Can good God do evil?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:31 am

Greatest I am wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:00 pm
Greatest I am wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:56 pm
Good one.

The good/safety of the many, outweighs the good/safety of the few.

This might be the only moral tenet to be objective in an otherwise subjective list.

Governments and industry control robotic programming and experts are saying that the first law for robots is to not do anything to harm humans. In the scenario you posit, a computer would just crunch the numbers and end with what I just put above.
That's how the general thinking goes.
Greatest I am wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:56 pm
The algorithm that would save the 2 occupants while possibly killing three would likely be outlawed.
However, you (chose? forgot?) to answer the final question. Given the choice of either algorithm, would you buy a car that doesn't put your safety first? ;)
Yes. Always. I would outlaw the opposite computer. That is the natural choice for any human male.
If he is a real man that is.

If I had to make a rule for a computer that insures the best end for all humans, I would say that the first computer law is such that the computer always puts women and children first and kills more men to save women and children. All a computer is is a counting machine so it has to go by the numbers.

If you think in demographic terms as well, it is the scientifically sound thing to do.

Regards
DL
Why NOT just put children first ONLY.

IF ALL adults were wiped out, and ONLY children left, who had NOT been harmed and damaged to much by adults already, then living on earth would be a much more happier, peaceful, and successful existence, than it is right now.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:28 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm


I cannot understand your question. Please reframe it so that it makes more sense.
_______
I don't think that's where the "tension" is at all, actually.

There is a "tension," I think; but that's not it. Because there's no way to know if "freedom" is "good" or "evil." "Freedom" for a good person is plausibly good. "Freedom" for an axe-murderer would certainly be bad for everyone else.
To 'you', human beings, who keep using the phrase 'good people or good person', just to let you KNOW there is NO such thing.
It's fine if you believe that.

But then you are not in a position to suggest, if you do, that "freedom" is a "good" thing. So there is no way that such value-neutral "freedom" can be "in tension" with anything. It's simply a neutral issue whether or not anybody gets "freedom."
ALL people do some good and ALL people do some wrong.

This statement cannot be made without some reference to an objective "rightness' or "wrongness." You've suggested above that such things do not exist, have you not?
...then you WILL start REALLY progressing and moving FORWARD
.
"Progress" and "forward" are not value-neutral words. They suggest that something is "better" or "more progressive," or "more forward" than where we are now. But you have said that there is no "good" or "evil," so it cannot be "good" to be "forward" or "progressing," and it cannot be "evil" if we do not, can it?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm
The real tension is between mercy and justice. And it seems from your comment that you would be inclined to think that a God judges would be bad; but how would a God who fails to judge be good? It's one thing to ask, "Why would God send some people to a lost eternity?" But it's quite another to ask, "How could God let HItler, Stalin, Dahmer, Bernardo, Ghengis Khan, Nero and Pol Pot off the hook"?
Instead of LOOKING AT these people as bad or evil and 'you' each judging them yourselves, WHY NOT LOOK AT WHY they did what they did, and then you WILL KNOW how to prevent "others" growing up doing the same?

Why "prevent" something if it is not, according to you, "evil"? Why ought we to "prevent" something that is merely neutral? That seems unreasonable.

You see, you're passing judgments you don't even realize you're passing. While speaking as though "good" and "evil" don't exist, you're presuming that people who believe otherwise are "bad" or "evil" in some sense, and that things like believing you, or making "progress," are "good."

But you can't logically have it both ways, can you? If there's no "good," your argument is not "good." And if there's no "evil," it wouldn't be "evil" or even mildly "bad" for anybody not to believe you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm
So it seems you've got God in quite a bind: if He does judge, your supposition is that He's too harsh. If He doesn't judge, the the obvious supposition is that He's condoning evil.

Isn't that the real tension?
If you say so. But, from my perspective, you are just 'trying to' "justify" your own BELIEFS.
Really?

In what way have I "justified" anything yet?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2298
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by bahman » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:38 pm
I agree with all you stated.
If you agree with all that I stated about the Catholic depiction of God, then can you not understand the problem with your thread title?
The title of this thread is about good God which includes the Catholic God too. I agree with what you stated that torturing people is not a good act. I am asking how a good God, such as the Catholic God, could possibly do evil.
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm
I mean, if your thread title is in reference to the Catholic God, and the Catholic God is apparently going to torture billions of defenseless souls for ETERNITY in a dimension of reality called hell,...

