Can good God do evil?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:14 am
Age wrote:
Disagreements of and the non acceptance of words their definitions and their meanings I found
is what led up to and is still causing the rifts in humankind in these days of when this is written
Is this what is causing the greatest rift in humankind today or is that something else entirely
Confusion is WHY human beings can not accurately decide what is actually right and wrong in Life, when this is written, and this confusion is what is causing the disagreements and disputes in Life.

Confusion causes uncertainty. Uncertainty causes fear. Fear exacerbates the perceived "problems" in Life, which can also cause more confusion.

Certainty, in agreement with ALL, alleviates ALL unnecessary worry and concern.

For example I could very easily and very simply explain HOW God does create a Truly peaceful 'world', way of life, for EVERY one IF we had an agreement and acceptance of what the word 'God' means.

By the way I NEVER used the words "greatest rift in humankind". You did that.

I said what "is still causing the rifts in humankind.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:14 am
Can all human beings ever reach complete agreement on the meaning of every single word
Yes. But it is not entirely necessary to do in order to just start creating a Truly peaceful "world" for EVERY one in harmony.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:14 am
For would there not have to be one single universal language in order to make this possible
That would help tremendously, and it could be said that moving towards that does help tremendously in the future.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am

Age wrote:
when human beings explain to me what they suffer from
I think the cause of all suffering is craving and so to reduce suffering one must reduce craving in all its forms
This is not easy to do but some craving at least can be reduced with sufficient willpower by simply letting go
Not everything that is craved is actually good so that particular type of craving would be easiest to overcome

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am

Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:23 am


From 'your' imperative definition of the word 'God' to a theist every and all of what 'you' say here can be validated and justified, except of course for the word 'most', which would obviously need to be replaced with and by the word 'all' to make this Truly Correct.
Not ALL theists believe in salvation and eternal life explicitly, e.g. pantheists and panentheists. Hinduism do not promote salvation in a heaven but rather transmigration of soul progressively till they merge with the ONE.
However all theists are influenced and driven by an existential crisis.
You misunderstood my point completely. 'ALL' refers to EVERY one, NOT just to theists nor to any particular ones.

IF your imperative definition of 'God' was; God is the omnipotent absolute perfect creator of the universe and for ALL, God will enable salvation and eternal life in heaven/paradise, THEN this, contrary to your belief, can very simply and very easily be justified.

The explanation of HOW this is not just possible but WILL actually HAPPEN is just as simple and as easy to understand.
Btw, it is not my personal imperative definition of 'God' but rather I am defining it from the theists' perspective.
OK, if theists defined their God as created all and enable salvation for all, then yes, from their perspective, salvation is for all.
But my point is that not all theists define the God as creator include the the salvation element in their definition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
If you read the scriptures of all the mainstream religions [including non-theistic Buddhism] one can infer the main purpose for most of their followers is to relieve the terrible pains* of the existential crisis. * pains in this case include anxieties, Angst, despairs, depression, hopelessness and the likes.
Would you like to move on past this?
No, this is fundamental, critical and the ground in my discussion of theism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
It is so obvious in the Abrahamic religions [the 80% majority of all theists] a belief in God is for salvation and soothing the fear of perdition and eternal hellfire. It is so clear in John 3:16 and very explicit in the Quran, while the Torah may not be that clear.
Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his own son to God for a promise of heaven and eternal life.
Who cares?
The actual and real Truth of things is far more exciting anyway.
This again is critical to understand the ground of theism is fears and suffering and the reliance on a God to deal with such sufferings.
But you do not even clarify/answer my clarifying questions I ask of you so that I could better understand your point clearly. Your point is usually just an attempt to put "others" down so you can come across as being more superior than "others" are. You appear to just express your beliefs of things as though you KNOW that they are absolutely 100% correct, which when pointed out they are obviously NOT, then you do not show any interest in any other point.

If you do not ask me clarifying questions, then I have NO idea what points NEED more and better explaining.

I can just point out that you missed my points. If you then show NO curiosity as to what my points actually are, then there is NO need for me to say anymore.

