to do something drastic (an explosion) in their life? If that were the case, I think we would be in a far worse world than we are currently in.
The idea that we would not turn into degenerates or eventually cause apocalyptic chaos if we did as we wish is certainly optimistic, but I have witnessed too many situations where people act like, well, animals without someone there to enforce order. Look at riot situations such as the L.A. riots or Watts. Those people were just doing as they wished, and did not want their urges supressed. Oh, I hear how they were acting out of frustration and all other kinds of nonsense, but the truth is that if there were some decent values in those people, it wouldn't have happened. I agree with you...in this life we are never can never be truly safe, but it is because of a threat from immoral people... typically criminals and politicians.
My belief in God is not for an assurance of protection from "the void". Oblivion is just that, oblivion, and nothing to fear, any more than one would fear going to sleep, so I have never feared dying before or after my belief. I don't believe because of what He can do for me now, either, because I know that there are non-believers that have more than I as far as material possessions. So what, then, is my motivation? I see creation and assume a Creator, which is not too incredible. I believe in the Big Bang...but I also know that the initial kernal of near-infinite mass had to come from somewhere. From nothing comes nothing. And I find it incredible that from a super-heated explosion which would in every other case be totally sterile, life eventually arose. It's almost like getting vegetables from a garden in which no seeds were planted, or a child from a virgin. ;) Work calls...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Firebrandt

Yes, exactly, the fact that "nothing comes from nothing" is probably the biggest evidence you can present in the case for creationism. There are only two choices when looking at how things began. One, the universe and time are/and always have been eternal, every cycle starts a new cycle so you have an infinite chain of events. And two, the universe was created by a power far beyond our comprehension. I think that "the big bang" happening by itself isn't even an option. "Nothing comes from nothing."

So here we are faced with two possibilities. Personally I find it easier to believe in a Creator than an infinite chain of events. However if you believe that things are infinite everything repeats itself and everything becomes possible. That's eternity.

The only way to prove one of these is to disprove the other, though that might be quite impossible.

The last step is always ours to take. I previously mentioned free will, free will is the reason neither of the two can ever be proven. If there was proof God existed, everyone would have to believe in him not out of faith but out of proven fact. No longer is there any free will, so the whole POINT of God's creation would have been swept away.
As long as there is always a shadow of a doubt one needs faith to believe, which requires choice. And it is your choice alone to make.

Anyway, great discussion! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest nitsud

Creationism still requires some measure of something from nothing. Who created the creator? Why is an all powerful being creating such pitifully weak beings? Just to be admired? There are many basic questions left unanswered that are constantly being overlooked.
Also: if god is perfect, can He create imperfect beings? Obviously He could if He so wished, but He would also be creating all of the offspring of the beings He created. He is all-knowing and would therefore know whether any given person, born or unborn, is going to have faith in Him. What's the point? Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Nerull said:

There is fear and there is fright, there is guilt and there is shame. Guilt and fear are "mechanisms" that are always "on" because they are a preparation for what is thought possible, the other two (shame and fright) are sensitive reactions to occurrence. You can solve the problem of your shame or fright there and then, as it's related to what's happening. Fear and guilt, on the other hand, are unfinished bussiness, and their origin is lost or hidden. Fear and guilt are blind, they push you down without distingishing particular cases, generalizing and throwing disparate things in the same sack. Problems are not solved with such ruthless "guardians" and I can't convince myself that they are a mantle (this they are, as they cover up things, mix them up, and make them unclear) that will bring "common good". A certain man's guilt may benefit other men, but mostly those who would abuse him, and not the guilty one himself.

Guilt says "You are less than..., you are lame" Guilt doesn't leave you be, and it tells you to shut up and not question things, and makes choices for you. The guilty will complain, but not about what's really the matter.

Nothing gives more excuses than guilt and fear. They are as deceptive as can be. They will not let you know what's really going on, all they want is a fast and cheap solution.

Oh yes, let's thank guilt the world is not falling appart. Fortunately it isn't my guilt that's saving us ;~)

I see dying or growing old as essentially sad. It's sad to go or fade away, and its sad when people are gone. The void is life or existence... I leave it to you to wonder why.

Share this post


Link to post
Firebrandt said:

As I talked with another about free will/predestination she said it seemed to her that there was no free will and that there is always something behind us in the chain of events that makes us as we are. Just because its complexity exceeds us it doesn't mean the is no cause. Free will? Do you really know such a thing?

So I thought and said back then: There may be no free will, but doesn't it make a difference if we believe we have a choice, and isn't it true that if we think we haven't we shall be forced to look back at the causes in order to do what has to be?