...then how can you begin with the premise (or assumption) that the Catholic God is good?

In other words, how can the Catholic God be used in a philosophical debate concerning a dilemma of how a “good” God could do something evil when, in fact, the Catholic God is allegedly going to perform an act of evilness that takes the definition of evilness to a level beyond our comprehension?
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:38 pm
My problem is the tension between goodness and freedom. Do you agree that there is tension?
I cannot understand your question. Please reframe it so that it makes more sense.
_______
They claim that God is good. They say God never wants individuals in Hell. That is individuals decisions that lead them to Hell. What is my question is however something else. I am asking whether good God can do evil. So we need to accept goodness as a premise. By goodness, I mean that God always does good. God is also considered as a free agent. So here is the problem: Does God always choose good over evil or He is not able to choose evil? I am sure you see the difference between these two questions. There is a tension between freedom and choosing evil. This is basically the first question.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2298
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by bahman » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:03 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:37 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:29 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:11 am

Look, God is NOT a "he".
I am referring to the Catholic God. They call God Him.
I do NOT care what any one calls any thing. God IS what It IS. If you want to LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things, then it helps if you speak thee Truth first.

Do some people call God a 'he'?

If yes, then so be it.
If no, then why call God a 'he'?

Is God a 'he'?

If yes, then how?
If no, then how do you know?

When you speak thee Truth, only thee Truth, and nothing but thee Truth, then you will HAVE thee Truth.
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:29 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:11 am
Thee God that creates and is free, does, and is, just 'that'. The God that has the ability to freely decide and do anything, is just like how human beings have the ability to freely decide and do anything, with enough time, also

God always does good, human beings however do good AND bad.

Is there any thing else that you are looking for?
And what about the tension between goodness and freedom?
'WHAT' "tension" between 'goodness' and 'freedom' are you talking about now?

I have NOT observed nor SEEN any so called "tension" between the two.
Look, we have two different things here: 1) God is good which means that God always does good thing and 2) God is a free agent. We have to keep in mind that doing always good requires to decide to do good also. The question is whether a good God who always chooses good can also choose evil? The tension is between the nature of God that is good and God's freedom.

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:28 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm


I don't think that's where the "tension" is at all, actually.

There is a "tension," I think; but that's not it. Because there's no way to know if "freedom" is "good" or "evil." "Freedom" for a good person is plausibly good. "Freedom" for an axe-murderer would certainly be bad for everyone else.
To 'you', human beings, who keep using the phrase 'good people or good person', just to let you KNOW there is NO such thing.
It's fine if you believe that.
But I do not believe that.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
But then you are not in a position to suggest, if you do, that "freedom" is a "good" thing.
I do not suggest that "freedom" is a "good" thing, so there is no position on my part here.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
So there is no way that such value-neutral "freedom" can be "in tension" with anything. It's simply a neutral issue whether or not anybody gets "freedom."
Your reply has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said here.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
ALL people do some good and ALL people do some wrong.

This statement cannot be made without some reference to an objective "rightness' or "wrongness." You've suggested above that such things do not exist, have you not?
I have NOT. I have NEVER even thought such a thing, let alone suggested such a thing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
...then you WILL start REALLY progressing and moving FORWARD
.
"Progress" and "forward" are not value-neutral words.
I agree.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
They suggest that something is "better" or "more progressive," or "more forward" than where we are now.
Obviously.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
But you have said that there is no "good" or "evil," so it cannot be "good" to be "forward" or "progressing," and it cannot be "evil" if we do not, can it?
I have NEVER said anything like what you say I have. Unless, of course, you can direct us to exactly where I said such things. Are you able to do that?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm
The real tension is between mercy and justice. And it seems from your comment that you would be inclined to think that a God judges would be bad; but how would a God who fails to judge be good? It's one thing to ask, "Why would God send some people to a lost eternity?" But it's quite another to ask, "How could God let HItler, Stalin, Dahmer, Bernardo, Ghengis Khan, Nero and Pol Pot off the hook"?
Instead of LOOKING AT these people as bad or evil and 'you' each judging them yourselves, WHY NOT LOOK AT WHY they did what they did, and then you WILL KNOW how to prevent "others" growing up doing the same?

