Beyond God and Evil

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, I don't think God's goodness needs to be caused by his all-powerfulness. His power only needs to benefit the people who made the religion.

Well, the universal 'god' and the universal 'good' sound already quite close. If we'd trace the root meaning as being something like fitting, coming or bringing together then it's easy to see how re-ligion is linked with the 'good' by default.

To engage in religion, to worship some god or believe in a good, a standard of some kind - it all boils down to the same thing only in different forms. And left unexamined neither of them makes sense. These days people rather refer to some vague 'conscience' than they'd realize where their values actually came from. This is some kind of self-preservation of the social bonds.

Dave Hodges managed to be much more succinct again: the question of goodness is just not applicable in the context you've set up. It's like talking about the friendliness of a banana.

The only way to talk about the ethics of naked power is to redefine good to mean a rise in power, going or being at the top, as idea, goal or imagined being. In a sense it certainly would need power to unite anything - and weakness to let it fall apart, left by its own devices.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, I think the relation between power and goodness with respect to God is a sensible thing to examine and no sense can be made out of either one, so there you have it. The basic problem is that you can't make absolutes out of things that are inherently finite.

[Alex Jacob]

I want to become a congregational member in the Church of Iolaus...

[earnest_seeker]

One quick little post before I start work for the day. :-)

You think that God could create us at the endpoint of the journey, but that is a wishful supposition not based on knowledge.

It is based on the hypothesis that God is omnipotent, that He can do all things that are possible, and that the end point is possible. Pretty simple really: no more magic required than that which was required to create everything in the first place.

Do you know what is the substance of your soul?

I do not.

The idea of a finished product with no process is magical to me, and quite uninteresting. You want all the gifts and no effort. A reward cheaply won.

It's not just that I want that, but that an omnipotent God would too. Why would He want suffering to occur when it needn't?

I do not actually think of the human soul as a finished product. Souls are in a state of becoming and who knows the limit. You are the forger of your own soul! There! Does that make any sense? You are the forger of your own soul. You must make your own essence, your own character. It is up to you.

There's no reason why this could not be the case in the absence of an impulse to do things that cause suffering. You write that what is innate to the human soul is purity, so then why need the world be so full of impurity? What's stopping God from eliminating it all? No doubt you consider this a naive question. On the other hand you haven't been able to give me a good answer, the best that you can say is that it's too "magical": that "[t]he idea of a finished product with no process is magical to me, and quite uninteresting", and yet you believe that God preexists creation - in other words that God is a "finished product with no process", so there is a precedent for it.

You are not automatically real. You must become real.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Again and again, don't ask why why why does God not do this or that TO you.

I don't. I think that you're misunderstanding me, and it might be part of the reason that you impute a lack of spirituality to me. What I'm actually asking is "why why why does God not do this or that TO me" IF He is omnipotent, and the fact that I cannot come up with a satisfactory answer leads me to the conclusion: OK then, so God isn't omnipotent. That's all that this is about. It's my primary reason for participating in this thread: to promote this (to me, obvious) conclusion.

We are all in this process together. It isn't about some art project.

By that do you mean that God is part and parcel of the process too?

There are those who think that we are the individual face of God. That God takes in our experience, is our experience, as we are also part of God.

That may be. All that I know is that God manifests as a separate, conscious, personal entity.

I am not attached to God's omnipotence.

Then now might be a good time to give it up.

I just do not agree at all with your reasoning. Evil is a potential.
You are making assumptions that love equals not letting anyone suffer.

Certainly. What father does not do his utmost to prevent his children from falling into harm's way and from experiencing pain and suffering? Isn't God the one who knows how many hairs are on your head, who provides for you even more so than he provides for the birds in the field, who rejoices when a lost sheep returns? Isn't this all speaking of a God who is the ultimate loving father, who is Himself pained when any of His children suffer? Wouldn't a true father do all that was in His power to prevent suffering?

But God allows everything, has full confidence in everyone, accepts all beings at all times for exactly who and what they are.

So you don't believe in an interventionist God? You are a deist?

You cannot see the difference between a world where there was no potential to do or be anything other than a prescribed behavior?

You are removing the subtlety from my argument. My actual argument is that will is already constrained (or "prescribed" if you like) to some extent: why not to the extent that we are incapable of sin and suffering?

That doesn't make it real. Only the free choice with knowledge and understanding and experience makes it real.

Again, I'll point you to my argument as stated above: the "freedom" of our choices is already limited. Taking away the freedom to sin and suffer need not lead to any reduction in total freedom if other freedoms to please and to rejoice and to create are added.

No, I do not agree that we could imagine what doesn't ever exist or happen, nor would it have much impact.

Heh, you've obviously never read much science fiction.

Additionally, there may perhaps be other beings in other places who have such a path, or perhaps learn by watching those such as ourselves. You do not know how you landed here or why, in this bizarre situation that we find ourselves in. But before your birth, your soul probably knew what it was taking on.

Sure, I agree with that 100%. There seem to be a lot of ways in which we agree, and I get the feeling that you're missing some of them because you're not understanding that my main reason for arguing with you at all is to get across the point that it's rationally indefensible that God be omnipotent, assuming His omnibenevolence. Once we get that out of the way, then yes, I fully agree that this reality that we're in is one in which we strive to perfect ourselves through a learning process with God as our example, and I also tend to believe that literal reincarnation is part of that process, and I also tend to believe in the Eastern version of karma.

Oh, and of course the other main way in which we disagree is on the nature of the Devil and evil. To me these are real, tangible things, which are natural (and relatively equal) oppositions to God. Reality is a battleground, which one only recognises when one is in certain states. Some drugs can do it to some people. I've been there, and I've experienced evil in action.

earnest: What possible motive could an omnibenevolent God have for creating evil??

Iolaus: Evil isn't a thing, it is a potential, a departure, it arises from a state of consciousness that is incomplete. Perhaps a side effect of individuality. A misunderstanding of self. God is everything, all possibility. Shall the eternal and infinite and never-born shrink from experience?

See above for my understanding of evil, which differs from yours.

earnest: Your answer was non-responsive. I asked specifically about whether we should emulate the behaviour of not intervening to prevent suffering.

Iolaus: It would be inappropriate for us to do so in the situation that we are in.

God will intervene in evil through you. When you intervene, give God the credit, and when you refrain from evil, give God the credit, and when you lose the ability to enjoy yourself at someone else's expense, give God the credit.

And when you slip on loose gravel, fall over a cliff and become a paraplegic perpetually in pain due to your injury, give God the credit? What a loving creator, to cripple you into a life of suffering! Is this truly what an omnipotent yet loving God has in store for some people? Perish the thought.

That's how it works. That's how God stops evil. He is waiting for you.

That's part of it. But make no mistake, God is an active participant in reality.

earnest: Oh, I didn't intend to imply that the Devil preexists God, merely that he preexists creation in the same way in which God does - i.e. that they are two "equal" counterparts from an existential perspective.

