Chaos and Form

[c0de]

Hi c0de —

whatup

True. Nothing wrong with that.

Okay, we can discuss the same issue in the language of metaphysics (neoplatonism), if you wish. Think about their central concept "evil=absence of good". What about the primacy it gives evil, as if it is the natural state of the universe and God constantly has to battle it to restore the balance??? In this view, is evil not infinite? Because like good, it's existence is inherent, just like the existence of God. Is this not a dualistic point of view?? St. Augustine is supposed to have moved away from Dualism when he left gnosticism, but isn't this just dualism in another form?

In a monotheistic system there shouldn't be any dualism. If God is the One and Absolute, the Infinite, then evil is by definition: finite, without any inherent powers of existence. Our points of view might be based in slight differences in our scripture on which we both are resolute. For example, in Genesis, it is stated that God created light, and it was separated from darkness. Implying that darkness existed before light. Whereas my scripture states that God created light and darkness.

I'm saying beyond that — I'm saying that existence itself is an observation ... if no observation, then no existence.

Yea, but dependent on whose observation? Ours? ....Really?
That's one big can of worms buddy. Neither philosophy nor physics
has come to grips with that one. Why not just abandon it?

What about the deep contradictions in accepting (super)determinism, or denying free-will? This is surely an act of faith?

Everything is an act of "faith" dude. If you wanna embarrass a Physics instructor, go to his class and ask "what is 'heat'?" and watch him squirm. Science is founded on faith in "laws" like those of thermodynamics, without the slightest understanding of what terms like "energy" actually mean. So what is science if not a religion?

But that is not why people are scared of accepting Superdeterminism. It is not because it requires faith. Ask yourself why you really would not want to subscribe to this, and you will (if you are honest with yourself) realize that it is because it robs you of everything, including your sense of existing, of being a "real" entity.

It's worse than waking up and finding that you are stuck in the matrix, unplugged... It feels like... drowning. But once you get over that, you realize you have lost all fear of the world, and can face anything.

 

[Thomas]

Our capacity to make distinctions between things is the reason why we believe we have an 'I' or a self.

Well that points to something, doesn't it? ... something is making the 'I' distinction. And its would seem to be universal?

when in fact there is no distinction. We are made from the same stuff. So to categorise things is to name them, nothing more.

Well, and a certain level, yes ... but you can't mistake a bus for a bee, so there has to be some order of distinction.

And, without it, you couldn't function?

First of all by chaos I mean the state of being at an elemental level and full of infinite possibilities.

Ah, then I would say 'chaos' is a misnomer. The last thing it is, because 'chaos' does not possess any possibility whatsoever.

Now you'd have to resort to the language of metaphysics.
(There's a difference between dis-organised, and un-organised.)

At every moment every form is drifting back into chaos, because it is moving towards death, which is inevitable.

Apart from death, I disagree. And even then we lack the data to make any certain statement.

But form is moving through a series of intermediate states towards another organised state. Even decomposition is not chaotic, it follows progressively one step from the next ...

Also the 'forms' that we see are identities which we have given to things that are nothing more than a collection of matter. This wonderful capacity we have allows us to experience all that we do, but also causes many problems due to our attachment to those things that we have named.

OK. But that's mixing science and psychology, inapplicably, in my opinion.

As I have said all things are empty of having any permanence or identity. Therefore all things are abstract concepts and only exist nominally.

And I think that's an abstract concept in itself.

But they do, though, don't they ... the traces of the Big Bang itself are still reverberating through the cosmos.

Try holding your head in a bucket of water. Eventually the reality of your situation will overcome the abstract intellectual exercise in saying there is no distinction between your head in the air, and your head in the bucket.

Perception and the 'I' are both products of the same illusion. We mistake perception for a perceiver. When in fact there is no distinction.

If there was no distinction, then we would see no distinction. The fact that we do, suggests there is ... we would not see anything ... we would not be ...

... I think the universe impresses itself upon us in a quite reliable and formal nature. I tend to think all this stuff is fun to discuss, but it can become ivory tower-ish.

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

Okay, we can discuss the same issue in the language of metaphysics (neoplatonism), if you wish. Think about their central concept "evil=absence of good". What about the primacy it gives evil, as if it is the natural state of the universe and God constantly has to battle it to restore the balance??? In this view, is evil not infinite? Because like good, it's existence is inherent, just like the existence of God. Is this not a dualistic point of view?? St. Augustine is supposed to have moved away from Dualism when he left gnosticism, but isn't this just dualism in another form?

In a monotheistic system there shouldn't be any dualism. If God is the One and Absolute, the Infinite, then evil is by definition: finite, without any inherent powers of existence. Our points of view might be based in slight differences in our scripture on which we both are resolute. For example, in Genesis, it is stated that God created light, and it was separated from darkness. Implying that darkness existed before light. Whereas my scripture states that God created light and darkness.

Mwahahaha! Yes, yesyesyes!

Ahem... sry. But I completely agree and have had many a conversation with Thomas on the matter. Lol, just got overly excited that someone came along singin the same tune. Yay.

*^_^;*

Carry on...

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

Think about their central concept "evil=absence of good". What about the primacy it gives evil, as if it is the natural state of the universe and God constantly has to battle it to restore the balance???

Later Neoplatonic thinking, especially under the impetus of Christianity, moved towards a different position. The fundamental duality was resolved, and good and evil became not this and that, but something and nothing.

In this view, is evil not infinite?

Following from the above, no. Nothing can't be anything.

Because like good, it's existence is inherent, just like the existence of God. Is this not a dualistic point of view??

Yes it is, but not the view of Christian Neoplatonis metaphysics.

St. Augustine is supposed to have moved away from Dualism when he left gnosticism, but isn't this just dualism in another form?

Well he moved from Manichaenism to Platonism to Christianity to resolve (in my view) the fundamental contradiction of dualism.

In a monotheistic system there shouldn't be any dualism.

I don't think you can say that. Dualism is inherent to monotheism that does not profess monism or pantheism. Christian monotheism is holistic, but observes the distinction between immanence and pantheism.

If God is the One and Absolute, the Infinite, then evil is by definition: finite, without any inherent powers of existence.

Quite so — and the final clause is the key — ontologically evil is without any inherent power of existence ... it does not exist.

Our points of view might be based in slight differences in our scripture on which we both are resolute. For example, in Genesis, it is stated that God created light, and it was separated from darkness. Implying that darkness existed before light. Whereas my scripture states that God created light and darkness.

It depends who you interpret the metaphors. Light in a Christian exegesis is knowledge of the good, "it is in the nature of the good to communicate itself" (a Platonic saying, but I could be wrong).

'Darkness' therefore does not necessarily imply evil as such, but the created order without the immanent and self-revealing presence of the divine.

Yea, but dependent on whose observation? Ours? ....Really? That's one big can of worms buddy. Neither philosophy nor physics has come to grips with that one. Why not just abandon it?

Because Christian metaphysics has ... as has indeed other metaphysical systems.

Everything is an act of "faith" dude.

Agreed! If only the atheists and those who argue that empiricism is all there is would wake up to that fact.

If you wanna embarrass a Physics instructor, go to his class and ask "what is 'heat'?" and watch him squirm.

D'you know 'In Our Time' on BBC Radio 4? One programme was dedicated to 'What is heat?' ... three university boffins ... sheesh, I just thought it was what made you go "Ow!" when you leant on the hob.

Science is founded on faith in "laws" like those of thermodynamics, without the slightest understanding of what terms like "energy" actually mean. So what is science if not a religion?

OK. I would point out the distinction, however. Science was not a religion for the first philosophers, it was an investigation of the empirical. It only became so after the Enlightenment, when the idea emerged that with science we could reshape the world according to ourselves.

Now it is a blind faith, as most people believe in science, because it's science, and therfore must know, and must be right.

But that is not why people are scared of accepting Superdeterminism. It is not because it requires faith. Ask yourself why you really would not want to subscribe to this, and you will (if you are honest with yourself) realize that it is because it robs you of everything, including your sense of existing, of being a "real" entity.

I also think it also offers itself as an excuse that absolves you of everything, and especially,and too easily and too often, the moral and ethical issue. The mantra of Superdeterminism is, surely, 'what's the point?'

It's certainly not a given, so it's a philosophical position which no-one is obliged to subscribe to.

In Christian metaphysics, human freedom is a given — part of its Hebraic heritage — it was discussed and resolved when the issue of 'predestination' was treated by Eriugena in the 9th century against Gotteschalk, and in a religious context, 'determinism' reappeared in the Reformation, and refuted by the Catholic Church.

I think the person who refutes determinism does so not out of fear, but out of the acceptance of the challenge of investigating what being human means — it might be, but it might not be — equally I think the embrace of determinism can be fear in the face of the sublime.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

I-Lost + Thomas


@ I-Lost


Hope u like butter

@ Thomas

Later Neoplatonic thinking, especially under the impetus of Christianity, moved towards a different position. The fundamental duality was resolved, and good and evil became not this and that, but something and nothing.

--


Following from the above, no. Nothing can't be anything.

But that just trades one can of worms for another. Observe:
The statement: "evil is nothing" is equal to: "evil does not exist"
Because "nothing" by your own definition, is equal to "not existing"

But that is NOT what the Abrahamic faiths are supposed to be about.
Evil is something. Something that must be rejected and guarded against.
The difference is that evil is finite this is why it does not have any
powers of inherent existence. But, the key thing to remember is that
not even "good" has inherent existence or properties, as Only God himself
has inherent powers of existence. (That is why He is the Absolutely Transcendent)

I don't think you can say that. Dualism is inherent to monotheism that does not profess monism or pantheism. Christian monotheism is holistic, but observes the distinction between immanence and pantheism.

Not quite. Remember, God is not part of the equation, and therefore
monism does NOT always equal pantheism. The type of a Monotheistic
Monism that I subscribe to translates into this: That God created the
universe out of a single type of material, while HE Himself is not part of
this same material.

Whether you want to call this created material "matter/energy/spirit" is
irrelevant, considering the insights of modern science which has
uncovered the murky nature of "matter" and its equivalence with energy.

Some great philosophers like George Berkley, Ghazali etc. have posited
that the world is made up of spirit alone. My only addition is the clause
of superdeterminism.

I also think it also offers itself as an excuse that absolves you of everything, and especially,and too easily and too often, the moral and ethical issue. The mantra of Superdeterminism is, surely, 'what's the point?'

Don't believe the hype dude... Everyone instinctively thinks that
determinism would lead to that, but it doesn't. I know, cuz I live it.

Personally, I have noted that the lack of moral backbone is usually
found in those who go searching for freedom, as such a view is, at its
core, is fundamentally at odds with any/all responsibility, including moral
responsibility which is a harsh taskmaster indeed, as it chains a person
down like a slave.

Case in point: Ayn Rand.

Is it any wonder she is actually considered a "philosopher" these days?

In Christian metaphysics, human freedom is a given — part of its Hebraic heritage — it was discussed and resolved when the issue of 'predestination' was treated by Eriugena in the 9th century against Gotteschalk, and in a religious context, 'determinism' reappeared in the Reformation, and refuted by the Catholic Church.

The protestants were big on "eternal damnation" too...
That's a big no-no with me, and that is why I don't
interpret determinism as their type of predestination.

I think the person who refutes determinism does so not out of fear, but out of the acceptance of the challenge of investigating what being human means — it might be, but it might not be —

Well, you can't really "refute" determinism. I mean, you can try to
rebut it, but you won't get very far. The universe is considered
a deterministic system as is. Superdeterminism just takes it one step
further.

equally I think the embrace of determinism can be fear in the face of the sublime.

Fear, sir, is a NECESSITY in the face of the Sublime/Divine.
Some even go as far as to say that it is a prerequisite.

D'you know 'In Our Time' on BBC Radio 4? One programme was dedicated to 'What is heat?' ... three university boffins ... sheesh, I just thought it was what made you go "Ow!" when you leant on the hob.

No but that sounds good! ill see what I can dig up. thnx dude

 

[c0de]

.
[stupid internet posted my post twice!]

 

[Thomas]

But that just trades one can of worms for another. Observe:
The statement: "evil is nothing" is equal to: "evil does not exist"
Because "nothing" by your own definition, is equal to "not existing"

Yep. That's the ontological conclusion.

But that is NOT what the Abrahamic faiths are supposed to be about.
Evil is something. Something that must be rejected and guarded against.

It is wilfulness in man to defy the will of God, in the pursuit of a perceived end — a good — which in reality does not exist. The Jews have it well pegged in that respect — the adversary — which signifies man's contrary nature.

But, the key thing to remember is that not even "good" has inherent existence or properties, as Only God himself has inherent powers of existence. (That is why He is the Absolutely Transcendent)

The qualities that are perceived as good are because they are from the divine, thus the good is participation in the Divine (like love).

Evil is choosing something that does not participate in the divine life, but rises in the disordered human will — Stoics would argue the same in regard to the logos.
Evil has no inherent existence, because it is not of God.

Evil rises in man, nowhere else.

Not quite. Remember, God is not part of the equation, and therefore monism does NOT always equal pantheism.

Agreed. Buddhism, for example.

Personally, I have noted that the lack of moral backbone is usually found in those who go searching for freedom, as such a view is, at its
core, is fundamentally at odds with any/all responsibility, including moral
responsibility which is a harsh taskmaster indeed, as it chains a person
down like a slave.

This, I would suggest, is subjective freedom.

As a Buddhist said recently, something along the lines of 'people today regard freedom as the ability to pursue whatever whim takes them ... that's not freedom, that's being the puppet of an untrained mind.'

Well, you can't really "refute" determinism. I mean, you can try to rebut it, but you won't get very far. The universe is considered
a deterministic system as is.

Determined by what? I would say God ... others would say otherwise (faith again).

Superdeterminism just takes it one step
further.

Not the only possible step though, and one I happen to think is a step too far

Fear, sir, is a NECESSITY in the face of the Sublime/Divine.
Some even go as far as to say that it is a prerequisite.

The Bible certainly does ... so often, I've lost count

Thomas

 

[c0de]

.

Yep. That's the ontological conclusion.

But this conclusion clearly contradicts scripture. I will use a quote from the OT to illustrate my point.

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)

I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
​

According to this verse before there was light/peace/good, there was no darkness/evil. So they are not the "absence" of something, they are things in themselves that were created. This also makes it clear that evil is not a fundamental quality which arises in man, (as you asserted). It is a standard, no different than "good" in this respect.

The qualities that are perceived as good are because they are from the divine, thus the good is participation in the Divine (like love).

Evil is choosing something that does not participate in the divine life, but rises in the disordered human will — Stoics would argue the same in regard to the logos.
Evil has no inherent existence, because it is not of God.

But as I already stated, good also has no inherent existence. It is only "good" because God has decreed support to it. Not because God was obligated to support it. God was not bound by any rationality, He created the rationality that we are bound to, and perceive to be natural. (if you have dabbled in the Philosophy of Mathematics, you already know what I am getting at here)

It is wilfulness in man to defy the will of God, in the pursuit of a perceived end — a good — which in reality does not exist.

Man can not have the ability to defy the will of God without violating God's omnipotence.

The Jews have it well pegged in that respect — the adversary — which signifies man's contrary nature.

This falls into the same pitfall as the "yin/yang" concept. People=People just as Energy=Energy ... Talking of "contrary natures" is abstract and superfluous.

Example: Can every man become a prophet? If not, why? If we all have "contrary natures" and the freedom to shape/control them, than the implication is that there is no limit to our potential (otherwise we wouldnt be technically "free") and therefore we should be able to will ourselves to become anything we want, including prophets (or superheroes).

This, I would suggest, is subjective freedom.

As a Buddhist said recently, something along the lines of 'people today regard freedom as the ability to pursue whatever whim takes them ... that's not freedom, that's being the puppet of an untrained mind.'

Semantics dude... In the final analysis, if you allow freedom to choose between good/evil, then you also allow freedom to choose what is good/evil because you have already opened the flood gates to subjectivity.

Not the only possible step though, and one I happen to think is a step too far

'tis only inevitable, as far as I can see.
All other routes violate God's attributes.



p.s.

By the way, I downloaded the BBC radio program on Heat, (and quite a few more of them, which I will get to when I have time). It was pretty funny listening to three "experts" spend 45 minutes describing the history of "heat" without coming to any definition of what it actually is.

Also, in your last post you mentioned empiricism and how it refuses to acknowledge the conclusions of its own method. I will add that the original empiricists (Hume, Berkley, Locke) were well aware of its ultimate conclusions, probably because they were much smarter then their clueless decedents today.

 

[Thomas]

But this conclusion clearly contradicts scripture. I will use a quote from the OT to illustrate my point.

The Hebrew word "Ra" has quite a number of meanings in the Bible, according to BDB Biblical Hebrew Dictionary:
- evil (Gn.6.5)
- unpleasant, giving pain, misery (like in Gn.47.9 "days of trial and hardship", or Pr.15.15)
- distess, misery, calamity (Nu.11.1, Ex.5.19, Gn.48,16)
- sad, unhappy (Pr.25.20)
- vicious, unkind (Pr.26.23)
- wicked (Ec.12.14)
etc., etc

It is a principle of exegesis that any particular element of Scripture must and can be interpreted according to the basic theology of the whole text.

The exegesis of the above is that God allows or even in a sense causes or 'creates' calamity (not necessarily evil — I would suggest the KJV is at fault here). But He is not the creator of evil in itself (How can He be? He would have to be schizophrenic, or at least not know His own mind.)

These particular words also are found within the context of chap 45 where it is explained how God's providence will work though Cyrus to "subdue nations." Consistent with this in vs 6 & 7 we see how God's providence is all pervading.

The ongoing exegis then points to God's providence, not God's causation or creation of evil.

I would suggest neither good nor evil are 'created' — good and evil are moral quantifiers according to an end[/i]. Thus what God wills is the absolute and ultimate good, whereas man can only will a relative and contingent good, because he cannot determine the end of the cosmos, and does not even know his own end.

A humanist would determine good and/or evil according to a different set of values.

But as I already stated, good also has no inherent existence. It is only "good" because God has decreed support to it.

Not support it, because He wills it. Thus God creates the world, with an end, which He knows because He is outside any temporal determination.

If that's where the worlds is gonna end up, then anything that coincides with that is a good, anything that heads in a different direction is 'bad', in that it's heading towards a non-existing illusion of reality.

There's something about evil that always leave a desire for more ... the evil apetite can never be satiated, because evil creates a hunger, not a fullness.

Man can not have the ability to defy the will of God without violating God's omnipotence.

Oh yes he can. Are you saying that God cannot create a free creature without violating His own omnipotence?

I would say that is a limitation of omnipotence. I would rather say a sign of God's infinite omnipotence is that He can truly create a creature who is free ... bearing in mind that 'free' is not the fredom of God ... but the freedom of self-determination ... thus free to make mistakes, free to defy God ... free to choose his own extinction ...

Man is free in as much as He can choose to align Himself to the will of God — the real, the true, all the transcendentals‚ or He can align himself to what is contrary to the will of God — which is untrue, unreal, etc ... in which case all man's works come to nought, as does he, because what he's invested in has no ontological reality.

Theologians have been saying this for about a thousand years, if not more.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

Oh yes he can. Are you saying that God cannot create a free creature without violating His own omnipotence?

I would say that is a limitation of omnipotence.

Faulty logic.

If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control, than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience. The question here is not whether He can forfeit His omniscience/omnipotence (He can, by the way). The question is did He? The answer to that is no, He did not forfeit His omnipotence/omniscience for our sake. >We are not that special< ... just delusional.

But He is not the creator of evil in itself (How can He be? He would have to be schizophrenic, or at least not know His own mind.)

That is your conclusion and a very faulty one at that. 3 responses from the top of my head:

#1: Under the present circumstances, good has been ordained to prevail over evil, so your conclusion is even less applicable, as "He has ordained Mercy on Himself" (6:12 Quran)

#2: God can use evil to bring about good, as a tool (something utilitarians love to do) without any contradictions because He is a transcendent God.

#3: Even if the circumstances were different, you would still not be able to use the standard of rationality that God created against God. They are HIS standards, He created them. He is NOT subject to them.

- evil (Gn.6.5)
- unpleasant, giving pain, misery (like in Gn.47.9 "days of trial and hardship", or Pr.15.15)
- distess, misery, calamity (Nu.11.1, Ex.5.19, Gn.48,16)
- sad, unhappy (Pr.25.20)
- vicious, unkind (Pr.26.23)
- wicked (Ec.12.14)
etc., etc

I don't see any complications regarding the definition here.
All of these are clearly descriptions of "evil".

It is a principle of exegesis that any particular element of Scripture must and can be interpreted according to the basic theology of the whole text.

Dude, the verse is plain and simple: God is the Creator of light and darkness. The "basic theology" which you are referring to is just dogma.

Thus God creates the world, with an end, which He knows because He is outside any temporal determination.

You can spin it anyway you wish, it is still determinism.

Man is free in as much as He can choose to align Himself to the will of God

That part about "subjective freedom" that you mentioned, applies here.

 

[nativeastral]

I came across something that I wrote a while ago and just thought I'd ask what people thought, put the ideas out there for criticism. It makes sense to me but does it make sense to you? All view points welcome.

Everything in the universe moves from Chaos to Form and back again. Chaos being the stuff everything is made from before it is created and Form being everything that exists in the universe once it has been created. Once something has a form it can only move back to chaos, it is inevitable. A person will die, a star will burn out, and a pen will run out of ink. All forms are transitional. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true here, that an ordered system will always become more disordered over time. However, the ‘ordered state’ mentioned here is what we often assume form is the product of, as order is the opposite of chaos. This is how we think as a society, in opposites, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, right and wrong. In fact to describe a object or person as something creates its opposite description. To say something is beautiful creates the existence of ugliness. If an action is good then there must be actions that are bad. This is how we make sense of the world, and by we I don‘t just mean people, I am also including animals in this. A predator understands itself as such because its prey exists as it does, we humans understand ourselves as such because there is a world of other forms for us to interact with and depend on. Often our viewpoint of the world is divided into the subject (a person) and object (a chair, a pen, a car). We understand ourselves in relation to the objects in the world, and the objects exist as they do because we perceive them as such. As a result our understanding of forms is dependent on our perceptions of them. All forms are also dependent on chaos too, as without chaos there would be no forms, and without forms there would be no chaos, it is a cyclic system. But if we move beyond the dualistic viewpoint of subject and object and see things as only chaos and form then it becomes easier to see the best in things without creating the worst. To see all sentient beings as the same is to respect all life in a way that has no need for labels above nominal usage. Returning to the question of the existence of order, put frankly there is no order in the universe, there is instead a constant movement between chaos and form and back again, as I have mentioned. What is referred to as order is in fact the co-dependence of everything on everything else. Nothing could exist without this co-dependence, and it is precisely this that we mistake for order.

I'd recommend any of Alan Watts talks; heres one

[youtube]Kg4yG1HJaMQ[/youtube]

 

[Thomas]

If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control, than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience.

God can bring a creature back under His total control any time He likes ... but that does not mean God employs total control over His creature all the time.

If God is Infinite, there is no 'beyond' for the creature to go. But that does not mean God is controlling the creature where he is.

[/B]We are not that special< ... just delusional.

Your faith, dude. Not mine.

They are HIS standards, He created them. He is NOT subject to them.

No, but your argument is subjecting God to your logic.

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

But He is not the creator of evil in itself (How can He be? He would have to be schizophrenic, or at least not know His own mind.)

You've said this before. I would put out there that "God's mind" is beyond all ability for us to attribute a clear agenda to. Especially a cut and dry, dualistic, "good or evil" agenda.

People come up with all kinds of clever ways to define things to back up their own theories don't they. But I don't think God's will can be defined.

I don't think God can be defined, or sussed out, or made to be understood.

An example of how our "knowledge of God" really starts out it's quest on the power of assumptions. How is it that you know God's will is only good?

How did you come to such knowledge?

In your reasoning, the words god and good seem to be synonymous. Therefore evil, clearly not good, must defy God, and must also defy his will. So evil is a non-thing, because nothing is the only thing that can defy God's will.

But it all hangs on the wire that God is only good. Again, where does that come from? And what is considered good?

Let's say that God's will is the definition of good, instead of Good being the definition of God's will. I know it looks like it would be the same thing, but sift through it and find the subtleties.

Well, since nothing can go against God's will, then everything here must be good. And since we can acknowledge that there is evil here, it must be a thing, and therefore part of God's will, and therefore good.

I think the sticking point, the center of the knot, of this piece of the argument at least, is whether you choose to see evil as a thing or a non-thing. And since I can clearly see the manipulation behind classifying evil as a non-thing, I choose to say that it has thing status.

The funny thing is, by both our definitions, God is omnipotent over all. My universe just holds a bit more stuff it seems, than yours.

But that's just me starting off on a different preconception about the nature of God and his creation. Not necessarily the right one, nor the wrong, but a different one.

Another jammed cog in the search to understand God's will is the whole business of humans, and whether we're special, or separate, and somehow are beyond the deterministic nature of the rest of the universe.

It's one of the keys to learning something of the nature of God's will, and again it is a question at odds with itself, seemingly unanswerable.

