Theory that may help explain the Problem Of Evil

a reply to: randyvs

I think most of them are. I mean most people believe in something they can't prove. At the very least they leave that option open. Very few people are the hard line non believers. I think most simply reject the God described by most religions and form their own version. Others just leave it as undecided but believe in something universal or come cosmic energy or force.

I think the important thing is not viewing someone in a negative way just because they don't believe what others believe or believe something different. We all have our reasons for what we think and believe and it's good to discuss those to better understand each others perspective on things just as long as none of us take ourselves too seriously. Which is why I'm against both militant believers and militant non believers. They both are too pushy when it comes to what it is they believe is correct.

Some people do have strange and illogical beliefs too which make it hard not to argue against them. But it's always good to know when to back off.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: randyvs

I think most of them are. I mean most people believe in something they can't prove. At the very least they leave that option open. Very few people are the hard line non believers. I think most simply reject the God described by most religions and form their own version. Others just leave it as undecided but believe in something universal or come cosmic energy or force.

I think the important thing is not viewing someone in a negative way just because they don't believe what others believe or believe something different. We all have our reasons for what we think and believe and it's good to discuss those to better understand each others perspective on things just as long as none of us take ourselves too seriously. Which is why I'm against both militant believers and militant non believers. They both are too pushy when it comes to what it is they believe is correct.

Some people do have strange and illogical beliefs too which make it hard not to argue against them. But it's always good to know when to back off.

How is it you are capable of such an excellent post?
And at the same time it's like crossing death valley
to drag it out of you? That's what I'm wondering
right now. Any way I wish I would of said that.
And if you don't mind, I'll ask your permission to
put that in my quotes?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well, obviously not. We do have some clever adaptations and skills which make us very good at survival. What we lack in physical ability we easily make up for in creativity, planning and teamwork.

The Simian Ape should have evolved at the same pace; "we do have some clever adaptations and skills"; NOT. Those were given through DNA manipulation by others to accelerate the human specie.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Those were given through DNA manipulation by others to accelerate the human specie.

Ok, that's fine if that is your stance on it. I will accept evidence for that theory like any other. Do you have some solid evidence to support it though??

As in positive evidence showing it, or how it happened or who the others were or whatever?? Not just pointing to all the area's where we don't know something and then inserting your theory because nothing else is there yet. I mean something showing that DNA manipulation from an outside source is what happened.

originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: Those were given through DNA manipulation by others to accelerate the human specie.

mOjOm: Ok, that's fine if that is your stance on it. I will accept evidence for that theory like any other. Do you have some solid evidence to support it though??

COMMON SENSE.

mOjOm: As in positive evidence showing it, or how it happened or who the others were or whatever?? Not just pointing to all the area's where we don't know something and then inserting your theory because nothing else is there yet. I mean something showing that DNA manipulation from an outside source is what happened.

COMMON SENSE (it all happened too fast and furious) to explain away the very slow slogging footsteps of evolutionary progress. Hundreds of millions of years growth; in the primordial electrified mud that within 3 million years produced an operating/fully functioning human being that had self awareness (no other mammal on this planet possesses this gift). Why did the shark (350 million years on this planet) not evolve into a higher specie (because it was perfect as it existed)? NO. It was not destined to rule this planet.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

That's hardly common sense. Even if it was, common sense isn't proof or evidence of anything. Common sense is often wrong as well. Which is why I ask for something to back that up.

Even then, it doesn't remove the question of where the other intelligent life form came from that changed our DNA. We're right back where we started from again only now with some other alleged being that we have even less information on than ourselves.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: vethumanbeing

That's hardly common sense. Even if it was, common sense isn't proof or evidence of anything. Common sense is often wrong as well. Which is why I ask for something to back that up. Even then, it doesn't remove the question of where the other intelligent life form came from that changed our DNA. We're right back where we started from again only now with some other alleged being that we have even less information on than ourselves.

Demi-Gods that have fooled the human for eons; pretending to be the Absolute Unbounded Oneness as described by (The Self Aware Universe).

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

So atheists that don't share your view, look pathetic and stupid lol? Well done Randy.

Cog, you try'n to throw me off kilter by put'n me on the defense?

Did I make that sound as if I meant all atheists? Yes I did but
that's not what I meant and you know it.

W?E

Fair enough Randy. It did seem a bit out of character, so perhaps it was misconstrued. Apologies if so.

What can be more amazing is not so much how people could be so "stupid" where beliefs are concerned, but often quite the opposite, how people who are obviously intelligent in just about every other way could hold certain (seemingly) weird beliefs.

As a more extreme example, the people who followed (and some who still do) Marshall Applewhite and his Heaven's Gate teachings. There would be few more seemingly weird beliefs, yet it appears that the people themselves were/are just normal everyday people. It can be very misleading characterising someone on their beliefs alone, it seems no one from Ph.D to outhouse cleaners are immune. Though you probably realise this as much as anyone.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

With testimonies like the one above, how obviously fool hardy
would anyone be to paint with a wide brush right?
i know right?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Imagine for a moment that God does exist and that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. These attributes would render any action pointless as everything that can be predicted and created would be before they even come into existence. Basically, God would just exist and that would be everything. Rather boring hey? But what if there was a way where not everything could be predicted, and the act of creation could be productive and inspiring?

The problems with a god of this type from just about any standpoint are immense and make it a logical impossibility. Not that something (whatever you wish to call it) doesn't exist, only that it is beyond all human based logic, if it does. How much randomness, or unpredictability is really known to exist in our universe? It seems there is randomness at the quantum level, yet unclear as yet how or if this affects the physical world. Genetic mutations (evolution) seem to be random as far as we know.

Although atheist themselves usually shun this notion, no one has as yet demonstrated that humans genuinely have the ability of free choice to begin with. There is much that points toward the opposite. Libet was so horrified by his initial experiments that instead of "free will" he offered (along with many neuroscientists and philosophers since) the notion of "free won't" ie. that humans had within their consciousness the free choice to "veto" whatever the mind threw at them. Further and far more sophisticated experiments since (in terms of technology/ accuracy) make this seem unlikely, it looks like the conscious part that takes credit for such things, is an illusory trick of the brain.

This has been offered by many in the past, notably Einstein, who claimed that with enough knowledge every thought and action a human could make would be the result of the principles and forces of nature alone, with a string of natural causes going back to the big bang itself and, ultimately, predictable. Not ruling out the ability of choice, but certainly ruling out the notion that it is free in any way. Though his strict determinism was wrong (metaphorical god does appear to play dice) this doesn't defeat his overall point. It seems to reinforce it by throwing some possible randomness into the equation.

There doesn't appear any way to reconcile this from a naturalistic, or science pov. Not without crediting the mind with some magical abilities or substance, that can create thoughts without a naturalistic cause.

Thus the view of many that the "consciousness" is something separate or independent of the natural processes of the brain and "mystical" or the religious view of the "soul" etc.

Many neuroscientists are now agreeing in certain ways with something Buddha taught 2,500 years or so ago. The part that people usually consider as the "self" is an illusion.

There seems to be two mainly opposing views and thus ways of viewing your proposal. Those who view the world and try to understand it rationally, or in a scientific way, are far more likely to be atheists and obviously find the religious moralistic view as largely irrelevant.

Those who give more importance to their inner world, personal experience and intuition are more likely to believe. Inner experience can be a powerful thing.

Not saying one is right, but it's fascinating and there might be far more to such things than the usual considerations.

Dark Ghost[/post]In order to achieve such a result, God would have to create a reality where his capabilities were somewhat suppressed. In other words, he would have to sacrifice a portion of his power so that he would be unable to predict things. Maybe that is what has happened on our planet. Quite simply, in this physical existence, God cannot interfere with anything he has created. When it comes to explaining evil in our current existence, it seems God really did create a rock that was so big he was unable to lift it!

This makes more sense. Yet whichever way you look at it, you are no longer talking about "god". You are talking about a being with limited power (and knowledge if you ponder it). The difference between god and humans would then simply be quibbling over an amount. In a universe that seems infinite, a god who is less than infinite in some ways is not god in any traditional sense.

Would you entertain such a theory?

If it could be supported in some way.

At this stage the simplest "occam's razor" answer would be that there is no reason to suppose such a god exists to begin with (apart from personal belief).

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

With testimonies like the one above, how obviously fool hardy
would anyone be to paint with a wide brush right?
i know right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Yes, part of the problem with human theology is that humans tend to think we are more important in the universe than we really are. Over 99% of the universe will kill us and we've existed within far less than 1% of the total timespan of the universe. Even among geocentric timespans here on earth, we are still pretty insignificant. The dinosaurs have us beat by a LONG shot, for one. Heck, we aren't even the most populous species on the planet. Ants got us beat there.

Thus, it is unlikely that human actions can be largely viewed as evil or good since we don't really amount to much. A deity would probably blink and several millennia will have passed here.

What i want to know, is why the nearest primates to humans (just a couple percent different in DNA), some of whom pass the mirror test and are thus "self-aware", and who have been observed to rape, kill, use simple tools, etc.

And dolphins.. have passed the mirror test.. have been observed to rape, kill their own species, torture other species, etc.

These species are apparently "off the hook" in terms of "sin" and "Judgement by a Deity" (no human holy book has ever stated they will be "judged", and humans are the "height of creation" you know.

But that 1.6% of difference in DNA (in the case of chimps) puts Humans at the Center of the Universe with a big red target on their backs.. due to a few mutated chromosomes caused by cosmic rays hitting a common ancestor of humans and other primates.

These very simple facts make most religious moral arguments silly on their face.. unless the "creator" is a horrid specist, that sends a few cosmic rays to create a new species, purely for the purpose of damning them.. while letting other fully aware species with deplorable behavior completely off the hook, though they commit the same deplorable acts as humans do.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Funnily enough, literally EVERY action that humans do that we consider to be a "sin" can be seen in the wild. Slavery, ants do it. Warfare, ants again. Well actually any hive species will wage war. Like you pointed out with chimps and dolphins, they rape. Heck dolphins have been known to engage in bestiality and rape humans. Cannibalism exists within a wide range of different species. Incest happens between species with low survival numbers. Theft is seen by raccoon, birds, and any other animal that enjoys shiny things. So throw in greed there too. Heck apes have been known to setup social hierarchies, so classism exists. We all know that homosexuality exists in the wild. Chimps will even murder other chimps.

Why humans think they are above animals is beyond me. Every thing we do for pleasure or pain is reflected in the wild. We are just animals. We've spent the entire length of civilization pretending we aren't, but all the evidence just says that it is true. The sooner we accept that, the sooner things will start to change for the better. I'd bet we'd treat our world a bit better then at least.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, indeed.

Humans have quite the imagination, and it has turned toxic. This toxic imagination has caused humans to create ridiculous, nightmarish systems they attempt to use to justify their actions and quell cognitive dissonance. So as a result of this toxic imagination, the entire world---ecosystem and other species---is made to suffer needlessly.

In particular, our bloated egos, made that way because we are the apex predators, have gotten the notion that we are too important to die, that death is unthinkable. Of course we were all "dead" for untold billions of years before we were born, and suffering not the tiniest discomfort (Mark Twain).

As you have properly described..there is no "problem of evil"...humans feel picked on, because they are destroying everything, and that happens to be inconvenient for them and their toxic imaginations.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yea, we need to abandon the paradigm of evil and good. There is only reasonable actions and unreasonable actions. Is it reasonable to destroy your environment for a modicum of comfort? No. Is it reasonable to enslave whole groups of people? No. The difference though is that we don't get hung up on absolutes of things that we can and cannot do. Every action gets considered from a logical standpoint and we determine there and then the most reasonable and unreasonable actions to proceed with.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, indeed. But humans are only partly logical. The neocortex of humans is a (as indicated by the name itself) a newish thing and needs further development.

Look at me.

I speak quite a lot like an atheist. I know many sciences. But in fact, I spend half my time discussing obscure biological processes and so-called "high strangeness". I may view these things as "unknown physics" but others view them as "spirituality" and "Religion". I'm just trying to deconstruct it all. But I too have "irrational woo" all over me.

Humans have both "rational" and um... "creative" parts present in them, and we need to come to grips with both parts of our natures without destroying everything. And of course we are minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well I'm not trying to turn us all into Vulcans or anything. We just need to stop jumping to conclusions and assuming things with little to no evidence. There is nothing wrong with saying that maybe there is something out there that we label as spiritual, but with that expression you are admitting your ignorance to what it is exactly. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest of you to describe it any further.

This is the problem I have with ufology. UFO's exist with 100% accuracy. That's because anything that is flying and isn't identified is a UFO. It's when you start putting labels like "alien" or "extraterrestrial" that we start to have problems. That is jumping to a conclusion in lieu of evidence and is intellectually dishonest. Now if you WANT to do that, it is fine. You just have to be able to accept that you are wrong if evidence comes forward that says you are. The problem is that humans are notoriously bad at doing that. You really have to practice admitting wrong hood to get good at it. So often it is best just not to jump to those conclusions to begin with. Nothing is wrong with saying, "I don't know."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't disagree.

But somebody has to be "brave" and risk hecklers if certain borders around the unknown are to be pushed back.

But the problem is, that most people who research the strange stuff never bother to learn any science or the scientific method.

"Real" scientists don't tend to study such stuff for reasons of reputation. There aren't many Jacques Ballers or Dean Radin in the world, and even these gentlemen struggle with selection bias (i've met both of them).

So in general it would be healthier if most people learned to be more rational...but the "unknown" pulls on all of us.

As far as "spiritual" I've always disliked that word due to its etymology and cultural history...its connotated with the worst twaddle.

But I use it reluctantly, as saying "potentially psychoactive electromagnetic processes which interact with the sodium gates on the neuronal level probably due to virtual photon casmiri type effects in conjunction with Benjamin Lubet unconscious processing and conscious paredolia and confabulation as related to phenotypical memetic correspondences interpreted as a archetypical mind as it correlates to mid Neolithic cultural practices is quite a mouthful.

So I put "spiritual" and other hokum words in quotes and use it anyway.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't disagree.

But somebody has to be "brave" and risk hecklers if certain borders around the unknown are to be pushed back.

But the problem is, that most people who research the strange stuff never bother to learn any science or the scientific method.

"Real" scientists don't tend to study such stuff for reasons of reputation. There aren't many Jacques Ballers or Dean Radin in the world, and even these gentlemen struggle with selection bias (i've met both of them).

So in general it would be healthier if most people learned to be more rational...but the "unknown" pulls on all of us.

As far as "spiritual" I've always disliked that word due to its etymology and cultural history...its connotated with the worst twaddle.

But I use it reluctantly, as saying "potentially psychoactive electromagnetic processes which interact with the sodium gates on the neuronal level probably due to virtual photon casmiri type effects in conjunction with Benjamin Lubet unconscious processing and conscious paredolia and confabulation as related to phenotypical memetic correspondences interpreted as a archetypical mind as it correlates to mid Neolithic cultural practices is quite a mouthful.

So I put "spiritual" and other hokum words in quotes and use it anyway.

Kev

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with jumping to these conclusions. You just have to be ready to admit you are wrong if proven so.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

potentially psychoactive electromagnetic processes which interact with the sodium gates on the neuronal level probably due to virtual photon casmiri type effects in conjunction with Benjamin Lubet unconscious processing and conscious paredolia and confabulation as related to phenotypical memetic correspondences interpreted as a archetypical mind as it correlates to mid Neolithic cultural practices is quite a mouthful.

Huh?

Just kidding. Interesting dialog between you two.