Why "prevent" something if it is not, according to you, "evil"?
Why do you think I think such a thing?

I think you may have 'me' mixed up with some one else. Or, what I want to say and mean in my writings comes across a lot different than I intend it to.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
Why ought we to "prevent" something that is merely neutral? That seems unreasonable.
Some might suggest you misconstruing me so much seems unreasonable.

What I have done previously is replied to what was written, without ever looking at the username of the one who replied. Only on re-reading did I realize the mistake that I made. I had replied while all the time thinking that it was just some one else.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
You see, you're passing judgments you don't even realize you're passing.
For example?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
While speaking as though "good" and "evil" don't exist, you're presuming that people who believe otherwise are "bad" or "evil" in some sense, and that things like believing you, or making "progress," are "good."
From my perspective, you could not have mistaken me just about any more, or you could not have misconstrued my words just about any more.

Just to make it very clear I do not recall EVER speaking as though "good" and "evil" do not exist. I do not recall ever even thinking this, and I certainly do NOT think this now.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
But you can't logically have it both ways, can you?
I do not even want it one of those ways.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
If there's no "good," your argument is not "good." And if there's no "evil," it wouldn't be "evil" or even mildly "bad" for anybody not to believe you.
To me, there is NO 'no good' and NO 'no evil'.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm
So it seems you've got God in quite a bind: if He does judge, your supposition is that He's too harsh. If He doesn't judge, the the obvious supposition is that He's condoning evil.

Isn't that the real tension?
If you say so. But, from my perspective, you are just 'trying to' "justify" your own BELIEFS.
Really?

In what way have I "justified" anything yet?
But you have NOT 'justified' any thing yet. You are just 'trying to' 'justify' some things.

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:26 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:38 pm
I agree with all you stated.
If you agree with all that I stated about the Catholic depiction of God, then can you not understand the problem with your thread title?
The title of this thread is about good God which includes the Catholic God too. I agree with what you stated that torturing people is not a good act. I am asking how a good God, such as the Catholic God, could possibly do evil.
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm
I mean, if your thread title is in reference to the Catholic God, and the Catholic God is apparently going to torture billions of defenseless souls for ETERNITY in a dimension of reality called hell,...

...then how can you begin with the premise (or assumption) that the Catholic God is good?

In other words, how can the Catholic God be used in a philosophical debate concerning a dilemma of how a “good” God could do something evil when, in fact, the Catholic God is allegedly going to perform an act of evilness that takes the definition of evilness to a level beyond our comprehension?
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:38 pm
My problem is the tension between goodness and freedom. Do you agree that there is tension?
I cannot understand your question. Please reframe it so that it makes more sense.
_______
They claim that God is good.
Okay, this makes sense.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
They say God never wants individuals in Hell.
This also makes perfect sense.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
That is individuals decisions that lead them to Hell.
What do you mean by, 'That is'.

Do you mean that God never wants individuals to make decisions that lead them to hell?

If yes, then, to me, this clearly makes perfect sense, from a perspective of what 'hell' actually IS, which, by the way, is NOT the definition that you and just about all adult human beings have imagined 'hell' is like.

If no, then what do you mean exactly?
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
What is my question is however something else. I am asking whether good God can do evil.
Will you accept that 'any God', by definition, can, or is able to, do anything?

If no, then what will you accept?

If yes, then the answer to your question is; Yes a 'good God' CAN do evil. BUT, being 'able to' do some thing does not necessitate that It will be done.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
So we need to accept goodness as a premise.
If we need to, then okay.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
By goodness, I mean that God always does good.
So, now you question, and correct me if I am wrong, is asking: Whether a God that always does good can do evil?

The answer is still the same; Yes an always good doing God CAN do evil.

Obviously that God has, hitherto, NEVER done evil, but It still has the ability to do evil and so It CAN do evil, in the future, if It so chooses to. Has this answered your question and cleared things up somewhat for you now?
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
God is also considered as a free agent.
Okay.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
So here is the problem: Does God always choose good over evil or He is not able to choose evil?
Firstly God is NEVER a 'he'.

Secondly, you yourself have defined a 'good God' as ALWAYS doing good, therefore, by your own definition, God would always choose good over 'evil', which is what God ALWAYS does do anyway. (Unless of course some examples that prove otherwise are provided.) However in saying that, God ALWAYS allows human beings to choose whatever they want to choose. So, some might say that a God, which allows human beings to choose to do 'evil' over good is an 'evil' act or 'evil' doing itself. But each to their own.