It seems though, I'll agree, to be a problem of moral responsibility. Or rather, our predisposition to hold others responsible for their actions.

But is moral responsibility the only true argument against determinism?

Are we morally responsible? How are we to know? And I mean, really know?

Well, then there's hell. Hell and morals are forever intertwined. Hell, and morals, and free will, and the nature of evil, and the nature of God.

You know, I think the funniest part of all of this is how in trying to solve one question, you see how all the questions are linked, kind of little bits of a bigger question. And those linked bits make it impossible to solve the first bit, and round and round we go, unable to stop ourselves from asking why.

It seems I've fallen into the same conundrum as Socrates. All I know is that I know nothing at all.

Maybe none of us do...

Somehow, I don't think we're ever answering this one, guys...

But maybe that's God's will.

 

[c0de]

.


@ Thomas

Let us do a little recap. You have abandoned half your
argument (about scriptural definitions) and the second
half you are just restating, even when it has already
been nullified.

but that does not mean God employs total control over His creature all the time.

Already countered:

"If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control,
than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience."

If God is Infinite, there is no 'beyond' for the creature to go. But that does not mean God is controlling the creature where he is.

Red vs Blue dude. You just defeated your own argument.
If the creature can not go "beyond" God's control,
then by definition, it means that He is being controlled
where he is.

No, but your argument is subjecting God to your logic.

That's funny, considering my argument is based solely in scripture,
unlike yours which is filtered through accepted mainstream institutional dogma.

 

[c0de]

.

p.s.


@ iLost

Are we morally responsible? How are we to know? And I mean, really know?

pfffft

We are morally responsible because God has told us we are!

duh!

But is moral responsibility the only true argument against determinism?

Of course not. You are just confused because you believe in this:

Well, then there's hell. Hell and morals are forever intertwined. Hell, and morals, and free will, and the nature of evil, and the nature of God.

geez... relax dude... you'll give yourself an aneurysm

Even if hell lasts a billion zillion years, if heaven is infinite,
then mathematically, you really can't complain.

There is already ample evidence to suggest that the maximum
stay in hell would be a person's life in years that they spent here.

If you look at hell as a stepping stone, something God has decreed,
and something everyone has to go through (some in this life, the rest in the next)
then all of this will make much more sense.

 

[Thomas]

"If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control, than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience."[/I]

Not really ... God created a creature to participate in His omnipotence/omniscience; God created a creature to participate in His own freedom ... but the difference is that God is uncreated, the creature is created.

Thus the creature is always, and utterly, dependent on God for its existence, but that does not mean God is always and utterly deterministic towards His creation ... in Genesis He brings the animals before Adam to see what he will name them ... in Hosea He expresses a love that means He will not act in a deterministic way, as man tends to do.

So God creates, and sets His creature free within it ...

Thomas

 

[The Undecided]

I'd recommend any of Alan Watts talks; heres one

[youtube]Kg4yG1HJaMQ[/youtube]

Thank you nativeastral, I enjoyed watching that talk. I'll watch some of the others now.

TU

 

[immortalitylost]

*pouts*
...I'm not a dude...

Lol, and I don't believe in hell, or, if I do, not an eternal hell.

I've already had an aneurysm! It's too late for me! Save yourself!

 

[c0de]

.


Thomas + iLost


@ Thomas

Not really ... God created a creature to participate in His omnipotence/omniscience;

LoLz !!

So, here it is... finally...

Self deification... the goal of all organized religion.

Thus the creature is always, and utterly, dependent on God for its existence, but that does not mean God is always and utterly deterministic towards His creation ...

yea, sure...

(if you believe God is "sharing His omniscience/omnipotence")

in Genesis He brings the animals before Adam to see what he will name them ...

rite... as if God had no idea what Adam was going
to name those animals before he did??







@ iLost

*pouts*

...I'm not a dude...

ohhhhh .....

see now it all makes sense !!!

and I don't believe in hell, or, if I do, not an eternal hell.

need help pickin? okay!

Heads, no hell,

Tails, Hell but not eternal

.... ah well

 

[immortalitylost]

Just got word from my crocagator friends in the sewers...

Jimmy ate the quarter...

And I still know nothing!!!

...what does me bein a girl explain?

Hey now... Don't make me call in my crocagator friends for a "favor" lol.



Brings a whole new meaning to friends in low places, lol.