By the way I have MISSED your whole point of this. So, explain clearly what is your point for what you write here.
How can I clarify accurately when I don't understand your fundamental point, so I tried my best to answer whatever I could.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
No.
God as defined above is impossible to be empirically real because it is empirically impossible, i.e. philosophically and rationally impossible.
You BELIEVE that it is impossible.
Yes, BELIEVE, but I have provided rational arguments to support my point, note,

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
I say it is very possible and HOW and WHY can also be very easily explained and very simply. You, however, completely and utterly refute this idea. So, then there is nothing more needed to be said.
Where is your argument is it possible?
Empirically possible? where are your empirical evidence to support its possibility.
Note, if I speculate, human-liked entities exist in a planet 1 light years away, that is empirically possible because all the variable in that speculation are empirically-based. What is left is to bring the empirical evidence for empirical justification.

If you speculate 'God exists,'
God is not an empirical element, thus you will have to prove God is an empirical element or otherwise.

Show me on what grounds are you to prove, God exists?
It is epistemological, metaphysical, transcendental, or what?
The basis are groundless and cannot support real truths.

The ONLY very likely possibility 'God exists as real' is the psychological perspective of the individual.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
It is only possible within the mind of the believers, i.e. a psychological issue, thus we must focus on the psychological aspects which I had done to some degree.
But ALL to no effect. This is because you are WRONG, and when you are RIGHT, your BELIEFS distorted it to such a degree any truth is twisted completely out of shape.
It has no effect to you because of cognitive dissonance and the defense mechanism that is triggered within you towards a confirmation bias.

If you loosen up and dig deep to understand your own anatomical [especially neuroscience] and neuro-psychology, you will understand the existential psychology drives that are making you to be a zombie in defending the beliefs of illusion you have.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
As I had argued above 'this ONE' i.e. GOD cannot be justified empirically nor rationally on a universal basis but it is grounded on psychology of the individual.
But you have NOT argued any thing at all. All you have done is express your own BELIEFS, which are obviously WRONG or partly WRONG.
You need to differentiate between opinions and beliefs.
Opinions are merely subjective views without sound arguments.
Beliefs are based on the personal convictions one's argument is realistically possible grounded on sound arguments.

I have argued why God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

I have argued how God is a psychological possibility above grounded on the existential crisis and the terrible pains it generate subliminally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Such psychology [existential] is grounded on sufferings driven by the existential crisis.
The existential crisis is an emergence from a combination of various primal neural drives/algorithms.
You can BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE but doing so does NOT make it true.
Yes I will BELIEVE which is based on sound arguments.

If you are serious you can test my hypothesis using the
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... sm#p377268

The iterative processes [detailed] above will gradually expose your 'ignorance' and rewire your brain with effective mental skills to deal with the existential crisis without the need for a God [illusory].
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
That the 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique, as a justified model is already indication Buddhist philosophy is heading the right way. Once you understand the details involved you will be convinced it is an effective technique that can generate solution for humankind.
Once again you are professing to KNOW things for EVERY one based solely upon your own past experiences.

If as you propose that any of 'us' will be "convinced" of the above, then as I alluded to earlier if this was true, then the effects would have already existed. The effects of YOUR buddhism do not work as good as you would like to believe because of the inherent wrongness within it.
First a person's belief must be grounded with sound arguments.
One's past experience is essential to ground one conviction to one's belief.
This is reinforced with the experiences of others.

Why don't you try [in an effective approach] the
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... sm#p377268

Note the above is effective if you are 55 or younger, else it is that 'hard to teach old dogs new trick' scenario.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
The limitation is the above problem solving model is, it is a too advanced for the majority of people at their current state in generating efficient results. However as the average intellectual capacity increases [very possible due to the internet' then the principles of Buddhism can bring about greater efficiency and results.
Are you aware that it is the Truth within ALL things, which includes within ALL religions like buddhism, islamism, christianitism, hinduism, jewishism and ALL the other isms in LIfe, which is what is the True and Right formula to follow in order to obtain living the life that ALL religions profess to and which ALL people want to live. And, it is the Falsehoods with ALL things, which includes within ALL religions like buddhism, et cetera, which is WHY 'you', human beings, are suffering now and living a way of life that you ALL Truly do not like and want to being living?

