Theory that may help explain the Problem Of Evil

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Murgatroid what process do you go through to determine whether or not all the people you quote in your posts are telling the truth?

Actually I usually spend quite a bit of time checking sources like this one out.

On prophetic sources such as this, I typically I do a few different searches to determine if the person's ministry lines up with scripture, whether it lines up with what other prophets are saying, if there is a track record of failed predictions, or any connections to cults or heretical stuff.

The bottom line for me when I cite a source is do I believe it myself.

If I ever have any doubts about something I post, I will usually add a disclaimer stating so.

In this particular case, I have no doubts at all about her being legit.

I actually created the video I embedded personally and spent quite a few hours on it in fact.

I would not have done so if I had any doubts at all about the source.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

that's irrelevant.

a reply to: Prezbo369

thats part of the rule set. thats where evolution comes in. we evolve by reducing entropy and we evolve into something more resistant to, ohh idanno, diseases. and again the system has no obligation to control diseases that might rise out of evolution. the system is not controlled. it is programmed and run. not unlike a simulation. but our simulations do not have consciousness so they can not have the free will to make decisions so they can not simulate a reality like ours.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

An all knowing, all powerful god renders the notion of "free will" obsolete (not only for humans). If he set every process in place with full knowledge of every consequence and if he already knows every resulting thought and action a human will ever make, it has no possibility of being otherwise and is the antithesis of free will. Thus there can be nothing that isn't god's will, he is responsible for everything. If he doesn't know these things, he is ignorant and therefore not god. At best, god gave humans the illusion of free will.

Without god, free will is also an illusion. It is incompatible with naturalism. We are entirely the result of the forces of nature and those acting upon us at a given moment, including our neural processes and nervous system. All the result of other factors beyond our control, such as genetics and (especially early) environment.

The idea *all factors being exactly the same* that humans really have the possibility to choose other than they do, is unlikely. Free will is an illusion, as is the "I" that we identify with and think is in control. The Libet experiments and refinements of it since, all point to this. While nothing supports the opposite apart from our belief (which is after all, how illusions work).

It seems a successful illusion from an evolutionary pov though, given our propensity to form communities which has allowed us to dominate the planet.

We have no choice but to live and base our societies on the notion that genuine free will exists and it has been very successful. That it doesn't exist in the folkloric/religious sense doesn't remove accountability and there are also inbuilt "self correcting" mechanisms that allow for learning/change (we can create rudimentary versions of this in computers) and incentives/deterrents that can have an effect but, we are in reality very complex automatons of nature who have the illusion of genuine free will.

The idea put forward by some scientists (Kaku) that randomness in the quantum world allows for humans to make free will choices, is a bit silly. Randomness is not free will and would make it less likely (and no relevance to the brain processes has been demonstrated outside of pseudo science). Ultimately, everything about the bacterial colonies, viruses and cells that we think of as "us"...including our psyche, not only derive from forces outside of our imagined will, but are responsible for it (or the illusion of it).

Or, to put it another way.

Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.

Arthur Schopenhauer

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
That it doesn't exist in the folkloric/religious sense doesn't remove accountability and there are also inbuilt "self correcting" mechanisms that allow for learning/change (we can create rudimentary versions of this in computers) and incentives/deterrents that can have an effect but, we are in reality very complex automatons of nature who have the illusion of genuine free will.

I follow you until here. Religiously speaking how can we Not have free will yet still be accountable for our choices at the same time???

a reply to: chr0naut

So can you prove that there are morals that are absolute? Because I cannot think of any. Including murder.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i was talking about good why assume evil, unless you are intent on defending evil.

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

i was talking about good why assume evil, unless you are intent on defending evil.

I dunno, maybe because the thread is about evil and you didn't elaborate much on what you meant besides that one line post claiming you witnessed it.

Besides, I'm not defending evil. I'm trying to identify it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

These arguments are not easily refuted

That's just total BS, right there. The Bible refutes this argument in the
very first chapter. But atheists believe they have some kind of,
redundant toy with this line of questioning, even tho the answer is a
well known part of scripture. That gives them comfort and reassurance that their
view is valid. And confirms for believers that not only do atheists not want to
hear the truth. But that they are incapable of hearing it. As God has also told
us. So the question rehearses ingnorance and even more so if we try to answer it.

Let the atheists be atheist. Let them think they know it all. They have chosen
to believe a lie. So of course the truth can't be heard.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Dark Ghost

These arguments are not easily refuted

That's just total BS, right there. The Bible refutes this argument in the
very first chapter. But atheists believe they have some kind of,
redundant toy with this line of questioning, even tho the answer is a
well known part of scripture. That gives them comfort and reassurance that their
view is valid. And confirms for believers that not only do atheists not want to
hear the truth. But that they are incapable of hearing it. As God has also told
us. So the question rehearses ingnorance and even more so if we try to answer it.

Let the atheists be atheist. Let them think they know it all. They have chosen
to believe a lie. So of course the truth can't be heard.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? - Epicurus

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
That it doesn't exist in the folkloric/religious sense doesn't remove accountability and there are also inbuilt "self correcting" mechanisms that allow for learning/change (we can create rudimentary versions of this in computers) and incentives/deterrents that can have an effect but, we are in reality very complex automatons of nature who have the illusion of genuine free will.

I follow you until here. Religiously speaking how can we Not have free will yet still be accountable for our choices at the same time???

Wasn't speaking "religiously". From a religious pov, you would have to ask someone else. Seems unlikely they would give up on their cherished belief that god gave them free will to begin with.

Whatever choices you make, are still your choices. They emanate from you, no one else, even if they are the result of a chain of natural processes that began with the big bang.

Knowing that what people are is not so much a choice but an accident of birth/genetics and circumstances allows for understanding the how and why, rather than notions of evil, burning in a lake of fire forever etc.

Neuroscience has the potential to ease more suffering than probably any other branch of science as it begins to unravel the real workings of the mind and brain. If you think you have free will, where do your thoughts arise from and how? Science is gradually showing us that the part that people think makes conscious choices, doesn't really. It's an illusion. No more than it makes the choice that the heart should beat every second or so. Something entirely different and counter intuitive seems to be happening.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Neuroscience has the potential to ease more suffering than probably any other branch of science as it begins to unravel the real workings of the mind and brain. If you think you have free will, where do your thoughts arise from and how? Science is gradually showing us that the part that people think makes conscious choices, doesn't really. It's an illusion. No more than it makes the choice that the heart should beat every second or so. Something entirely different and counter intuitive seems to be happening.

maybe we are being conditioned to make decisions without being consciously aware of them, such as the decision to surrender our right to make decisions. would we know if we gave up our essential liberties? i just read a piece concerning the wachowskis matrix trilogy - more precisely, the conversation between neo and the architect. a fascinating dissertation on how our freedom to choose can be exploited to nudge us in the opposite direction, freedom from choice.

a reply to: randyvs

But the biblical scripture isn't a credible source when trying to answer such questions. When this type of question comes up it just falls back on bs answers like "god works in mysterous ways" or " never question gods authority".

How is it atheists think "they know it all" when they are the ones actually asking such questions while the religious cling to their book and claim to have the answer like you are doing now? To me that seems like it's the religious who seem to think they know it all.

a reply to: randyvs

But the biblical scripture isn't a credible source when trying to answer such questions. When this type of question comes up it just falls back on bs answers like "god works in mysterous ways" or " never question gods authority".

How is it atheists think "they know it all" when they are the ones actually asking such questions while the religious cling to their book and claim to have the answer like you are doing now? To me that seems like it's the religious who seem to think they know it all.

a reply to: mOjOm

FYI: the author of the book DOES in fact know it all.

So you actually believe that He is no longer a credible source?

Hmmm, I would love to be a fly on the wall when He responds to your remark...

In spite of the fact that many religious people do cling to his book, he is not religious.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: mOjOm

So you actually believe that He is no longer a credible source?

Yes.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

FYI: the author of the book DOES in fact know it all.

So you actually believe that He is no longer a credible source?

Hmmm, I would love to be a fly on the wall when He responds to your remark...

In spite of the fact that many religious people do cling to his book, he is not religious.

FYI, God didn't author anything, men did and even they don't give him credit for authoring it, only inspiring it.