Also, although God is ABLE to choose 'evil', God, to me, NEVER chooses 'evil'.
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:55 pm
I am sure you see the difference between these two questions. There is a tension between freedom and choosing evil. This is basically the first question.
I still do NOT see any 'tension' here.

To me, having the freedom to choose to do any thing certainly does not mean that that one HAS TO choose to do any particular thing either way.

God, and 'you', can certainly have the freedom to choose between doing good and right over bad and evil, without ever HAVING TO do one of those things.

If you still find your questions are not yet satisfactorily answered, then just explain why, and then I will answer in another way for you.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 am

Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:00 am
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:00 am
To 'you', human beings, who keep using the phrase 'good people or good person', just to let you KNOW there is NO such thing.
It's fine if you believe that.
But I do not believe that.
Then...why say it?
...there is no position on my part here.
Okay.

Be well.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3440
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:04 am

Age wrote:
IF ALL adults were wiped out and ONLY children left who had NOT been harmed and damaged too much by adults
already then living on earth would be a much more happier peaceful and successful existence than it is right now
Would that existence cease or continue when those children became adults

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:00 am
It's fine if you believe that.
But I do not believe that.
Then...why say it?
Because I can have a view of some thing, without having to believe that it is true.

If I did BELIEVE that it is true, then I would NOT be open to fact that it may not be true nor would I be OPEN to any evidence provided that shows that it is not actually true at all.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 am
...there is no position on my part here.
Okay.

Be well.

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:22 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:04 am
Age wrote:
IF ALL adults were wiped out and ONLY children left who had NOT been harmed and damaged too much by adults
already then living on earth would be a much more happier peaceful and successful existence than it is right now
Would that existence cease or continue when those children became adults
To me, that existence would continue, but for how long, then who knows?

This raises a good point, which I will look into further. Thanks for the clarifying question.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3440
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:03 am

In a world without adults would children just not be more quick to adopt adult characteristics
With no one around to control their behaviour they could do exactly whatever they wanted to

Now is the behaviour of children and adults entirely separate from each other or do they share certain psychological traits
I dont think they are entirely separate from each other because one is after all the product of all of their past experiences

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:23 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:03 am
In a world without adults would children just not be more quick to adopt adult characteristics
Adults do not have specific characteristics, probably other than to care for, protect, and guide their young.

All adult "behavior", however, is learned.

So, if there were not adults around anymore but only children existing, then they would teach themselves how to behave as adults. If they only had that one True characteristic, and just more or less followed that one only, then things would just be more quick to be different.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:03 am
With no one around to control their behaviour they could do exactly whatever they wanted to
I thought this might come into the equation. To understand the reason WHY adults think or believe that children are totally out of control living things, which NEED to be controlled, is better understood when how the Mind and the brain work is firstly understood. This could take some time for me to learn how to explain in full and clear detail.

If children, however, are left to do exactly whatever they wanted to, then what is that children REALLY only want to do anyway?
To me;
1. Survive
2. Have friends/companionship
3. Have fun

IF children are left to do exactly whatever they wanted to do, which is firstly these three things, then the "world" COULD BE a much better place for EVERY one than it is now.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:03 am
Now is the behaviour of children and adults entirely separate from each other or do they share certain psychological traits
To explain this in FULL detail could take some time.

But essentially the psychological traits of the human being, which separates them from ALL other animals is human beings have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and EVERY thing. They are a Truly OPEN, wondering, and curious creature. A psychological trait, however, they share with EVERY other species is to protect and care for their young, so that they will grow up and keep the species alive and surviving.

However, because very young children are fully OPEN to learning any thing, they can very quickly learn and copy the wrong behavior of the older human beings, which seems to be coming more common. In the days of when this is written, using and becoming addicted to screen devices is a good example of just how quickly any sort of behavior can be very quickly learned, which to some they learn to call or label a "psychological trait".

However, what does separate children from adults entirely (or what would be better to separate them) IS children are NOT made responsible for their behaviors, while adults are (or would be better if they were) FULLY responsible and TOOK full responsibility for ALL of their mis/behaviors.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:03 am
I dont think they are entirely separate from each other because one is after all the product of all of their past experiences
I agree.