Or, do you really BELIEVE and EXPECT that only one human made up religion is the way that ALL people "should" follow?
The fundamental elements of the problem solving technique within the 4NT-8FP model is very universal as with any other problem-solving technique.
However the 4NT-8FP model is more refined is geared to changing the person from within the brain and mind to generate continuous improvements that align with reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
I am not into Buddhism as an organized religion.
In addition there are many schools and sects of the philosophy of Buddhism.
The wiser move is thus to review the core and pick up what is most useful from Buddhism. I 'd done the same from any other sources.
The even wiser pick up on the Truth within ALL things, and disregard the falsehoods within ALL things.

Buddhism is only one of countless other things in Life.
The 4NT-8FP model is not the ONLY model around, there are others. But the 4NT-8FP model is very specific to deal with the existential crisis.

Within the 8FP, there is the 'Right View.'
Now whatever views one hold, one must keep asking 'Is that the right view' and what support arguments and evidence do one has to arrive to state 'that is the right view'.
Because there is never 100% certain, one will always have to ask 'is that the right view'.

Having a sound and grounded right view, one may translate it to Right Action.
Then again one has to ask is that the 'right view' of the 'right actions'. Thus one has to keep asking question on the intended actions to be taken.

It is not only the above, but one has to ask is the right view and right action grounded on right concentration and right mindfulness.
Which ever statement on right concentration or right mindful, one has to ask is that the right view and right action of the right concentration or right mindful.

Not only is one to consider the above 'right' but also consider other 'right' example right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, at all times.

Not many problem solving models are that detailed as the 4NT-8FP model.


I bet what you believe at present is not the optimal 'right view' against the perspective of humanity and reality but only that which serves your own selfish psychology.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am
Age wrote:
when human beings explain to me what they suffer from
I think the cause of all suffering is craving and so to reduce suffering one must reduce craving in all its forms
This is not easy to do but some craving at least can be reduced with sufficient willpower by simply letting go
Not everything that is craved is actually good so that particular type of craving would be easiest to overcome
Note exactly.
Craving is essential to facilitate survival.
What is necessary is to manage and modulate 'craving' within the 8Fold Paths, i.e.
  • The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
This is similar to Aristotle's
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
    with the right person and
    to the right degree and
    at the right time and
    for the right purpose, and
    in the right way
    - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
    -Aristotle
But the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP model is very thorough and complete.

In addition, craving is merely an element of 12-elements cycle which need to be managed in one package.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:52 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am
Age wrote:
when human beings explain to me what they suffer from
I think the cause of all suffering is craving and so to reduce suffering one must reduce craving in all its forms
Pain can cause suffering so this would suggest that craving is not the cause of ALL suffering.

A child craving for a parent, for example, to provide the right kind of attention, so that it could keep on living would suggest that not all craving must be reduced.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am
This is not easy to do but some craving at least can be reduced with sufficient willpower by simply letting go
If you LOOK AT, and find out, WHY you are craving some thing that you do not need, then you will find out HOW to prevent ALL of those unnecessary cravings.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am
Not everything that is craved is actually good so that particular type of craving would be easiest to overcome
What, for an adult, that is being craved is actually good?

ALL craving for things that are not needed come from greed. Greed is learned behavior from past experiences and is not a natural instinct of being a human being. So, although it may be harder to rid one's self of craving/greed the longer they have been a craving and greedy person, knowing what to do in order not to teach the younger ones to be greedy, and craving, then this type of preventing behavior will increasingly help in creating a much better "world" for EVERY one.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am

Not ALL theists believe in salvation and eternal life explicitly, e.g. pantheists and panentheists. Hinduism do not promote salvation in a heaven but rather transmigration of soul progressively till they merge with the ONE.
However all theists are influenced and driven by an existential crisis.
You misunderstood my point completely. 'ALL' refers to EVERY one, NOT just to theists nor to any particular ones.

IF your imperative definition of 'God' was; God is the omnipotent absolute perfect creator of the universe and for ALL, God will enable salvation and eternal life in heaven/paradise, THEN this, contrary to your belief, can very simply and very easily be justified.