Iolaus: There can be only one Source to all things, otherwise there is no God. And even if there is no God, there can still be only one Source to all things. Not two. But the Source and God are two words for the same thing.

To me, God doesn't necessarily have to be the ultimate creator of everything. It's possible that certain things simply exist, independent of God, which, by the way, you implied when you wrote "This is not an arbitrary decision of God, it is how reality works." This seems to me to contradict your view that God is the source of all things. If He is the source of all things, then surely He decides how reality works, rather than being bound by reality.

earnest: Do you believe in a literal devil?

Iolaus: I think the Christian conception of demonic beings is probably pretty accurate. I hold them partially accountable for the sorry state of Christian theology.

Likewise. Not to mention much of the Bible.

earnest: Do you believe in a literal hell? I get the impression from your earlier comments on different places in the universe being more or less heavenly or hell-like that you don't, but I'd like to read your direct answer.

Iolaus: Only in the karmic sense, that our souls are on a long journey, not just one lifetime of incarnation, and that it may be appropriate for certain souls to incarnate for a time, or spend time between lives, in a rather unpleasant place. Some souls are pretty evil, have done quite evil and cruel acts, and the universe will respond accordingly.

How about literally burning? How about eternally?

But not a vindictive punishment to satisfy any kind of anger, certainly not from God.

Agreed.

In fact, I think that a soul who is enmeshed in such negativity, after death, will be vulnerable to other negative entities, just as happens here on earth. It isn't that they have to be punished per se, but that they will simply gravitate to the level they function at.

OK, that makes sense. Bullies pick on the weak ones.

We cannot operate on the principle that we have to be provided all understanding right away. We have to be patient. You say my answer was inadequate but I don't think so. You are asking to have signed up for a different planet or different process than you are getting.

Actually I'm not. You seem to be misunderstanding my engagement with you. Again, I'll reiterate that I'm operating according to an if-then paradigm: IF God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent THEN this is what we might expect. An omnipotent+omnibenevolent God could (and would want to, and therefore would) provide all understanding right away. An omnipotent+omnibenevolent God could (and would want to, and therefore would) shield us from pain, suffering and death. But that's not what happens. Obvious conclusion: God is not omnipotent.

Do you understand where I'm coming from in this thread now? As I've said, there are plenty of ways in which you and I do agree, but I just can't fathom an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God.

You want there to be no evil, to be created in such a way that your potential stays within prescribed bounds, and then, while having a mortal body of flesh, you want it guaranteed that no one dies, and that natural processes do not occur, or if they do that God gets on his bullhorn and effects an evacuation.

Well sure: God as loving father. No loving father "accepts" the presence of evil amongst His children; all loving fathers wish happiness and well-being upon their children, and to assist their children to achieve the best possible fulfillment of their potential.

Your view of God is a bit too diminished for me.

And yours is a bit too irrational for me. An omnibenevolent God who not merely "accepts", but also creates the Devil!? How can you even countenance such a belief?

And I don't require God to be omnipotent, and I do not know if he is (or wants to be) omniscient!

I don't believe that He is either omnipotent or omniscient.

Do you believe that chaos reigns, that there is no real purpose here?

Not at all. I believe, like you, that life is about an upward spiral of spiritual progress. I also believe, however, that there are intrinsic forces that seek to impede that progress for their own ends. I'm not sure exactly how much you believe that, although you seem to believe that such forces are responsible for parts of Christianity, so maybe we're not too far apart on that one.

Nothing to do with magic. It is science. All is connected. There is a field. A field of consciousness. A subtle realm of causation out of which our denser materiality manifests and is ever manifesting.

Well sure, there is the physical body and then there is the spiritual body. All I'm saying is that the construction of the karmic system is no less magical than the construction of beings who are already perfect or near to it.

And, it is your job to participate in a way that leads to the greater good. (Or evil, if you prefer it.) We actually have no choice in the matter. Every human being on the planet is affecting all others, is affecting the 'vibe' of this place, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not. And that is because this is not a spectator reality! And we are not separate beings. Partially separate, but not fully separate.

Probably you are right.

Look up the Maharishi effect. Transcendental Meditation. Divine Cosmos (website) and The Science of Peace. Or, Ervin Lazslo, Science and the Akashic Field. Or Lynn McTaggart, The Field.

I don't have time to do any of that right now - I should be working as it is. Later when I have more time I'll look them up. I've dabbled in TM.

I believe we fear death and value our lives so that we will participate as if things mattered, the better to learn.

Maybe.

And murder is the ultimate interference against someone else. Remember, the use of force, violence, deception, manipulation or intimidation is what evil is.

I thought that evil was "missing the mark".

That's why God doesn't do it.

Why is the use of force necessarily evil? I use force when I ride my bicycle to the shops. Is that evil? Sometimes force is used to prevent a wrong. That's not evil.

earnest: I don't blame God for my actions, because I don't believe that He's omnipotent.

My point was a little different. You blame God because people are able to do rotten things.

No, I don't. I would, if I believed that He was omnipotent. But I don't believe that.

But we become good through choosing the good, and while it is probably true that our will is constrained, it nonetheless operates within its sphere.

And that sphere is of God's choosing. He could have chosen a different (and more uplifted) one.

Not at all, but we all are on a long journey. No matter where you are, the right attitude is a wind in your sail.

Yes, true.

earnest: It indicates to me that you believe that there are some aspects of reality that God is bound by, rather than being the all-powerful creator of reality, and this belief of yours aligns quite well with my beliefs.

Iolaus: But then you say other things, such as that God could have made us just as good without having to experience our full potential to choose, and without it being voluntary.

Yup: if-then and all that, remember? But I don't believe that God is omnipotent, so it doesn't apply.

earnest: if God truly were omnipotent then He could have created us as godly creatures from the start. He would therefore be responsible for all of the suffering that we undergo given that he had instead forced upon us this learning-through-pain paradigm.

Matt Gregory: Yep. If God is omnipotent then he made all the laws of nature and could have made them so that painful growth is unnecessary. Why would he have done this unless he's not totally powerful or not totally good?

Anna, you're surrounded! Drop your weapons and come out with your hands up!

I want to become a congregational member in the Church of Iolaus...

Oh, you want more than that: you want to be inducted into the inner sanctum.

Dang, that "quick little post" took quite a while to construct...

[brokenhead]

to get across the point that it's rationally indefensible that God be omnipotent, assuming His omnibenevolence.

Listen to what you are saying here, Ernie. "Why, if God were a right chap, he would do away with all this war nonsense. After all, any rational omnipotent man wouldn't have any of it."

Ernie, you are judging God. You have no perspective. You are doing this because you think in historical terms. You are stuck in the eighteenth century. You see man has progressed beyond the fetters that were the Catholic Church, man has undergone Enlightenment. You do not see that mankind's historical advancement does not affect God, for he has planned for it all the while. God is not man. You cannot hope to understand God, his plans, his will if you do not remove your petulant attitude. It is wise to humble yourself before God (not before men). If you do not, he will do it for you, which turns out to be much less pleasant.