I'm questioning whether he was ever a credible source or even a source at all.

Why be a fly all sneaky about listening in??? It's not like I'm hiding anything. I'll give you front row seats if you want. But since I have yet to get an answer at all after asking for them over years of my life I don't see it happening so don't hold your breath. Tell ya what, since you seem to be in so good with the big guy why don't you ask him to give me a ring sometime.

Well he sure must like the idea of it then since him and his buddies are what they were all rooted in. He seems to also enjoy the chaos and confusion they all cause as well.

This is probably too simplistic or, God or Otherwise forbid, too narcissistic a question, but everyone seems to argue over what someone else wrote, or maybe wrote, or perhaps inspired, or they argue over someone else's arguments. Granted, I haven't read the gazillion posts, but there seems to be an absence of any one sharing a personal opinion based on personal experience. I'm thinking it's because it's just that: personal. I'm referring here specifically to the struggle of free will, since this is at the hub of most of the arguments, unless I'm reading this post incorrectly. If so, my apologies.

It's just that a post will sound interesting as it is originally posted, and it seems the author of the post is looking to explore a topic, or a nuance of a topic, and at the blink of an eye, everyone is arguing, or worse, insulting or criticizing. There are other posts about how quality has gone down and I'm thinking this could be an example of it?

I don't know if anyone can "squint their ears" to hear me, but it seems to me that if people who participate on ATS did more sharing of personal experiences, there might be a closer understanding and a more adult discussion rather than so much dart throwing. I've witnessed this on subjects where that happened. There may be a bit of sarcasm but this doesn't become the goal.

Anyway, I appreciate the comments. I just wish they would be more civil. Maybe it's just a sign of the times. Sigh.

originally posted by: mOjOm
since you seem to be in so good with the big guy why don't you ask him to give me a ring sometime.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that just maybe you're asking the wrong questions?

I did that for several years without ever getting an answer.

Several years ago I lost my wife and my son.

As a result my mind snapped and I could barely function for months.

I loved them both DEARLY and it was almost unbearable for me to handle.

For several years I asked God why over and over and over but I never got an answer.

A few years ago I was visiting a church that I had never been to before and at the end of the meeting people went to the front for prayer.

I went to the front and a couple started praying for me.

After a minute or so the man says to me: "quit asking why".

I knew right then and there that I had no business asking God that question ever again.

I have had to bite my lip many times since then to fight the urge to ask that same question.

I still don't know why, my heart still breaks every time I see a woman on the street that reminds me of her.

If you really wanted to hear from God why are you dragging his name through the mud publicly?

If you wanted to get struck by lightning that just MIGHT be a good strategy but telling the world that he has no credibility...

Ummm.... no, I'm not seeing the logic there at all.

And just in case you're wondering whether or not the "big guy" is even real at all or if he could care less about "giving you a ring"...

In 1979 I learned the answer to both of those questions when He paid me a personal visit in Fallbrook CA.

I can assure you that if you ever have an experience like I did, you will never again question his credibility.

originally posted by: [post=20361052]Murgatroid[/post

Have you ever thought about the possibility that just maybe you're asking the wrong questions?

No. I didn't realize there were such restrictions on asking questions. That just makes one more question in fact. ie: "Why are there restrictions on questions???"

Several years ago I lost my wife and my son.

I'm sorry to hear that. That must be rough to go through that.

After a minute or so the man says to me: "quit asking why".

Doesn't seem like something a Loving God would say to me.

If you really wanted to hear from God why are you dragging his name through the mud publicly?

I'm not. I'm questioning the things that others do in his name and question his existence. But I do so honestly and directly.

And just in case you're wondering whether or not the "big guy" is even real at all or if he could care less about "giving you a ring"...

In 1979 I learned the answer to both of those questions when He paid me a personal visit in Fallbrook CA.

I can assure you that if you ever have an experience like I did, you will never again question his credibility.

That is exactly what I'm wondering.

I don't want or need such a drastic answer. In fact I'd rather it be something without trauma. I see no reason to go to such lengths to simply let us know who and what he is if he's there. Not when you consider the power he's supposed to wield.