Thank you for all the great discussion on the previous thread. I couldn't get back to comment before it closed so here's a continuation. Again, your comments on my thinking are encouraged - see if I've thought things through logically or I'm missing something. And things are a bit jumbled because my brain keeps going off on tangents of mormon theology...

MJ said: God created the universe that allowed for the creation of evil. An all powerful, PERFECT god, should have been able to construct a PERFECT universe free of suffering and evil but did not. So, either god made a mistake, thus not a perfect god, or god intended there be suffering and evil. So, basically god is either not really a perfect god or god deliberately designed to universe to have suffering and evil.


condensed:

option 1) god made imperfect / evil in the world so he's not all-powerful

option 2) god intended evil in the world so he's not all-loving therefore he's a 'bad' god

further implications:

1) if god couldn't accomplish his purposes without satan's efforts, then god is not all-powerful

2) if god created satan then he created what he knew would be evil therefore god created evil (same as option 2 listed above, but a different way of thinking of it, plus it has further ramifications)

3) if god did not create evil, only organized everything, then evil was always present and the atonement was never needed. In fact, if there was a war in heaven, then obviously there was evil in heaven, in Heavenly Father's presence. The theology of an atonement pre-supposes that HF and evil cannot exist in same sphere, but obviously they did; war in heaven. To say that evil and HF existed in separate spheres would negate the idea that god is omnipresent - can be everywhere.

Wow. The mormon god really can't be omnipresent because he removed himself from Jesus on the cross.

(Heaven wouldn't be heaven if Heavenly Father weren't there - argument for apologist who would say we weren't in HF's presence so evil could exist.)

(JS taught in the King Follet sermon that our spirits were co-eternal - or something like that - and could not be created, only organized [hey, does that sound like god unionized all the spirits?])

On another tangent: can there be agency for man if god is all-knowing and knows what each of us will do in every choice, or is everything pre-determined?

Give me the mormon answer please, and then give me a logical, well-thought out answer so I can see the difference!

Omnipotence is usually considered to exclude things that entail logical contradictions. Having God create beings with free will for whom it is impossible to choose evil is just another type of logical contradiction. Its like being upset at God that he cannot make a square circle. The book The Doors of the Sea by David Hart has a good discussion of the problem of evil.

As far as God knowing everything, including our actions, God's relationship to time is usually considered to be different than ours. All moments are equally present to the creator God who exists outside of time. God isn't embedded in the space-time continuum like we are.

Of course all of this would apply to the God of traditional theism, not the Mormon version of God.

<<Having God create beings with free will for whom it is impossible to choose evil is just another type of logical contradiction.>>

Didn't he create jesus? Didn't jesus have free will and never chose evil?

If your response is that jesus always existed as a separate entity from the omnipotent god (father) who created the universe you're a kolobian.

If you agree that jesus was created in mary's womb and worshiped god alongside his jewish brethren, then you admit god can create a being with free will who never sins.

I think that your issue here is that you are trying to impose our restrictions on an unrestricted being. Understanding that Mormon God is by definition not any of the omni's, Christian God is. No matter the silly comparison, Christian God can make a square circle because He is God. Christian God is not bound by logic, He is bound by nothing, and that is the real problem of evil.

Mormons on the other hand try to create a god that is bound by logic, which creates a different kind of logical mind fuck.

There are really only 3 options for god:
1. One who had the power & the reliability to provide you with the outcome you desire (like eternal life, or 72 virgins, or whatever)
2. One who had the power to harm you, unless you do what it wants (more Greek style)
3. One who accidentally made us, or doesn't really care about us (a non-personal god)

These would affect our behaviors thusly:
1. We'd have to have proof that he can & will in order for us to cater to him
2. We'd definitely see evidence, & we'd cower & make sure we didn't incur his wrath
3. It wouldn't matter at all

So sure, god definitions can vary, but the phrase "Then why call him God?" still applies to OUR logic/restrictions, else we'd have no reason to bother with that being at all.

Any definition of god where he is an unrestricted being, means that he is not reliable/predictable, and therefore not worthy of praise/worship (since it isn't guaranteed to benefit us in any way).

I personally do not think there is a god, but even if there were, I have seen/studied enough to believe that the only option for one would be #3.

I do think that in a discussion about God the father of Jesus, it is important to understand that Mormon God is not the same as Christian God. I agree with this statement "Any definition of god where he is an unrestricted being, means that he is not reliable/predictable, and therefore not worthy of praise/worship (since it isn't guaranteed to benefit us in any way).", but I also stand by my statement that Christian God is unrestricted. I think they are perfectly compatible positions since Christian God is not reliable or predictable.

Mormon God on the other hand is bound, Mormon God is a god by consent. He has no power unless it is assigned to Him by the creation that He organized. Remember that the dust of the earth follows His command because they love Him so much.

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

gotta love those Greek philosophers.

It does make me sad though to see how much we've back-slid in wisdom/study. I know we have philosophers too, but the fact that we are constantly re-learning things that people figured out millennia ago & we just wont accept is a bit disheartening.

Sadly, that's what we get for being fed religion all our lives instead of philosophy.

Religion truly has "all the answers" and philosophy has "all the questions".

Grrr. The church and it's "don't question" attitude makes me so angry now. They say to only question with the intent to increase your faith. That's not questioning at all - that's just wondering if there's a bigger keg (instead of a cup) with which to suck back the koolaid.

Religion truly does hold back humanity when viewed in that light (and in the scientific realm).

Okay, about the statement that there is no free will without evil: why does evil even have to be a choice? Free will doesn't need to mean choosing between good and evil. Evil comes from greed, pain, suffering and abnormalities in the brain.

If those things didn't exist then evil wouldn't have either.

We could still have plenty of freedom to choose what we want to do. If evil didn't exist then there would be no desire to choose it. And I'm only speaking of true evil, not what some religions think of as sin.

Ok, sure... but that's like saying the North Koreans are free to choose between 3 colors of Our Dear Leader Tongue Scrapers.

I give my children choices like that all the time. I say, "Do you want an apple or a banana?" Eventually they get smart enough to say "I want a cookie," which I usually deny. So they aren't free.

So either you are saying that there would have to be a god capable of preventing us from choosing things (omnipotent would fit that definition) & also that he would have to restrict us from ever fathoming such things.

Restricting someone from thinking can NEVER be defined as freedom.

This past summer I had a conversation with someone about evil. He being a TBM, subscribed to the self mutilation theory (choosing evil, or having evil harm you, is a path to enlightment). I asked him if he believed that God needed evil to be God. He of course answered no, to which I asked, than why do we need evil to become a god? All I got was a blank stare.

really, no "agency requires choice" and "opposition in all things" shpeel? wow.

I like the slugworth mormons that think Satan is just an actor in this scheme pretending to be bad, when really we just misunderstand "evil" because we are mortal and tie evil to things of this earth, & not eternal things... but when we are resurrected we'll see that Satan was just just being "good" by allowing us the chance to prove ourselves, all guided carefully by Elohim.

haha... they are the fun ones to chat with, because there are no boundaries. They can make up whatever they want regardless of scripture/doctrine, because that scripture/doctrine is finite & ends with this temporal earth, surrendering to the higher law of eternity.

It's definitely an interesting mind game to talk to them (they are more NOM-ish)

So I keep coming back to this dichotomy:

If god pre-existed evil, then he created evil, therefore he is not all-good (or even malevolent)

Or

evil pre-existed god and he became god co-existing with evil and through opposition & choice. Therefore god can exist in the presence of evil and an atonement is not needed. (We are told god cannot abide with anything unclean, thus the atonement.) Essentially, god in this scenario is better than his surroundings and overcame them, so he should be able to love and forgive without an atonement or punishment.

Or

allowing choice and opposition brings about evil as a by-product and the atonement is a band-aid solution?

My mind is going in pretzels over this one...

While I disagree with what I'm about to say, I think it is a counter-argument worth evaluating.

"Evil" had no need for creation in Mormonism, because it was an inherent attribute of Intelligences, which pre-existed all gods.

Just as "love" is not a tangible thing in need of creation, but is simply how 1 intelligence (embodied in a soul) perceives another, so too is "evil" just malice from 1 intelligence to another.

...I think in main-stream christianity your argument holds more water, because God is singular & people didn't have any pre-existing attributes.

justrob: so in that premise, is evil an inherent attribute of god also?

yes, it would be.
It would be the ability to choose evil, & that he somehow overcame that desire & therefore became god... but I think it is a weak/futile argument, since the whole "intelligence" think is super vague with almost no surrounding doctrine.

Why does opposition have to = evil?

Linguistics.
Evil is an antonym of Good
Opposition stems from "opposite"

So if you have a "good god" then an opposition must have some sort of "evil" or "bad"

This is the same argument for "Why is this thing called a 'table'? And that one a 'chair'? Couldn't we switch the two?"

& the answer is that semantics only matter in-as-much as they can convey a point. The word evil has no intrinsic meaning, but we have culturally defined it as the opposite of good, and attribute all malicious actions to that word.

I do not wholly agree with the premises. Let me explain a little. First, the concept of good and evil is essential to explain why everything is not perfect. The knowledge of there being good and evil is essential to accepting that we need to strive for the good. The good is the goal to strive for. God need not be all-knowing as to what decisions we make or actions we take. I have always rebelled at the concept that God knows what we are going to think before we think it. While God is all-powerful, it is not necessary to continually use that power or we would learn nothing and would never understand good and evil. That God does not always act is confirmed by the obvious conclusion that not all prayers are answered.

Does the fact that some prayers - righteous prayers even - are not answered mean that God is malevolent? I would submit that it does not. Rather, for man to progress requires acceptance of adversity whether caused by natural events, by the actions of other people, or by the natural consequences of one's own actions.

It is intuitively obvious that none of us is perfect and that we all make mistakes whether by inadvertance or intent. For those things on which we act worongly, we know that we deserve some sort of punishment. The concept of a forgiving God is necessary to avoid the depressive results of our actions beyond the obvious natural consequences. In short, the thesis that God must be all-knowing or that a "good" God must interfere in all human affairs is not correct.

To believe that since God's creation is imperfect that He must of intended is so is is just one assumption. I could also say that the creation is imperfect because God is imperfect. Or I could just say that imperfection is a result of highly unorganized and random events that have resulted in our current state of being.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2012 12:27PM by jacob.

the "depressive results" only stem from a previously imposed belief in god/pre-defined-morality.

Natural consequences are completely enough.

When a kid hits another kid, & then gets hit back, he cries.
But he only feels lasting guilt if it has been nurtured into him.

I know this gets to the man's-soul vs animal's-soul debate, but you can see this in Apes. They hurt each other, someone comes out as the alpha, & the other one goes away in pain. Neither feels guilty. They just acted & reacted & consequences occurred.

Forgiveness is unnecessary without guilt.
Guilt is a result of god.
So you cannot say "God must exist to absolve us of our guilt" without using circular logic.

justrob, nicely put!

Guilt is a universal human phenomenon. We call people who feel no conscious guilt sociopaths, but everyone feels existential guilt whether or not they have a moral conscience. Regardless of religion or lack of one, most people have a morality chip that assigns guilt when they do anything to harm another, or avoid something that could help another. On an existential level, even atheists (e.g., existential psychologist Irvin Yalom) feel guilt at having evaded a commitment, having chosen NOT to choose, or realizing they're not what they might have become. For spiritually-centered people, guilt comes from the sense that every physical, emotional, or even mental form they customarily identify with is a "false predication" of what they really ARE: pure spirit.

It is said that any bodily identification entails guilt, for that includes identification as an ego, or separate self. That embedded guilt eventually KILLS us: no matter how swimmingly one's life has flowed, the falsely-identified forms break down and die. Find one person or creature that doesn't die, and maybe that one has no such guilt.