But as hopefully somewhat explained if the right ones accepted and took ALL the responsibility, then instead of the younger ones copying and following on the same destructing path, which human beings find themselves now and are headed in, then things can very quickly be turned around, headed in another direction, and thus completely changed for the better.

ALL of this can be explained in far greater detail, which fits in perfectly with EVERY thing else I want to say, which would provide a far greater understanding of things, and show a far greater and clearer picture of ALL-THERE-IS. But like I say I just need to continue learning about how I can better explain all of this concisely and succinctly.

Finding some one who is some what interested also helps.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 am
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:00 am

But I do not believe that.
Then...why say it?
Because I can have a view of some thing, without having to believe that it is true.

If I did BELIEVE that it is true, then I would NOT be open to fact that it may not be true nor would I be OPEN to any evidence provided that shows that it is not actually true at all.
Oh. I see. You've defined "belief" as "dogmatic belief in something, contrary to all evidence," or something close to that wording, no?

Well, I think you'll find that's a very narrow definition of "belief," compared to any ordinary dictionary, but you can do that for your own purposes, I suppose...

Would you be "open" to the possibility that that is not what all (or even most) "belief" actually involves? Or would you be "not open to the fact that [your definition] may not be true," and not "open to any evidence provided that shows it is not actually true at all"?

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/

noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"
synonyms: opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch
"she clung to the belief that Diane was innocent"

a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ideal, ethic, conviction; More

2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; More
antonyms: disbelief, doubt

Age
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:54 am

Then...why say it?
Because I can have a view of some thing, without having to believe that it is true.

If I did BELIEVE that it is true, then I would NOT be open to fact that it may not be true nor would I be OPEN to any evidence provided that shows that it is not actually true at all.
Oh. I see. You've defined "belief" as "dogmatic belief in something, contrary to all evidence," or something close to that wording, no?
Even if ALL the evidence in the Universe points to the fact that 'I' exist, for example, then I still do NOT 'have to' BELIEVE it is true nor right. I do not BELIEVE any thing for the reasons I gave above.

I, however, can express a view AND remain OPEN. But I can not express a BELIEF and remain OPEN as well.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
Well, I think you'll find that's a very narrow definition of "belief," compared to any ordinary dictionary, but you can do that for your own purposes, I suppose... .
Do you NOT define words, for your own purposes, no matter where you get your definitions from?

Or, do you define words, for other purposes?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
Would you be "open" to the possibility that that is not what all (or even most) "belief" actually involves?
Why did you bring the word 'involves' into this now?

I could have provided a straight Yes answer if you had just use the 'means' word instead of the 'involves' word, but now I am unclear as to what you mean by 'involves'.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
Or would you be "not open to the fact that [your definition] may not be true," and not "open to any evidence provided that shows it is not actually true at all"?
This question, exactly like your first one is, is made way to complicated to just answer directly with a simple yes or no. This is because of your use of the "no" and "not" words.

If you are unclear, then I will explain it for you again. If I am not believing any thing, then I am completely and totally OPEN. If I am completely and totally OPEN, then I am NOT 'not open' (or not closed).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
be·lief
/bəˈlēf/

noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"
synonyms: opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch
"she clung to the belief that Diane was innocent"

a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ideal, ethic, conviction; More

2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; More
antonyms: disbelief, doubt
To me, ALL of these definitions fit in just about perfectly with the definition I have for the word 'belief'.

Do you see any thing different or contradictory from MY definition of the word 'belief' to these definitions? (By the way be extremely careful how you answer this question. That is, if you ever do).

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:01 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 pm
be·lief
/bəˈlēf/

noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"
synonyms: opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch
"she clung to the belief that Diane was innocent"

a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ideal, ethic, conviction; More

2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; More
antonyms: disbelief, doubt
To me, ALL of these definitions fit in just about perfectly with the definition I have for the word 'belief'.

Do you see any thing different or contradictory from MY definition of the word 'belief' to these definitions?
view, viewpoint, point of view, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence.

None of these words automatically requires that the "belief" in question has to be contrary to evidence, or in the absence of evidence -- and some (like hypothesis, theory, conclusion, and inference) are almost invariably associated with evidence. In fact, they're stock scientific terms. Apparently, scientists are not against believing.
(By the way be extremely careful how you answer this question. That is, if you ever do).
:D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests