It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theory that may help explain the Problem Of Evil

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Prezbo369 i think this is a simulation. god is just us living this thing we created. by doing this we can learn, make decisions, evolve, love, fear, and so on. i think that its great. people only suffer because we have the ability to make decisions. without this ability why even bother living here?


What decision did babies born with leukemia make? Or are you saying the such things are the payment for our ability to choose?

edit on 9-2-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Sorry, I'm just going off of the framework that was presented in the OP.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


God cannot interfere with anything he has created.


and BANG - there goes the bible



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

i REALLY want to test that hypothisis - on you



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether Good or Evil actually exist. It is more to explore the notion that the existence of a deity is possible even though bad things happen.


You propose that god sacrificed his son in an attempt to circumvent his own perfection so he could have something to tinker with when he is bored. That is beyond messed up. Like setting your kids on fire for the media attention because you are lonely. You better pray that such a higher power doesn't exist.
edit on 9-2-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
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!

What makes you think He can't?

FYI: it's for our own good that He chooses not to...

The flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, Nineveh, and Ananias and Sapphira all come to mind.

According to Anton Sawyer, when God comes to visit, his glory brings instant judgement...

Supernatural visitations such as hers is one of the best ways to understand subjects such as this.

I speak from experience as I have had one of these encounters myself.


You know what He said? “I’m coming to visit my people and My glory is awesome.” I said, “God, ‘I don’t understand your glory?” I have a grandson which I absolutely adore. He said, “What do you desire the most?” I said, “I want to love that grandson. I want to hold and kiss him and love him.” “What if I told you that my glory was upon you and you couldn’t even look at that grandson?”

I said, “God that would be the cruelest thing you could ever do to me because I know I would forget. I would want to touch him and that child disintegrate in front of me.” God says, “That’s what my glory does to sin.” God said, “Adam and Eve were in the garden, clothed with my glory. We communed face-to-face. When they sinned the glory fell and I wanted to embrace them but I didn’t because my glory would consume them.” So God the Father had to back off and Jesus became the way. Jesus stands between us and the Father.

You know, the sun shining down on this earth. It’s got two deadly rays. If they weren’t deflected by the earth’s atmosphere we would be consumed. If Jesus didn’t stand between us and the Father, we would be consumed. But you know what Jesus says? He said Bride I am getting you ready for Glory. I will purify you, I will make you Holy because I want to present you to my Father without blame, faultless, spotless that He may touch you, that He may embrace you, that He may hold you to His bosom without you being consumed.

www.newbeginningsknitwork.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

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



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark GhostOne of my very first thoughts on this subject is, how boring it was for the divine creator, floating around in space, no even being able to put ones foot, on any firmament, or share his feelings with anyone else, because there was, no one else. Then comes the rush.

Yes, if there were a "Perfect Place", garden, edin, etc, place, that too would become quite boring. Everything going your way, and predictable.

Have you tapped into my "Epiphany"???



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

i can answer that :

they tell him what he wants to hear



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Good and evil are subjective meanings we place on things and events. Without us giving them meaning they just are what they are.

There is no meaningful existence without some pain or suffering as without them there would be no pleasure or reward for overcoming them as a challenge.

With that in mind it seems that to try and remove one or the other is rather pointless and impossible. It's better to just know "it" exists and you're giving "it" whatever meaning it has.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Well the way I see it, if evil exists, it HAS to exist on galactic or universal scales. If we are unable to describe it because we don't know what it would be then we must default to Occam's Razor and say it doesn't exist. Therefore evil doesn't exist and thus moral relativism is the safest approximation to make about these things.


But if evil is something done or intended by conscious beings, how could it be on a galactic or universal scale?

You are making the assumption that evil is something that has existence of itself. Like an object.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So can animals, other than humans, engage in evil? They are conscious after all.

When slaver ants enslave other colonies of ants, is that evil or instinct?
edit on 9-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

So can animals, other than humans, engage in evil? They are conscious after all.

When slaver ants enslave other colonies of ants, is that evil or instinct?


IMO instinct. I don't think the have the capacity for evil as they don't even have a will of their own.

I think evil can only be evil if the one doing it also understands it as being evil yet still chooses to do it. At least from their perspective. If they think they're doing good then it's not evil but it can be evil to another. Which is why it's subjective and not always agreed upon.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Ok so what I'm getting here is that evil can only be performed by the conscious and according to you it also can only be done by the rational. So that narrows down the only perpetrators to be humans (and maybe dolphins?). However, humans can't seem to settle on a definitive idea of what is and isn't evil. There is general consensus for certain things (like murder and stealing), but there are also exceptions to all of these rules that can range from most of the human population agreeing with them being exceptions to very few of them.

With this being said, wouldn't it be highly likely that evil is just a figment of our imaginations?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
With this being said, wouldn't it be highly likely that evil is just a figment of our imaginations?


Absolutely. I agree 100%.

It's conceptual not actual. We give things the meaning we perceive them to have. So we can both agree to give the same meaning to something but that will just be us agreeing on our concepts. The thing itself carries no meaning of its own.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Gurdjieff and Ouspensky had this argument going for some years. If I recall correctly, and that's the rub, but I believe that Gurdjieff, no, lets just say that one of them thought that evil had to be conscious to be evil, but that consciousness could not include evil. Whatever it was, they disagreed, but on his death bed, he recanted and they switched sides. Gee, sorry this is one messed up post -- I've got a headache and am stupid tired, but I wanted to get that in. I'm hoping that someone who knows these details can correct me and elaborate better.

Anyway, I like your spinning picture. Really cool. I've tried to imagine what this would look like.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ClownFish

I'll have to look them up as I'm now interested to know what they came up with.

Thanx for the avatar comment. I like it too. It took me a while to make it and have it look like I wanted. The design was simple enough but getting the lighting, reflection, refraction, etc was a pain.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: chr0naut

i REALLY want to test that hypothesis - on you


How titillatingly evil of you, but I am not gratified by discomfort or pain, so I will decline!




edit on 9/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mOjOm

Ok so what I'm getting here is that evil can only be performed by the conscious and according to you it also can only be done by the rational. So that narrows down the only perpetrators to be humans (and maybe dolphins?). However, humans can't seem to settle on a definitive idea of what is and isn't evil. There is general consensus for certain things (like murder and stealing), but there are also exceptions to all of these rules that can range from most of the human population agreeing with them being exceptions to very few of them.

With this being said, wouldn't it be highly likely that evil is just a figment of our imaginations?


Only under moral relativism. If morals have an absolute standard, then they cannot be justified away to nothingness.

For example, under moral relativism it may not be evil to murder a mass murderer who shows intent to continue; but if murder is always evil, in all circumstances, a moral absolute, then the act would be evil.


edit on 9/2/2016 by chr0naut because: because mOjOm (in the post below) is correct.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Only under moral relativism. If morals have an absolute standard, then they cannot be justified away to nothingness.

For example, under moral relativism it would not be evil to murder a mass murderer who shows intent to continue; but if murder is always evil, in all circumstances, a moral absolute, then the act would be evil.



Under moral relativism killing the murderer may or may not be considered evil depending on who you're talking to. Other than that you're correct.

This is why people who believe morals to be absolute must play with definitions to justify why when they kill it's not murder but some other type of killing.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join