Foxe: You're right, I think everyone who has a conscience experiences guilt when they don't do what they think or believe they should have done - when their integrity slips and they know that they know better. That's just recognizing you did something wrong and then go about changing it, or try to do better the next time.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the rest of your comment.

I disagree. While there is guilt in every culture that I am aware of, the triggers for that guilt are VERY different.

In one culture lies, physical harm, emotional abuse, theft, swatting a fly, killing someone in self defense, etc... will have zero guilt, & in others will be steeped in it.

So it is completely subjective based on the way you were nurtured.

If you are arguing a universal god for all mankind, then the guilt that he needs to absolve would need to be equally universal.

While there are a few actions that have a fairly universal negative stigma, those actions are much easier to tie to the evolution of social animals than to a diety with a rote list of morality.

I was trying to point out that guilt, whether moral (relating to social mores) or existential, is an element of the human condition--perhaps the defining element.

Furthermore, supposing some Godhead to exist, "He" or "THAT" would assign no guilt because THAT would have no guilt as part of His/ITS nature. People's own conscience or superego assigns guilt, and this in-built mechanism is the way karma works (if you accept the existence of cause-and-effect on a psychological scale). Yes, I'm saying sooner or later people punish themselves for their perceived guilt (though this punishment usually takes a displaced and projected form, where someone or something outside appears to cause the suffering; still, some do conjure up psychosomatic illnesses).

gotcha. I agree.
Sorry I misread & tangented :-)

rhgc said: "For those things on which we act wrongly, we know that we deserve some sort of punishment. The concept of a forgiving God is necessary to avoid the depressive results of our actions beyond the obvious natural consequences."

I actually disagree on this line of thought. Studies have shown that to train a behavior, punishment and rewards are the way to go. But to get higher order thinking and abstract thinking (instead of fear-induced thinking which is very primal / survival oriented), rewards and punishment are counter-productive and harmful.

So my premise is this: the mormon / christian view of god as meting out punishments and rewards is stunting to human development when natural consequences are fully enough to get the desired growth. Alternately, if god truly wanted people to progress to think as He does, he would do away with the religious dogma and "eternal consequences" so we could reach a higher order of thinking instead of being fearful, and depressed because we "know" we deserve the crap that's being dumped on us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2012 12:00AM by dot.

rhgc - Is God all-powerful? Without being all-knowing that could be chaotic.

I don't think the two can be separate. The power to create without knowing the result? Does this mean the christian god created our spirits without knowing whether or not we might rebel or surpass our creator?

Why does an all-powerful being have needs? What is the motivating factor?

My favorite quote for discussions like this one comes from Epicurus.

"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

All theologies posit some scenario where this god guy is somehow playing a gigantic chess game with us as the pawns. No reason is ever given except that he is mysterious and we know not his ways. I think it's all a scam people keep re-inventing.

Well have you considered that there is no such thing as cold? There is only heat and cold is just a word we use to describe the absence of heat. There is no such thing as darkness. We just use darkness to describe the absence of light. Same with evil. It doesn't exist. God didn't create it. It is a word created by man to describe the absence of God. Same as cold and darkness.

Yes, and evil could be the absence of good. It doesn't even have to be an absence of God. God could still just be a human concept.

Cold & Dark are fine examples... but they don't match evil.

Evil is NOT an absence of good, but a purposeful action.

If I kidnap someone & torture them, I didn't just lack good.
I was actively engaged in evil.

The ONLY debateable evil I could categorize as a lack of good would be "sins of omission"

You think it's cold outside? Go to Pluto and then tell me what cold is. You think that stove is hot? Why don't you go stick your hand in the Sun. You think it is evil to have sex with someone who is not your spouse? Compare that to rape, murder, dismemberment, and consumption of a child.

Of course cold is measured on a linear scale that puts hot on the opposite side, but that doesn't mean that cold is the absence of hot, it just means that cold is not hot. Light and dark work the same way. Good and bad are measured in a similar fashion but are infinitely more subjective. Killing is bad, unless of course you are protecting yourself or a loved one from being killed themselves. Telling a lie is bad, unless it's good. Having sex is bad, unless it's good.