The explanation of HOW this is not just possible but WILL actually HAPPEN is just as simple and as easy to understand.
Btw, it is not my personal imperative definition of 'God' but rather I am defining it from the theists' perspective.
Instead of TRYING TO define some thing from "another's" perspective how about you just define things from 'your' own perspective only, which is what I been asking for anyway.

You wrote: (btw, God is an impossibility to be real)
I wrote: If you say so. Is that an absolute irrefutable True fact, to you?
You wrote: It is not a fact. It is via reason, i.e. a God [imperative definition] cannot be real.
I wrote: To you, what is the imperative definition for the word 'God'?

Now, if you provide what 'YOUR' definition for the word 'God', then we can keep discussing this properly.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
OK, if theists defined their God as created all and enable salvation for all, then yes, from their perspective, salvation is for all.
But my point is that not all theists define the God as creator include the the salvation element in their definition.
So, WHY did you say you are defining the word 'God' from the theist's perspective IF you know admit and say that NOT all theists define 'God' that way?

Also, who cares what some "other" people say and how they define things? You are the one making claims, so I want to KNOW how YOU are defining things. I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
If you read the scriptures of all the mainstream religions [including non-theistic Buddhism] one can infer the main purpose for most of their followers is to relieve the terrible pains* of the existential crisis. * pains in this case include anxieties, Angst, despairs, depression, hopelessness and the likes.
Would you like to move on past this?
No, this is fundamental, critical and the ground in my discussion of theism.
Okay, so you say that when I read the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions, including the religion and belief in buddhism, I can infer such things. So what?

Do you have any actual point for this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
It is so obvious in the Abrahamic religions [the 80% majority of all theists] a belief in God is for salvation and soothing the fear of perdition and eternal hellfire. It is so clear in John 3:16 and very explicit in the Quran, while the Torah may not be that clear.
Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his own son to God for a promise of heaven and eternal life.
Who cares?
The actual and real Truth of things is far more exciting anyway.
This again is critical to understand the ground of theism is fears and suffering and the reliance on a God to deal with such sufferings.
Buddhism is also a 'theism'. ALL 'isms' are just another BELIEF of some thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
But you do not even clarify/answer my clarifying questions I ask of you so that I could better understand your point clearly. Your point is usually just an attempt to put "others" down so you can come across as being more superior than "others" are. You appear to just express your beliefs of things as though you KNOW that they are absolutely 100% correct, which when pointed out they are obviously NOT, then you do not show any interest in any other point.

If you do not ask me clarifying questions, then I have NO idea what points NEED more and better explaining.

I can just point out that you missed my points. If you then show NO curiosity as to what my points actually are, then there is NO need for me to say anymore.
How can I clarify accurately when I don't understand your fundamental point, so I tried my best to answer whatever I could.
You do NOT need to know any point I make, fundamental or not. To clarify ACCURATELY my clarifying questions all you have to do is to just answer my questions OPENLY and HONESTLY.

By the way if you do not understand my fundamental point, then what exactly do you want me to do. IF you do not understand some thing, but you really wanted to, then you would do some thing about it. I certainly do NOT know what you want from me if you do not ask for any thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Yes, BELIEVE, but I have provided rational arguments to support my point, note,
But, to me, you have NOT provide rational arguments at all to support your point, whatever your actual point is that you are 'trying to' make.

From my perspective you are only providing so called "rational arguments" that just support your own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812


Where is your argument is it possible?
I have NEVER provided one because NO one has shown any real interest in knowing it.

Most people like you just BELIEVE things, and thus, like you, are NOT open to listening and learning more and anew.

In order to provide an argument, to you, for some thing, then I NEED to KNOW what your definition you have for things. Therefore, in order to be able to provide an argument that 'God' is possible to be real to a person, like you, who BELIEVES, wholeheartedly, that God is impossible to be real, then I NEED to know what THEIR, imperative definition, for what 'God' is. Until then it is just a complete waste of time to provide any thing at all.

So, will you provide 'your' (imperative) definition for the word 'God'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Empirically possible? where are your empirical evidence to support its possibility.
Where is your imperative definition for the word 'God'?

How could I provide empirical evidence, to you, for some thing that I do not even know how you define that thing?