[Iolaus]

I want to become a congregational member in the Church of Iolaus...

A convert! Oh I'm gonna be a preacher one day...

One quick little post before I start work for the day. :-)

You work nights like me? Or you live in Australia...
Well, I got a reprieve for a few hours, so maybe I can answer before I too go to work.

It is based on the hypothesis that God is omnipotent, that He can do all things that are possible, and that the end point is possible. Pretty simple really: no more magic required than that which was required to create everything in the first place.

But since you don't know the substance of your soul, nor the deep workings of reality and creation and existence, it might be that you are asking for a square circle.

There's no reason why this could not be the case (forge ones own soul) in the absence of an impulse to do things that cause suffering. You write that what is innate to the human soul is purity, so then why need the world be so full of impurity? What's stopping God from eliminating it all?

Sigh. You know, if you squint a little different, there is no impurity. There's different ways of seeing.

What's stopping you from eliminating it all?
You want deification but you don't get it by being done to, by being constrained so that there's places you can't wander. You don't get deification by being coddled and protected.

and yet you believe that God preexists creation - in other words that God is a "finished product with no process", so there is a precedent for it.

Ah, but there is so much about the nature of God that I don't know, whether he is a finished project, whether he has known all from the beginning - even to ask such a question presupposed time and it is so hard for us to imagine timelessness.
To say that God is existence itself - an unfathomable mystery that causes there to be anything at all, which requires a self-causing entity - does not address whether or not he is a finished product. In some ways, such as being immutable and infinite, he is a finished product.

To me it is a fundament that there is but one Source to all and everything. It is your concept of evil and its place in reality that might need to change. Aslan is not a tame lion.

You are not automatically real. You must become real.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Difficult to convey at the moment...let's see. The best I can come up with is that your soul is in a process of becoming real. You know, what the ancient alchemists did, they put two substances in a flask. The two were really similar yet different, much like the yin yang symbol, two interrelated, attracted substances that could not quite mix nor quite separate. And they hermetically sealed them in together and applied heat. And the two substances were really one but really two. And the lighter element, the bird of hermes, went to the top of the flask like in a sweat to escape the heat, but then it dripped down the sides and fell on top of the heavier one and they intermingle a little. When the more ethereal part goes to the top again, it now has a slightly colored hue, having picked up just a little of the heaver element. The two contend together like lions and dragons fighting, or like two people having sweaty sex and this is why there art depicts a king and a queen, often in sexual poses. And the snake eating its own tail. If they could escape the flask, they would remain separate. In the end, you get the philosopher's stone, a substance that isn't stonelike in appearance but which is so hardened in its unity that it can never be taken apart into its separate elements again. It contains the creative life force, and can transmute substances or impart physical health and healing.

Not only do I believe in the truth of alchemy, but I think it is true throughout the universe on many levels, a repeating pattern. It is a trinity (salt, sulphur and mercury) which are really two things which are really one thing.

No doubt it is true of good and evil.

Perhaps the end result will be worth it.

Evil will not remain evil. Return is the motion of the Tao.

The evil, like Judas Iscariot have a difficult task to perform; I revere them for it.

If you are on the path of goodness, you must love and forgive.

I don't. I think that you're misunderstanding me, and it might be part of the reason that you impute a lack of spirituality to me.

Not at all!!! I merely think you have not understood an important lesson, and who knows, there is even the (fat) chance that I'm wrong.

OK then, so God isn't omnipotent. That's all that this is about. It's my primary reason for participating in this thread: to promote this (to me, obvious) conclusion.

And to me, the obvious conclusion that the process here is for us to become real souls, who have chosen to seek God. And that this is the only thing worth having.
Plus, talking about God and his nature always makes me happy. It releases endorphins in my brain.

So no doubt it is a delusional, addictive process due to my being totally unconscious and female.

By that do you mean that God is part and parcel of the process too?

It's an intriguing question! On some level, I feel that must be true, and would be way more interesting. At the same time there is the immutable, timeless, and possibly omniscient aspect. Maybe that's what it means to be alpha and omega.

All that I know is that God manifests as a separate, conscious, personal entity.

How do you know this.

Certainly. What father does not do his utmost to prevent his children from falling into harm's way and from experiencing pain and suffering?

I've slowly come a horrid conclusion. I grew up in a bleeding heart liberal family that read Freud and thought about psychology. I thought if a person were irremediably selfish, it came from a lack. But I have carefully inquired into a few known cases and found, to my surprise, that these people - who are lazy and clueless and in a way barely human from lack of introspection and awareness - have been spoiled nonstop by their parents, and had very happy and trouble free childhoods. I'm not saying that always happens, or that a lack can't also produce a selfish person or a clueless one, but a little pain seems to wake people up.

So you don't believe in an interventionist God? You are a deist?

I'm no deist. I'm a monist. Google it when you get a moment. And, I suspect that there are lower beings who do interact with us, something like guardian angels or the new age concept of the higher self (which I have not yet understood).

You are removing the subtlety from my argument. My actual argument is that will is already constrained (or "prescribed" if you like) to some extent: why not to the extent that we are incapable of sin and suffering?

Because we're on the path of knowledge of good and evil, baby. And - that does not mean, as most people automatically suppose - that we are on a path of becoming acquainted with evil only. It means we need to learn good, too.

No, I do not agree that we could imagine what doesn't ever exist or happen, nor would it have much impact.
Heh, you've obviously never read much science fiction.

Science fiction just rearranges existing concepts. Something as basic as the experience of evil would be hard to do if there were no chance of it or occurrences of it.

you're not understanding that my main reason for arguing with you at all is to get across the point that it's rationally indefensible that God be omnipotent, assuming His omnibenevolence.

Perhaps you and God have differing ideas of omnibenevolence.

Oh, and of course the other main way in which we disagree is on the nature of the Devil and evil. To me these are real, tangible things, which are natural (and relatively equal) oppositions to God. Reality is a battleground, which one only recognises when one is in certain states. Some drugs can do it to some people. I've been there, and I've experienced evil in action.

But I told you I think there are demons, and being evil, they likely have orders of power, perhaps a chief.
Our reality does appear to be a battleground. God must be rather upset about it.

You said your concept of evil differs from mine, but I didn't see how.

And when you slip on loose gravel, fall over a cliff and become a paraplegic perpetually in pain due to your injury, give God the credit? What a loving creator, to cripple you into a life of suffering! Is this truly what an omnipotent yet loving God has in store for some people? Perish the thought.

There is no death.

God is an active participant in reality.

The question then, is how.

To me, God doesn't necessarily have to be the ultimate creator of everything. It's possible that certain things simply exist, independent of God, which, by the way, you implied when you wrote "This is not an arbitrary decision of God, it is how reality works." This seems to me to contradict your view that God is the source of all things. If He is the source of all things, then surely He decides how reality works, rather than being bound by reality.

There is no possibility that anything 'simply exists' because existence itself is the ultimate mystery, and its accomplishment is the fundamental characteristic of the nature of God.