In the end the only difference between believing in free will or not is whether we look back or whether we look forth. We know this because it's something that happens, but we can't define free will as a thing that is. There is no free will. We just are.

Also nothing cannot be separated from everything else, so there is no such thing. You can say you have no apples in your hand, but what else can you say?

Is God toying with us? He says: OK, boys and girls, now you have to make a choice. The right choice (and you'll be happy) or the wrong choice (and you're screwed). First he makes us stupid and tells us to choose. Then, if you choose him, you're an OK guy, if you choose the other guy, you're gonna pay for it! I don't know if I'd really like to be around a guy like that. Free will you say?

All this makes me think that God is always waiting there for the right answers in order to appropriate them and say that they lead to him. The big problem comes when those answers contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull
nitsud said:

Creationism still requires some measure of something from nothing. Who created the creator? Why is an all powerful being creating such pitifully weak beings? Just to be admired? There are many basic questions left unanswered that are constantly being overlooked.
Also: if god is perfect, can He create imperfect beings? Obviously He could if He so wished, but He would also be creating all of the offspring of the beings He created. He is all-knowing and would therefore know whether any given person, born or unborn, is going to have faith in Him. What's the point? Think about it.

Well, one trait of someone that created the universe is that they are beyond the reach of time, since space and time are linked together...no space, no time. You are thinking in a linear fashion, which is not a fault, in fact it is perfectly normal since we are in the "time stream". But if there were no time,or you were outside the influence of time, then it makes no sense to say that something created you because there there is no such thing as a moment that you didn't exist since a moment is a measure of time. In a "no-time" continuum, nothing in it ever had a beginning, since the very word beginning points to a linear flow of time. I also think you may have the idea that creationists believe that there was this old-looking humanoid figure floating out in nothingness before creation. Not so...some might, but definately not all of us do. The thought of that almost seems so silly that it alone may keep people from seeing it as a viable occurance. Think in spiritual terms and pure, unbounded power.
Why is an all-powerful being creating such pitifully weak beings? What is your reference for strength? Weakness and strength are relative, right? As far as known creatures go, we alone have the ability to destroy the entire planet, right? Think of the accomplishments mankind has achieved in a relatively short time, for better or worse. In what way are we weak? In comparison to our Creator? I'll give you that one, but only a foolish god would make the creation equally strong to itself, for obvious reasons.
I think God does wish to be admired. Don't you? Is that a fault? Would not a God that created this whole shebang deserve admiration? Don't judge the creation on the bad stuff WE have wrought...in it's pure form, it is all pretty impressive. Think for minute...if you were all powerful, would YOU not want someone to share your existance with? Someone that actually CHOSE to love you instead of doing it because they were forced to?
"Also:if God is perfect, can He create imperfect beings?" That is sort of a trick question. Think about it like this: You decide to make a creation of some sort...lets say a robot. YOu want this robot to be able to do certain tasks and you give it the means to do perform said tasks. The kicker is, you give it free will, to do whatsoever it choses to do. A robot that loves you because you programmed it to do so is a poor companion. It can choose to serve you and appreciate the fact that you gave it life, or it could choose to do destructive things, or even hate you. If it chooses the latter, is it a fault of yours? Or is it a fault of it's own?
You are right, He does know how it all is going to end up, however that still doesn't mean that people do not have choices. Some of the people who choose to follw His will are products of relationships of people who aren't. If, for instance, your best friend in the entire world is the child of two complete jerks, or even downright evil people, you would be unwise to wish his/her parents never existed. Life has to play itself out...people have to be given the chance to make their choices, to do the right thing and honor and love their creator, in which case He will let them share an existance with Him, or ignore Him and face death on their own without Him.
If nothing else, people should think the whole concept over a bit more. Let's say for argument's sake that you are right and there is no God. Ok, we die and nothing happens...we sleep forever. I don't regret the way I have lived my life, in fact I am much happier than before I believed. So I lose nothing. Now let's say I'm right...See? This "gamble" is way unbalanced. It would be illogical NOT to give it more sincere thought and research. Oh well...time for bed. I got sunburned beyond belief today, so sleeping will bring sweet relief from the sizzling conflagration that is my skin. :) Later on!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest nitsud

I'm not sure I understand how this all works.
Where does the need for companionship fall into the thoughts of a perfect being? Does it even think? Thoughts resolve problems and find answers. Someone who has all the answers need not ponder them. Anyway, if it wanted companionship, why create beings that die? Why create this strange little scenario of an expansive universe and isolated life on a revolving orb?
If there is some paranormal arrangement of energy, why is it a god? What are the chances of a god existing in any given reality? What the is it, anyway? How does it think (if it indeed does think) and act on a universal and supernatural scale?
If souls exist, how do they exist? What keeps them bound to these vessels; these cellular masses? Why can we find no evidence of their existence? (Do we just not have the means to do so?) How do they influence the behavior of neurons? In the end, all of our communication of thought and actions are physical activity, so interaction between a soul and the physical world must occur somewhere.
I'm not going to accept any belief solely for the sake of being safe. There are many other explanations out there, many other ways to end up suffering for eternity, many other gods and universal entities to anger. There are many ways to worship this particular god. Which sect is right?
There is ample evidence to believe in the theories of evolution. Evolution only works with religion if you believe that this being created this universe and this planet for life to _evolve_ into His image. Speaking of His image, you mentioned that the idea of a giant man to be absurd. Perhaps "His image" refers only to an idea it had? I'm guessing you don't take anything written in the bible too literally.
It all seems like some twisted game to have created beings and see whether they will believe in you or not. What does He hope to accomplish? If He materialized the life, and He is omniscient, He knows all of our thoughts and "free will" _in advance_. It would be like watching a rerun. If He is timeless, that makes it even more pointless. That also suggests infinite realities to manage.... In essence, He picks who will be faithful, and who won't. Does that sound like creating solely to condemn?
Then again, if He doesn't know who will be faithful and who won't, then He is certainly not omniscient. That would mean imperfection.
For an imperfect being to create lesser beings to share the universe with is a lot like creating a "chat" program that only has pre-programmed responses. You now how it will act at all times. If this is the case, He is still alone.

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing is certain and definite (there are exceptions, I suppose), but the way I see it the idea of God has more to do with an adscription to a basicly conservative viewpoint/political stand rahter than to whether he exits or not, which in the end is always a matter of choice, because you can't prove or disprove something that cannot be defined in rational terms: reason only can prove; though proof is not really related to existence directly. What I mean is that you can only prove something withing a give rational clause or context, but not in relation to life or another system. You can have, though, solid evidence for empirically-related questions, but there is no such evidence for the concept of God (the "evidence" is subjective and empathic: based on human relations and emotions).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull
nitsud said:

Need for companionship? No...no need, rather a want. Why does anyone want anything? Do you truly NEED friendship with other people to exist? Of course not, but it is favorable to have friends, right? The trick to this "want" however is that for all the power available to God, true companionship can only be derived if there is the possibility of rejection. You would not find true friendship if the person is "programmed" to like you, would you? If you had a tape that was just your voice saying "I love you, nitsud, you are a great person", would that bring you much pleasure?
Surely you don't believe that the only purpose for thought is to solve problems and find answers. It is easy to say such things and appear to be purely mechanical, but real life is not like that and you know it. When you are with your friends, or with your girlfriend or whatever, are you trying to solve problems all the time? Are you saying that you are constantly working feverishly to solve problems during the time you are doing stuff with them? You know that is not the case. You enjoy the company of others just for the sake of the company, and in fact, this "social" time is most likely more enjoyable and has higher priority than the "work" in your life.
Why create beings that die? Well, it depends on who you talk to. I personally believe the Bible when it says that those who choose to follow God's plan for salvation do not die but have eternal life. Some may not believe that, but I can only comment on my experience with God. Many other religions believe in an eternal life in one form or another, except perhaps the Buddhists, and I am not entirely sure of that.
Why create this strange little scenario of an expansive universe and isolated life on a revolving orb? You could easily ask "Why does Stephen King write horror novels?", or "Why did Picasso paint the way he did?" or "Why does nitsud like to play Doom?" How else SHOULD God have created the universe? What SHOULD His motives be?
If there is some paranormal arrangement of energy, why is it a god? Who says that every paranormal arrangement of energy is a god? I think Satan would fit this description, as well as any given soul, right? And who says that a god has to be a paranormal arrangement of energy? Anything you life your life for is a god to you. The thing that has top priority is your god...it is what you serve, be it yourself, sex, money, etc. My definition of God is He who created the universe.
What are the chances of a god existing in any given reality? That is sort of a meaningless question that is relative to who you ask. To you, it is perhaps 0%, to me, it is 100%. The reason it is meaningless is that there is no criteria to measure it against. To put it back in your court to show you what I mean, "What are the chances that evolution is the process that brings about life in any given reality?" Give me the mathematical process by which you came to you conclusion as well. We don't even know enough about THIS reality to go skipping off into OTHER realities if indeed they do exist. The questions of How does it think and act on a supernatural scale are without merit as well...come on, we have just now mapped out the human genome, so how is anyone supposed to speak on the thought process of a deity? How do YOU think? Sure, you could vomit back something you have heard from other people, and even give a medical explanation, but the mystery of how our brain works is still that...a mystery. You can't explain that, so don't expect me to do that which is perhaps infinitely more complicated.
No one is asking you to accept anything you do not wish to accept. In the cosmic scheme of things, I have nothing really substantial to gain or lose by anyone choosing to believe or reject what I believe. But know this: if anyone sincerely seeks God, God will come to them. Note I said sincerely and not some half-hearted sarcastic voicing of "Ok dude, prove you exist!" to the sky. If you don't wish to be bothered by such concepts, you don't have to by any means. If you know the truth about the universe, then all you can do is be content with your knowledge.
You say there is ample evidence to believe in the theories of evolution, but you also say it only works with religion if you believe that this being created this universe and this planet for life to _evolve_ in His image. Does this not denote the possibility of a God? Where is your confidence in atheism? Or are you agnostic? Evolution in some forms DOES have some validity...not every believer in God rejects all forms of evolution. I know of and believe in adaptation, but macro-evolution, or the idea that man comes from primates is STILL THEORY. Even if it weren't, it still would not exclude the possibility of God, as you note yourself. Genesis says God created man out of the dust of the earth...pretty accurate chamical analysis of a human body, by the way...and could also be a "primordial soup". When He breathes life into Adam, giving him a soul, perhaps this could be when man became sentient. I don't believe this personally, but hey.
The thing about God's image...this is how the Bible relates it, more or less: God is spirit, we are spirits in temporary bodies. The spirit is what the Bible emphasises as being important, not out physical bodies, although we should respect and take care of the bodies given to us. Kind of like if you gave your kid a house: The person living in it is far more important than the house, but you expect them to tak care of the house as long as they are living in it. So yeah, I take it literally.
The "problem" of predestination is easily overcome as well. Think of two parents who are expecting a child. They wish to be suprised by the outcome, so they choose not to know what the sex of the child is. At any given point, however, they could know practically everything there is to know about the child, but they would rather be suprised by it, so their ability to know is not in question. It is kind of like "selective amnesia", and would not be considered a flaw or shortcoming at all. This is even backed up by the Bible when it states that if you ask God for forgiveness of your sins He will blot them out and no longer remember them. Is this a fault, or an imperfection of His? That He chooses not to "know" certain things like repentant people's sins even though He has the ability at any given time to know them again if He so chose? Only a totally synical person would think so. So it is entirely possible to have any given information on hand at any given time but choose not to "know" it. Cripes, He's God, why COULDN'T He do that? In the garden of Eden He asked where Adam and Eve were. Is it that He really could not know if He wished to, or is it possible that He wanted to communicate on the same level as His creation? To interact, so to speak? Is this not feasible? Sure it is...as people made in God's image, we like to have a certain level of suprise as well. We hate it when someone tells us the end of a book, for instance, so in a way, we wish to be ignorant of certain things at certain times. Is that a weakness? Surely not...in fact, if I were omniscient and omnipotent I would probably do the same thing, as would many others. Dag! 4:00 am! Talk to you later...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Nerull
Myk said:

Nothing is certain and definite (there are exceptions, I suppose), but the way I see it the idea of God has more to do with an adscription to a basicly conservative viewpoint/political stand rahter than to whether he exits or not, which in the end is always a matter of choice, because you can't prove or disprove something that cannot be defined in rational terms: reason only can prove; though proof is not really related to existence directly. What I mean is that you can only prove something withing a give rational clause or context, but not in relation to life or another system. You can have, though, solid evidence for empirically-related questions, but there is no such evidence for the concept of God (the "evidence" is subjective and empathic: based on human relations and emotions).

I disagree that the evidence for the concept of God is purely subjective and empathic...how do you account for the many miracles witnessed by many people as occured in the New Testament? A large amount of people who lived in the same generation as Christ died testifying to the fact that he rose from the dead and performed many miracles. If He was a phoney, who would die (quite painfully) defending a lie that is known to be a lie? All of the apostles (except one) were tortured and killed for their testimonies. Men who, before meeting Christ, were simple fishermen or other laborers who had better things to do than be beaten and reviled for their relationship with a preacher/carpenter...they were not the "religious elite", nor do we have much evidence that many of them were spiritual at all before Christ called them to follow Him.
The Old Testament has plenty of miraculous events as well. How else would you describe a ragtag bunch of Isrealites taking land from people stronger than they were by far? Or leaving Egypt where they were slaves? This is history, and can even be found in extra-biblical sources. Archaeology is showing more and more that the Biblical account of history is very accurate. I think there is more evidence that mere emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
×