Note, if I speculate, human-liked entities exist in a planet 1 light years away, that is empirically possible because all the variable in that speculation are empirically-based. What is left is to bring the empirical evidence for empirical justification.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
If you speculate 'God exists,'
HOW could I speculate 'God exists' If you NEVER tell me what 'your' definition of the word 'God' is?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
God is not an empirical element, thus you will have to prove God is an empirical element or otherwise.
That is extremely easy and simple to do when, and if, you provide 'your' imperative definition of 'God'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Show me on what grounds are you to prove, God exists?
What is this 'God' thing you keep talking about?

Define for me what a 'God' is, to you, then I can show what grounds I have. Until then I have some thing from you I absolutely nothing at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
It is epistemological, metaphysical, transcendental, or what?
The basis are groundless and cannot support real truths.
Unfortunately this is exactly what happens with BELIEFS. You are providing a perfect example of a person unable to see any thing other than what they already BELIEVE is true. You are only LOOKING AT things from your belief-system ONLY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
The ONLY very likely possibility 'God exists as real' is the psychological perspective of the individual.
ANOTHER perfect example of human being being completely blinded by their own beliefs.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
It has no effect to you because of cognitive dissonance and the defense mechanism that is triggered within you towards a confirmation bias.
But WHAT I do I have to confirm. Remember it is you who is saying some thing is NOT possible to be real. I, and the readers, are still waiting for you to provide an imperative definition for the word 'God' so that we can become aware of what it is that you are saying is impossible to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
If you loosen up and dig deep to understand your own anatomical [especially neuroscience] and neuro-psychology, you will understand the existential psychology drives that are making you to be a zombie in defending the beliefs of illusion you have.
I have NOT even been able to get your definition for just one word. So, what exactly is that you BELIEVE I am being a zombie in defending the beliefs of illusion I have? I have not even said any thing to defend, other than the definition you gave, which you now say is not even yours, can be very easily and simply shown to be True, Right, and Justified. Because I am not yet defending any thing what you said just here is just your own illusion.

Remember it is 'you' who is defending a BELIEF in a 'God', being impossible to be real, which in all honesty what this so called 'God' thing is IS a complete illusion, and will remain a complete illusion until you provide YOUR imperative definition for the word 'God'.

By the way, do you recall having this type of discussion with me before? That is, you saying some thing is impossible to be real but you NEVER providing your definition for what that thing is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
You need to differentiate between opinions and beliefs.
I have.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Opinions are merely subjective views without sound arguments.
Beliefs are based on the personal convictions one's argument is realistically possible grounded on sound arguments.
If you BELIEVE so, but "others" will disagree with you.

If what you said here was even somewhat true, then you would have to admit and be saying a belief in 'God', being real, is based on the personal convictions one's argument is realistically possible grounded on sound arguments.

Just maybe you need to define properly and accurately what 'belief' is. Otherwise, you will have to admit that the belief in 'God' being real is based on one's argument is realistically possible grounded on SOUND arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
I have argued why God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

I have argued how God is a psychological possibility above grounded on the existential crisis and the terrible pains it generate subliminally.
Are you at all aware any thing can be "argued" but only a valid, sound argument is worth sharing as it is one that can not be refuted.

What you have done is "argue", invalidly, unsoundly, and illogically your own beliefs and assumptions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Yes I will BELIEVE which is based on sound arguments.
Will you express your supposed "sound arguments" here in their most simplest point form?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
If you are serious you can test my hypothesis using the
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... sm#p377268

The iterative processes [detailed] above will gradually expose your 'ignorance' and rewire your brain with effective mental skills to deal with the existential crisis without the need for a God [illusory].
There is NO need for a 'thing' which you have yet to define.

And what 'existential crisis' do you believe exists?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
First a person's belief must be grounded with sound arguments.
One's past experience is essential to ground one conviction to one's belief.
This is the very reason WHY you are so misinformed and so WRONG.

This is reinforced with the experiences of others.[/quote]

And this also helps explaining WHY society takes so long to change to 'what is Right'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Why don't you try [in an effective approach] the
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... sm#p377268

Note the above is effective if you are 55 or younger, else it is that 'hard to teach old dogs new trick' scenario.
If some thing is only effective for some, then really it is not that effective at all. Only that what is effective for ALL of society is really worth LOOKING AT and into.

Also, I have NO problems at all as I have already re-solved EVERY supposed "Life problem".

I have resolved EVERY thing, other than how to find adult human beings who are OPEN enough to learn how they, themselves, can find the answers that they are LOOKING FOR all by themselves, and resolve all of the "problems" that they make themselves.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
The fundamental elements of the problem solving technique within the 4NT-8FP model is very universal as with any other problem-solving technique.
However the 4NT-8FP model is more refined is geared to changing the person from within the brain and mind to generate continuous improvements that align with reality.
If 'you' ever learn and understand HOW and WHY you got misaligned from reality in the first place, then you will be able to achieve some real change in society. Until then all you are doing is just spreading the words and ideas of "others", which you obviously do not yet fully understand yourself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
I bet what you believe at present is not the optimal 'right view' against the perspective of humanity and reality but only that which serves your own selfish psychology.
Well you lost that bet before you even finished the sentence.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:21 am
Age wrote:
when human beings explain to me what they suffer from
I think the cause of all suffering is craving and so to reduce suffering one must reduce craving in all its forms
This is not easy to do but some craving at least can be reduced with sufficient willpower by simply letting go
Not everything that is craved is actually good so that particular type of craving would be easiest to overcome
Note exactly.
Craving is essential to facilitate survival.
What is necessary is to manage and modulate 'craving' within the 8Fold Paths, i.e.
  • The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
This is similar to Aristotle's
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
    with the right person and
    to the right degree and
    at the right time and
    for the right purpose, and
    in the right way
    - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
    -Aristotle
But the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP model is very thorough and complete.
But WHY 'be angry' at all, in the beginning.

It is very easy indeed to feel anger emotions without 'being angry'.

What I found, which is much better and much easier, is to understand WHY anger emotions exist, and then use those emotions accordingly to achieve the best result for EVERY one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
In addition, craving is merely an element of 12-elements cycle which need to be managed in one package.
If you say so. But it all sounds very complex. I am NOT sure WHY you want to follow "others" words and ideas anyway?

Do you NOT know how to resolve your own issues, by yourself?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by bahman » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:09 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:55 am
So when you asked the question, "Does good God have the ability to do evil?" you already KNEW what thee answer is, correct?
I knew the answer for human beings. I was wondering if there is an argument for God too.
So, are you saying you know a good God has the ability to do evil things or not?
No, I don't know. I am asking whether good God has the ability to do evil. I know that a good person can do evil because s/he is free. I am wondering if there is an argument about God.
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
If you want an argument for some thing, then I need to know what exactly it is that you want an argument for.
Ok.
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
These are your two questions; Does good God have the ability to do evil? If yes, is His evil act justifiable just because He is God?
Ok.
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
1. Let us say that God has the ability to do evil. Agreed?
The first premise is that God is good. The second premise is God is free. We want to deduce whether He can do evil or not.
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
2. If yes, then what evil acts do you now propose God has done, or does do, or will do exactly?
God himself declared in the Bible that He is the creator of good and evil. Consider all stories in the bible, flood, ...
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
3. If a Universe exists in which ALL are living in peace and harmony together as One, for eternity ever-after, then that could be seen as EVERY thing that happened prior is justifiable.
Even one instance of evil makes God evil and it is not justifiable.
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
To better understand all of this knowing who and what God is exactly, and how It does what It does, helps tremendously.
I hope things are clear now.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:59 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:09 pm

I knew the answer for human beings. I was wondering if there is an argument for God too.
So, are you saying you know a good God has the ability to do evil things or not?
No, I don't know. I am asking whether good God has the ability to do evil. I know that a good person can do evil because s/he is free. I am wondering if there is an argument about God.
The only definition of 'God' that you are providing is that 'God is good', and you say that a good person can do evil, so then I would say Yes a 'good God' has the ability to do evil.

Are you satisfied now?

I am, however, still unsure what argument you are actually seeking. I do not even know how you are defining the word 'evil' here.

From my perspective ALL people can do evil and ALL adult human beings do do 'evil'. Does that help you?