Just because God is the source of all things doesn't mean he could make an illogical universe. Everything works the way it does for very precise reasons. Perhaps God could have made a somewhat different universe, perhaps there have been or will be other universes. But each particular universe must be all of a piece. Eternity is a long time! The Hindus believed that a universe was an incarnation of Brahma and took 11 trillion years.

How about literally burning? How about eternally?

It is a lie of the devil for the purpose of slandering God.

An omnipotent+omnibenevolent God could (and would want to, and therefore would) provide all understanding right away

But what would we do in the bridal chamber??

And why doesn't your God come on over and tell us a thing or two? He should be doing a lot more.

that there are intrinsic forces that seek to impede that progress for their own ends.

What good is an adversary that is not a worthy adversary?

Well sure, there is the physical body and then there is the spiritual body.

And they both float in the all-pervading consciousness field of God.

And murder is the ultimate interference against someone else. Remember, the use of force, violence, deception, manipulation or intimidation is what evil is.
I thought that evil was "missing the mark".

Well, that is sin.

I use force when I ride my bicycle to the shops. Is that evil? Sometimes force is used to prevent a wrong. That's not evil.

For heaven's sake, the bicycle ride is a different use of the word. If you use force to protect someone, that was a weighing of results, and not done for personal gain at the expense of someone. It is OK to defend yourself. Nonviolence might be a higher calling, but that is a very difficult position to take.

And that sphere is of God's choosing. He could have chosen a different (and more uplifted) one.

Maybe the slow learners and dunces got dumped here for starker lessons. This does seem to a somewhat hellish planet.

[Leyla Shen]

Wow! I wonder if it is possible for you to imagine just how much I enjoyed reading that, Anna. Seriously.

It’s like watching the adult incarnation of Little Miss Topsy Turvy meeting philosophy. [laughs] Priceless.

[earnest_seeker]

Dang, I still haven't started work for the day yet...

Listen to what you are saying here, Ernie. "Why, if God were a right chap, he would do away with all this war nonsense. After all, any rational omnipotent man wouldn't have any of it."

Ernie, you are judging God.

Nah, brokemeister, I'm just discerning his characteristics through observation.

You cannot hope to understand God, his plans, his will if you do not remove your petulant attitude.

The God that I believe in has a different nature to the God that you believe in, and for rational reasons. Why does that make me petulant?

It is wise to humble yourself before God (not before men).

Indeed. It's just that the God whom I humble myself before is not omnipotent.

You work nights like me? Or you live in Australia...

The latter.

earnest: It is based on the hypothesis that God is omnipotent, that He can do all things that are possible, and that the end point is possible. Pretty simple really: no more magic required than that which was required to create everything in the first place.

Iolaus: But since you don't know the substance of your soul, nor the deep workings of reality and creation and existence, it might be that you are asking for a square circle.

Could be, but it's unlikely. If the substance of my soul can support such a state at all, then why wouldn't it be able to support an initialisation in that state? And if it couldn't, then what's to stop God from finding another, different substance to use, which does support it?

earnest: There's no reason why this could not be the case (forge ones own soul) in the absence of an impulse to do things that cause suffering. You write that what is innate to the human soul is purity, so then why need the world be so full of impurity? What's stopping God from eliminating it all?

Iolaus: Sigh. You know, if you squint a little different, there is no impurity. There's different ways of seeing.

Tell that to the bloke in the torture camp having the blowtorch applied to his lips.

What's stopping you from eliminating it all?

I don't know, possibly lack of confidence. Or possibly a lack of power.

You want deification but you don't get it by being done to, by being constrained so that there's places you can't wander. You don't get deification by being coddled and protected.

Coincidentally, I've just (i.e. in between posting my last and reading your last) had my Jehovah's Witness friend T turn up on my doorstep, and she brought a visiting friend, H (both female). I told both of them about this thread and outlined the discussion. H said something very familiar to what you've just said. In return I simply reiterated my argument about "free" will, which you seem to keep on ignoring. I put it in these terms: is it conceivable to you that you would one day walk down to the neighbourhood childcare centre, abduct a two year old girl, and bring her back to your basement, and... well, you get the picture. H, predictably, replied "Well, no, of course not, I would never do that." I responded: "Right, well then how 'free' is your will truly, if this option is not even available to you?"

You see, our will is already constrained such that certain acts of evil are inconceivable to us. All that I'm saying is that it's most rational that an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God would fashion our wills such that no acts of evil were conceivable to us. Does this mean that we would't have free will? Of course not! We'd still be free to choose exactly how we loved one another, exactly how we exercised our creative powers, exactly what we'd say and do and when - it's just that we would no longer choose (nor ever desire to choose) evil/sin. Wouldn't it be great to be free of that desire? Isn't that what we're all striving for? So why would an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God allow this desire to remain?

Just for your reference, H's answer was that she couldn't conceive of that course of action because of her morality. The conversation moved on, but had I had the opportunity to answer her, I would have said: "All that means is that your morality is the means by which God has constrained your will."

earnest: and yet you believe that God preexists creation - in other words that God is a "finished product with no process", so there is a precedent for it.

Iolaus: Ah, but there is so much about the nature of God that I don't know, whether he is a finished project, whether he has known all from the beginning - even to ask such a question presupposed time and it is so hard for us to imagine timelessness.
To say that God is existence itself - an unfathomable mystery that causes there to be anything at all, which requires a self-causing entity - does not address whether or not he is a finished product. In some ways, such as being immutable and infinite, he is a finished product.

Forgive me for saying it, but your thinking on this issue appears to be confused to say the least. For example: you don't seem to be clear on whether you believe that God precedes existence or whether He is existence.

To me it is a fundament that there is but one Source to all and everything. It is your concept of evil and its place in reality that might need to change. Aslan is not a tame lion.

Indeed, but nor is he a torturing lion. That's the Ice Queen.

Iolaus: You are not automatically real. You must become real.

earnest: I don't understand what you mean by this.

Iolaus: Difficult to convey at the moment...let's see. The best I can come up with is that your soul is in a process of becoming real. You know, what the ancient alchemists did, they put two substances in a flask. The two were really similar yet different, much like the yin yang symbol, two interrelated, attracted substances that could not quite mix nor quite separate. And they hermetically sealed them in together and applied heat. And the two substances were really one but really two. And the lighter element, the bird of hermes, went to the top of the flask like in a sweat to escape the heat, but then it dripped down the sides and fell on top of the heavier one and they intermingle a little. When the more ethereal part goes to the top again, it now has a slightly colored hue, having picked up just a little of the heaver element. The two contend together like lions and dragons fighting, or like two people having sweaty sex and this is why there art depicts a king and a queen, often in sexual poses. And the snake eating its own tail. If they could escape the flask, they would remain separate. In the end, you get the philosopher's stone, a substance that isn't stonelike in appearance but which is so hardened in its unity that it can never be taken apart into its separate elements again. It contains the creative life force, and can transmute substances or impart physical health and healing.

Cool story, thanks. :-)

The evil, like Judas Iscariot have a difficult task to perform; I revere them for it.

If you are on the path of goodness, you must love and forgive.

Not that I "love" the evil, but hatred is probably ineffective. Dunno, Anna, I'm conflicted on this one. Part of me believes as you do: that our task is to lift the evil up; part of me believes that the (truly) evil - in particular the metaphysical entities in which we both believe - are incorrigible and irredeemable.

Plus, talking about God and his nature always makes me happy. It releases endorphins in my brain.

So no doubt it is a delusional, addictive process due to my being totally unconscious and female.

Oh, yes, you are the very epitome of Woman. You haven't had a logical thought in your life: henid city, baby, henid city. You're probably also in the process of manipulating some poor sucker into some form of delusional (as they all are) romantic relationship with you (if you haven't done so already), probably with the intention of polluting the planet with more unconscious souls who haven't a hope of enlightenment (again, if you haven't done so already). You'd best be off and enjoy your shopping and gossip, sweetheart - these forums are clearly going way over your head.

earnest: By that do you mean that God is part and parcel of the process too?

Iolaus: It's an intriguing question! On some level, I feel that must be true, and would be way more interesting. At the same time there is the immutable, timeless, and possibly omniscient aspect. Maybe that's what it means to be alpha and omega.

Well there are those who believe that we are each literally God, viewing Himself through different windows. Are you amenable to that belief?

earnest: All that I know is that God manifests as a separate, conscious, personal entity.

Iolaus: How do you know this.

It's something that I'd rather not go into publicly. I'd be willing to share it via PM if you're interested.

earnest: What father does not do his utmost to prevent his children from falling into harm's way and from experiencing pain and suffering?

Iolaus: I've slowly come a horrid conclusion. I grew up in a bleeding heart liberal family that read Freud and thought about psychology. I thought if a person were irremediably selfish, it came from a lack. But I have carefully inquired into a few known cases and found, to my surprise, that these people - who are lazy and clueless and in a way barely human from lack of introspection and awareness - have been spoiled nonstop by their parents, and had very happy and trouble free childhoods. I'm not saying that always happens, or that a lack can't also produce a selfish person or a clueless one, but a little pain seems to wake people up.

Yes, there's sometimes no easy explanation for the way that people have turned out, and often enforced discipline requiring some degree of suffering upon non-compliance can be a good corrective, which might be why those reality TV boot camp shows seem to result in reasonable levels of success. There's a difference, though, between a slap on the bum or a bit of minor discomfort, and much of the harsh, unconscionable suffering that exists in the world today: people starving to death; people dying of slow, painful diseases like cancer; people tortured to death for voting the wrong way in an election - in what way are these "little pain"s helping them to become better people?

earnest: So you don't believe in an interventionist God? You are a deist?

Iolaus: I'm no deist. I'm a monist. Google it when you get a moment.

Hmm, I was going to say: OK, I will, later. But actually I'm going to do it now...

...ah, I see. Now I see why you mentioned panentheism earlier.

But you didn't answer my first question. Please tell me: do you or do you not believe in an interventionist God? I suppose it's kind of a tricky question for a monist to answer, but I'd like to read what you have to say.

And, I suspect that there are lower beings who do interact with us, something like guardian angels or the new age concept of the higher self (which I have not yet understood).

You mean "higher" beings, rather than "lower" beings, I imagine.

earnest: You are removing the subtlety from my argument. My actual argument is that will is already constrained (or "prescribed" if you like) to some extent: why not to the extent that we are incapable of sin and suffering?

Iolaus: Because we're on the path of knowledge of good and evil, baby. And - that does not mean, as most people automatically suppose - that we are on a path of becoming acquainted with evil only. It means we need to learn good, too.

OK, think of it like this then: we are born with certain knowledge: for example the knowledge that when our mother brings us to her breast, we suckle. We are also born with certain skills, which might as well be knowledge: for example the skill of learning language. Why are we not, then - assuming an omnipotent God - born with the knowledge of good and evil already, or at least with the innate skill to discern the difference?

I really hope that you can come up with a better answer than "because it would be too magical". That really doesn't cut the mustard for me.

I also hope that by now you already know my own answer: because the assumption is wrong, and God simply does not have the power to do it.

Iolaus: No, I do not agree that we could imagine what doesn't ever exist or happen, nor would it have much impact.

earnest: Heh, you've obviously never read much science fiction.

Iolaus: Science fiction just rearranges existing concepts.

I disagree, but have it your way - it doesn't change my point: those "existing concepts" are nevertheless imaginings of that which "doesn't ever exist or happen", and they do have impact.

Something as basic as the experience of evil would be hard to do if there were no chance of it or occurrences of it.

I presume that by "do" you mean "imagine"; going forward on that basis: it would be no harder than to imagine time travel into the past, which plenty of us do quite easily.

earnest: you're not understanding that my main reason for arguing with you at all is to get across the point that it's rationally indefensible that God be omnipotent, assuming His omnibenevolence.

Iolaus: Perhaps you and God have differing ideas of omnibenevolence.

I doubt it. He made me in His image, remember? What cuts my heart cuts His heart too.

Our reality does appear to be a battleground. God must be rather upset about it.

Right then! That's it! I've come to the conclusion that you just can't (i.e. you don't) believe in an omnipotent God either! If something upset an omnipotent God, then He'd do something about it! The fact that you believe in the possibility of an ongoingly upset God proves to me that you don't really believe that He's omnipotent.

You said your concept of evil differs from mine, but I didn't see how.

Oh, it's simple: I believe that good (with God as protagonist) and evil (with Satan as protagonist) are two intrinsically existing, opposing forces. You don't believe that evil (and in particular Satan) is intrinsically existing - you believe that God created it.

earnest: And when you slip on loose gravel, fall over a cliff and become a paraplegic perpetually in pain due to your injury, give God the credit? What a loving creator, to cripple you into a life of suffering! Is this truly what an omnipotent yet loving God has in store for some people? Perish the thought.

Iolaus: There is no death.

How in the world is that in any way related to what I wrote? I just can't see it. I didn't mention death at all.

earnest: God is an active participant in reality.

Iolaus: The question then, is how.

I have an inkling, but it's not one that I'd be willing to share publicly.

Just because God is the source of all things doesn't mean he could make an illogical universe.

This statement contains a contradiction. If God can't create an illogical universe then He is bound by logic, and can't have created it. Therefore God is not the source of logic, therefore He is not the source of all things. This is simply a more explicit manifestation of the contradiction that I noted in my previous post.

earnest: How about literally burning? How about eternally?

Iolaus: It is a lie of the devil for the purpose of slandering God.

I'm not so sure about that. You of course can't countenance it because you believe that God is the source of all things, which would make Him the source of eternal damnation - impossible to believe! I on the other hand believe that evil is in some senses beyond God's control, such that all sorts of horrible things are possible. Not that God simply accepts those things - He does all in His power to prevent them, but His power is limited.

Are you seeing better now how our conceptions of evil differ?

earnest: An omnipotent+omnibenevolent God could (and would want to, and therefore would) provide all understanding right away

Iolaus: But what would we do in the bridal chamber??

You mean you and me specifically? I've got a lively imagination - I could explain at length if you're interested, but this forum is neither the time nor place.

Flirtation aside: we'd do what we all enjoy to do already - shower one another with love! Think about the best moments in your life: in the company of precious friends; the companionship is awesome; the humour is joyous; the laughter bubbles; the atmosphere is fun-filled; not a callous word is dreamt of, let alone spoken; the generosity flows ("No you're not going to pay for that! I am!"); the dreams manifest themselves; sincerity and honesty are spoken; healing occurs; vulnerabilities are respected; each person's individuality is cherished; pep-talks and encouragements abound; people touch each other affectionately; we share what uplifts us most about each other; we respectfully suggest ways that we can each improve; we whirl in the surf; we climb into the rainforest canopy; we build treehouses and forts; we reform corrupt governments; we inspire the downtrodden and the successful alike; we revolutionise the world!

Did you really need to ask?

And why doesn't your God come on over and tell us a thing or two? He should be doing a lot more.

Lol! Dude(ette? Some women that I know prefer dudette, and some hate being separated out, and prefer dude; maybe you don't like the word at all though) - you're the one with the God who is the source of everything! If anyone's God should be informing us, it's your God! Holy canoly...

As a direct answer to your question though: my God would love to remind His children of who He is, but the rules of the game prevent it. You see, once you enter life, you're in a test situation: the battle between good and evil, where you get to show your true colours. Just like coaches aren't allowed to communicate with players during the game, just so my God is not allowed to communicate with us during our time of testing. That's the best explanation that I've got so far. It might not be completely accurate, but I'm confident enough that I'm reasonably close. Another explanation that I consider is that our ears have been blocked by succumbing to evil.

earnest: that there are intrinsic forces that seek to impede that progress for their own ends.

Iolaus: What good is an adversary that is not a worthy adversary?

Indeed, I agree.

earnest: Well sure, there is the physical body and then there is the spiritual body.

Iolaus: And they both float in the all-pervading consciousness field of God.

I'm not sure about that. It's a little too vague for me to be able to commit either way. What is a consciousness field, in relation to the universe of physical matter and energy?

Iolaus: And murder is the ultimate interference against someone else. Remember, the use of force, violence, deception, manipulation or intimidation is what evil is.

earnest: I thought that evil was "missing the mark".

Iolaus: Well, that is sin.

Oh, of course. I'm a duffer, sorry.

It is OK to defend yourself.

Ah, OK, so by force you meant the specific type of force that is intended to advance one's own interests at the expense of another's.

Nonviolence might be a higher calling, but that is a very difficult position to take.

Indeed, I aspire to it but I'm not there yet - I have as a child physically punched people who were ticking me off, on three separate occasions - but I haven't done it in my adult life, and there's no way that I'd ever go to war, for any reason. Let the enemy occupy our lands and I'll remain a pacifist.

One of the reasons that my parents immigrated from South Africa to Australia was that at age eighteen, South African men were required to join the army for a year's service, and my parents knew that it was totally opposed to my principles. I would never have done it. I probably would have had to serve prison time.

Maybe the slow learners and dunces got dumped here for starker lessons. This does seem to a somewhat hellish planet.

Yeah, I for one feel like I'm in remedial school. Actually I feel worse than that, but again, I'm not going to go into it publicly.

Dagnabbit, Anna, how am I ever going to get any work done whilst this conversation continues??

Leyla, I've noticed your sharp tongue before but I've only recently become acquainted with your condescension. Ouch!

[Leyla Shen]

I doubt it. He made me in His image, remember? What cuts my heart cuts His heart too.

No, dear. You made him in yours.

Man did not proceed from God---God proceeded from man. Ever noticed how slippery "He" is?

[earnest_seeker]

earnest: I doubt it. He made me in His image, remember? What cuts my heart cuts His heart too.

Leyla: No, dear. You made him in yours.

Bring on that condescension, honey buns, bring it on!

Man did not proceed from God---God proceeded from man. Ever noticed how slippery "He" is?

Slipperier than the soap in the shower. And then just when bend down to pick it up...

...Leyla smacks you in the arse with a rolled up newspaper of her preconceived ideas.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, yes. I’ve always found arse rather tempting in that way.

You’re carrying on about some non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and I’m the one with preconceived ideas? What does preconceived mean to you? And what would such a God “solve” if not your anxieties?

[Leyla Shen]

And my answer to your PM (which has return msgs disabled) is: you mean, like "Sith Afrika"? :)

[earnest_seeker]

Well, yes. I’ve always found arse rather tempting in that way.

Yes, well, I'm sure that you'd find my arse particularly tempting, if you ever saw it, which you just might have...

You’re carrying on about some non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and I’m the one with preconceived ideas?

Right - I didn't get my ideas served to me on a platter full of atheism. I was an agnostic to start with.

What does preconceived mean to you?

"Having a formed opinion on something inherently empirical prior to the reception of evidence either way".

And what would such a God “solve” if not your anxieties?

Well I dunno that it solved all my anxieties but it sure is a kick-ass tune.

And my answer to your PM (which has return msgs disabled)

Oh dear, how utterly hopeless of me. Sorry Leyla, I honestly did expect that you'd be able to reply privately, but apparently in a past life I disabled PM returns.

is: you mean, like "Sith Afrika"? :)

Sorry babe, but that's not enough for me to know that you've got it. Don't say it out loud though! I need my privacy for reasons which are obviously apparent to you! PM me with the complete answer!

("But... but... but you're bleck." Lethal Weapon something-or-other, perhaps 2)

[samadhi]

I've read most of what has been written here but I haven't yet seen what would appear to be an obvious perspective, that suffering itself is an interpretation of events as opposed to an imposition of events.

Here is an example of what I mean. Carlos Castenada tells a story in which a series of events occur that to the ordinary person sound totally horrific. He then repeats the story, same events, different interpretation, that make it sound like one of the most beautiful and inspiring tales you've ever heard. It's quite remarkable how he does that and manages to be completely convincing.

Suffering is not something being imposed on anyone. An event can be either pleasant or unpleasant, and in fact any event is becoming one or the other all the time. Reading a book or just sitting and relaxing can be a very pleasant experience but if you continue to do it without interruption, over time you will soon find how the same event becomes equally unpleasant. In that sense, pleasant and unpleasant are not seperable as distinct experiences from any particular event but participate equally in all events. Thus suffering cannot simply be unpleasant experiences since there is an equally amount of enjoyment to be found in those very same experiences. People indeed are conditioned to suffer given certain experiences but it doesn't mean the suffering is in the experience. Thus any experience can be enjoyable depending on what a particular person brings to it. It's also true that given the narrowness of egoic agendas, finding enjoyment in every experience will remain a mystery to most people. Such people look to God for an explanation or vindication of their suffering. Unfortunately, they will never get a reply. Yet they have only to look within themselves to see that the answer is always at their fingertips.

[Leyla Shen]

L: You’re carrying on about some non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and I’m the one with preconceived ideas?

Biko: Right - I didn't get my ideas served to me on a platter full of atheism. I was an agnostic to start with.

And that proves what, given the below definition?

Leyla Shen wrote:What does preconceived mean to you?

Biko: "Having a formed opinion on something inherently empirical prior to the reception of evidence either way".

Either way? If I have no empirical evidence for the existence of a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent I should just assume that he exists and that would mean my ideas were not preconceived? In other words, I’m in the rather dubious position of having to prove the non-existence of something? Give yourself a shake! Your God, like DHodges and I once discussed, must be too afraid to show himself to me.

Biko: Sorry babe, but that's not enough for me to know that you've got it. Don't say it out loud though! I need my privacy for reasons which are obviously apparent to you! PM me with the complete answer!

Perhaps, “Biko,” I should call your bluff instead and keep you wondering. To me, it’s like watching a throbbing dick hide amongst a pack of bitches on heat. It’s simply much more than a feeling, babe!

[earnest_seeker]

L: You’re carrying on about some non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and I’m the one with preconceived ideas?

Biko: Right - I didn't get my ideas served to me on a platter full of atheism. I was an agnostic to start with.

L: And that proves what, given the below definition?

It doesn't prove anything, and wasn't intended to. It was simply supposed to suggest to you that I didn't start off with a preconceived idea (there definitely is no God) as you have done - I was open-minded about it, and then something happened that decided my mind. But don't ask, because I'm not going to share.

Leyla Shen wrote:What does preconceived mean to you?

Biko: "Having a formed opinion on something inherently empirical prior to the reception of evidence either way".

Leyla: Either way? If I have no empirical evidence for the existence of a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent I should just assume that he exists and that would mean my ideas were not preconceived?

Did I say that? No, I didn't, you're putting words into my mouth. It means that you should keep an open mind and take the position "I just don't know".

In other words, I’m in the rather dubious position of having to prove the non-existence of something?

I really would be a bit of a twat if I expected that of you with respect to God, wouldn't I? But I don't. All that you can do is collect evidence, which you seem to be doing when you comment that it's significant that God hasn't shown Himself to you. That's valid evidence. But it would be overturned if one day God did reveal Himself to you. Of course if you were really committed to your atheism you might rationalise it as alien beings with superior technology trying to trick you into believing in God. Personally I try to interpret evidence according to the most likely explanation, until such time as new evidence comes in to overturn my interpretation.

Give yourself a shake!

May I really? In that case I'll have a chocolate shake. You're paying, right?

Your God, like DHodges and I once discussed, must be too afraid to show himself to me.

Presumably there are reasons why He doesn't do it. I canvassed two possibilities in a previous post.

Perhaps, “Biko,” I should call your bluff instead and keep you wondering. To me, it’s like watching a throbbing dick hide amongst a pack of bitches on heat. It’s simply much more than a feeling, babe!

Haha, wonderful imagery. Of course I can't hide from you, and your tongue is as sharp as ever.

[Leyla Shen]

Did I say that? No, I didn't, you're putting words into my mouth. It means that you should keep an open mind and take the position "I just don't know".

It’s implicit in the definition, god-damnit!

If empirical evidence suggests no reason for the belief in a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, what is the meaning of pre-conceived? You should have just said I‘m not open-minded to the possibility of your God based on my experience, which would have been a factual statement.

Open-mindedness and preconception mean different things. For a start, a preconceived idea necessarily exists despite evidence for or against (its not even knowledge a-priori). Open-mindedness is simply a non-committal attitude toward evidence as evidence of any particular thing.

You see, from this, your notion that such a God cannot reveal himself to his children because of the rules of the games, is entirely a preconceived idea. Never mind the fact that you later contradict this definition of preconceived when it comes to the existence of your God as well as "His" presumed nature by alluding to the fact that he has revealed himself empirically, to some degree, to you, thus violating the rules of the game, at least in your case.

[earnest_seeker]

If empirical evidence suggests no reason for the belief in a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, what is the meaning of pre-conceived?

It's preconceived because you're denying the possibility that that evidence will ever be presented. But perhaps "preconceived" isn't entirely fair, because you do seem to consider evidence against the existence of God, such as that He doesn't reveal Himself, so how about we try "closed-minded" or "rigid" instead?

You should have just said I‘m not open-minded to the possibility of your God based on my experience, which would have been a factual statement.

You're the boss. If that's what I should have said, then consider it said.

Open-mindedness and preconception mean different things. For a start, a preconceived idea necessarily exists despite evidence for or against (its not even knowledge a-priori).

I don't agree entirely. A preconceived idea can exist even in the absence of evidence. It just means that you've formed an opinion prior to the arrival of adequate evidence. I would not call a belief held despite compelling evidence "preconceived" unless that belief had been formed prior to the arrival of the evidence. I would be more likely to call such a belief "dishonest", "misguided" or "delusional".

Open-mindedness is simply a non-committal attitude toward evidence as evidence of any particular thing.

Hmm, I wouldn't put it like that, although I see where you're coming from. Open-mindedness doesn't necessarily mean open-endedness as you seem to be implying. Once sufficient evidence comes in, then the "open" mind forms a belief, however it's willing to overturn it in the event of contradictory evidence arriving.

You see, from this, your notion that such a God cannot reveal himself to his children because of the rules of the games, is entirely a preconceived idea.

You're using "preconceived" in a manner different to the way that I'm using it. My application was to rigidly held beliefs. You have a rigidly held belief that God does not exist and you've made up your mind despite the possibility that counter-evidence will arrive. My notion that such a God cannot reveal Himself due to rules is not rigidly held, it is speculative. I suppose that you're right that in a sense it is preconceived, because I don't have sufficient evidence to "close the case", however it's not the same sense that I intended when I first applied the word to you. I haven't made up my mind, I'm just toying with possibilities.

Never mind the fact that you later contradict this definition of preconceived when it comes to the existence of your God as well as "His" presumed nature by alluding to the fact that he has revealed himself empirically, to some degree, to you, thus violating the rules of the game, at least in your case.

As I said, I'm just speculating, and it was only one of two possibilities. There are probably others. Anyhow, to directly address the contradiction: it might be that exceptions to the rules can be made in exceptional circumstances.

[Leyla Shen]

It's preconceived because you're denying the possibility that that evidence will ever be presented. But perhaps "preconceived" isn't entirely fair, because you do seem to consider evidence against the existence of God, such as that He doesn't reveal Himself, so how about we try "closed-minded" or "rigid" instead?

Well, no, not those either. How can you say such a thing without presenting the evidence against which I might be so judged? Now, of course, I have absolutely no desire to make you feel obligated to disclose your experience, but surely you get the point.

You are judging me against an experience which you choose to withhold from me.

You're the boss. If that's what I should have said, then consider it said.

That’s what you should have said because it’s the unprejudiced truth.

I don't agree entirely. A preconceived idea can exist even in the absence of evidence. It just means that you've formed an opinion prior to the arrival of adequate evidence. I would not call a belief held despite compelling evidence "preconceived" unless that belief had been formed prior to the arrival of the evidence.

Sure, which is why I didn’t use the word “compelling.”

I would be more likely to call such a belief "dishonest", "misguided" or "delusional".

So, honest people and dishonest people have beliefs and the determining factor as to the nature of those beliefs is experience. If two people hold two opposing beliefs each congruent with their own (and obviously different) experience, how can one be measured as dishonest, misguided or delusional against the other?

Hmm, I wouldn't put it like that, although I see where you're coming from. Open-mindedness doesn't necessarily mean open-endedness as you seem to be implying. Once sufficient evidence comes in, then the "open" mind forms a belief, however it's willing to overturn it in the event of contradictory evidence arriving.

Alright, here’s the big question: how, in your belief-system, does truth factor in to all of this?

[earnest_seeker]

Alright, here’s the big question: how, in your belief-system, does truth factor in to all of this?

It's absolutely key. I form beliefs based on what seems to be true based on the best evidence that I've got at the time, and I'm willing to revise my beliefs based on subsequent evidence which indicates that the truth is actually something different.

[earnest_seeker]

Carlos Castenada tells a story in which a series of events occur that to the ordinary person sound totally horrific. He then repeats the story, same events, different interpretation, that make it sound like one of the most beautiful and inspiring tales you've ever heard. It's quite remarkable how he does that and manages to be completely convincing.

I read a fair few paragraphs of what you linked us to and I didn't get that out of it. It was a story of Don Juan teaching the narrator about self-importance by comparing him with the woman, la Gorda. There didn't seem to be much suffering involved, and I didn't get far enough to see whether there was a different interpretation later.

Suffering is not something being imposed on anyone.

OK, well, then let me tie you up and drop you into a barrel of boiling water, and you can sing me songs of delight.

[Leyla Shen]

A preconceived idea can exist even in the absence of evidence. It just means that you've formed an opinion prior to the arrival of adequate evidence. I would not call a belief held despite compelling evidence "preconceived" unless that belief had been formed prior to the arrival of the evidence.

It's absolutely key. I form beliefs based on what seems to be true based on the best evidence that I've got at the time, and I'm willing to revise my beliefs based on subsequent evidence which indicates that the truth is actually something different.

Am I missing something??

In other words, all your ideas are preconceived and the ever-elusive truth has no other use or existence than to explain them away as something other than that. (Disclaimer: this is a corollary and not intended as a paraphrase or literalist interpretation.)

~

You never answered this question, which I also think is important:

So, honest people and dishonest people have beliefs and the determining factor as to the nature of those beliefs is experience. If two people hold two opposing beliefs each congruent with their own (and obviously different) experience, how can one be measured as dishonest, misguided or delusional against the other?

[Leyla Shen]

Actually, the Don Juan story was a story of the will to power through keen observation---the "true self" under adversity.

[earnest_seeker]

A preconceived idea can exist even in the absence of evidence. It just means that you've formed an opinion prior to the arrival of adequate evidence. I would not call a belief held despite compelling evidence "preconceived" unless that belief had been formed prior to the arrival of the evidence.

It's absolutely key. I form beliefs based on what seems to be true based on the best evidence that I've got at the time, and I'm willing to revise my beliefs based on subsequent evidence which indicates that the truth is actually something different.

Am I missing something??

In other words, all your ideas are preconceived and the ever-elusive truth has no other use or existence than to explain them away as something other than that. (Disclaimer: this is a corollary and not intended as a paraphrase or literalist interpretation.)

I've already written that "preconceived" might not have been the right word to convey what I was attempting to convey to you. My intention was to highlight that you had closed your mind to a valid possibility. When I first used the word "preconceived" I intended to imply a bias, which my spur-of-the-moment definition failed to capture.

So are all of my ideas "preconceived"? Not all of them. Sometimes I form ideas after a whack of empirical data strongly suggests something to me. But, by my original definition, yes, some of my ideas are preconceived. I sometimes speculate prior to finding evidence for or against. That doesn't mean that I form beliefs out of all of my ideas. Some of them remain speculations and hypotheticals. So in the sense that I try hard not to be biased in forming my beliefs, nor do I form them without what to me appears to be solid evidence, my beliefs aren't preconceived. As for my ideas, well, I don't think that it really matters that much because they're not something that I'm attached to as I am (in a limited sense - I'm willing to revise them) to my beliefs. And, yes, I know that I did use the word "idea" originally - I probably should have used the word "belief".

Let me give you an example of the difference to me between an idea and a belief, and how what I'm talking about in you applies. There's a belief (so strong that it's classed by them as "wisdom") of many on this forum, particularly its moderators, that the universe is infinite in physical extent. They have no proof of this, and the evidence that they have so far (that so far our telescopes have not detected an end to the universe; that in our experience space seems to be continuous such that one thing leads to another) is suggestive only. To me, there's a reasonably strong chance that they're right. But to me it remains that: an intriguing idea that might be right, whereas to them, it is a strong belief such that they won't countenance alternatives. That's the kind of thinking that I was trying to highlight in you: forming a strong belief about something (i.e. "that God definitely does not exist"; "that the universe is infinite in physical extent") when the possibility actually remains that something different is the case (i.e. "that God - or a being sufficiently similar to retain that title - exists"; "that the universe peters out at it's edges or wraps around on itself") and sufficient evidence has not yet been accumulated. That kind of dogmatism is rife on this forum.

Now: to give you some credit. I actually also believe that the Christian God as He is typically presented is so contradictory that it's reasonable to have the belief that He does not (could not) exist. I've made it clear why in my preceding posts to this thread (omnipotence+omnibenevolence yet suffering?!). So if in your atheism you are limiting yourself to that particular conception of God, then I don't really find fault with you after all. However, and this I think is important: many different religions have many different views of God, and a person can conjure up his/her own non-contradictory variants on the theme, so I think that it's shortsighted to claim definitively that none of them is possible, which is essentially the problem that I have with your attitude.

And you know another thing? I probably wouldn't have said anything much inflammatory in the first place had you joined the conversation with something polite like "Hey, Anna and Ernie, I really differ with you guys: I can't see the possibility that God exists at all, for the following reasons - <xyz>." But no, in typical Leyla fashion you come in with all guns blazing derision, condescension and scorn. Is it any wonder that I turned the criticism back on you?

So, honest people and dishonest people have beliefs and the determining factor as to the nature of those beliefs is experience. If two people hold two opposing beliefs each congruent with their own (and obviously different) experience, how can one be measured as dishonest, misguided or delusional against the other?

It can't, it can only be measured against the particular experiences which formed that belief.

[mansman]

I thought everone know this one.

He wants to be loved, dont you know, so how crazy is it to make us pre-program to love Him, so we MUST be free. The down side is all the unecesary suffering, but since we can stop 95% of the suffering God's conscience is clear. If he reach down all the time like superman what you think happens to the people attitude? They lose necessary responsibility, then make shity parents.

Does this explain well, Matt?