So, if human beings can do 'evil' and they only have the ability to create some things, then I would say a God (good or not), which has the ability to create ALL things, also could do 'evil', and I am sure there are some people who say that God does do some 'evil' things. However, to me, even though a 'good God' has the ability to do 'evil', but never actually does 'evil'.

So, and just to repeat to make clear, to answer your question; Yes a 'good God' has the ability to do evil.

However, whether a God (good or not) actually does do 'evil' or not can be and will be explained when the words 'God' and 'evil' are defined once and for all, for me.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
If you want an argument for some thing, then I need to know what exactly it is that you want an argument for.
Ok.

Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
These are your two questions; Does good God have the ability to do evil? If yes, is His evil act justifiable just because He is God?
Ok.
But just because some thing HAS the ability to do some thing that does not meant that it does do it. For example, human beings HAVE the ability to create and live in a Truly peaceful "world" but, obviously, when this is written, they do not, YET, do this.

Therefore, just HAVING an ability in no way infers that 'THAT' is being done.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
1. Let us say that God has the ability to do evil. Agreed?
The first premise is that God is good. The second premise is God is free. We want to deduce whether He can do evil or not.
Firstly, God is NEVER a "he".

Although a good or bad or any type of God could do any thing at all, including evil, a good God, by definition, would not do 'evil'. But whether a 'good God' (if this is the only definition of 'God' we have) can do 'evil' would depend solely on what your definition of 'evil' is.

bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
2. If yes, then what evil acts do you now propose God has done, or does do, or will do exactly?
God himself declared in the Bible that He is the creator of good and evil.
Yes that is right. God creates human beings, and, adult human beings do 'evil'.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Consider all stories in the bible, flood, ...
Okay, now consider what is classed as 'evil' and what is classed as 'not evil'. Has it ever been proposed anywhere that ANY of those stories in the bible, flood, ... are 'evil'? Or, are they just considered to be 'evil' things by some people only?

If you want to KNOW the Truth about God and ALL such things, then LOOKING AT what definitions actually work and what definitions do NOT work at all, then the Truth of what you are seeking IS revealed.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
3. If a Universe exists in which ALL are living in peace and harmony together as One, for eternity ever-after, then that could be seen as EVERY thing that happened prior is justifiable.
Even one instance of evil makes God evil and it is not justifiable.
Has there even been one instance of 'evil' from God, Itself?

If yes, then name them all.

It appears that you are 'trying to' fight for one side, and form a particular argument based on that, although not very successfully.

You propose two premises, and then allude to the fact that 'we' want to deduce some thing from those two premises. However, it appears that you have already deduced a conclusion that you want to express some how.

Can you see the absurd contradiction in asking IF a 'good God' can do 'evil'? Why not just ask IF a 'God' can do evil?

You claim that a 'good person' can do evil, but in Truth there is NO such thing as an only 'good person'. ALL people are capable of doing good and bad things. In fact ALL adults do do good AND evil and bad things. But obviously, IF any thing is good only, then that thing would not do any thing bad.

ALL people HAVE the ability to do good and evil.

What 'you' will have to do is make the first premise up yourself. If you want to define and insist that 'God' is good ONLY, then you will have to answer the question; can a 'good God' do evil or can It not?

Because you are doing the defining you will also define what you mean by 'good' in a 'good God'.

I, however, would formulate an argument like:
P1. God, being who and what It IS, can do any thing.
P2. If 'evil' is defined as ....
C. Then although God can do any thing and has created an animal with the ability to do 'evil' God does not do 'evil' Itself.

You, however, are free to formulate your own arguments anyway you like.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am
To better understand all of this knowing who and what God is exactly, and how It does what It does, helps tremendously.
I hope things are clear now.
As clear as mud. How are you defining the word 'God', other than by good, and, How are you defining the word 'evil' here?

By the way, IF " Even one instance of evil makes God evil and it is not justifiable." is true, then God is NOT good, therefore, your first premise is Wrong and False anyway.

Also, is that "even one instance of evil" done by God, Itself, or by some thing else?

When you discover who and what God actually IS, then you will SEE how God evolves-creating ALL things, including human beings, and HOW and WHY human beings have evolved with and are created with the freedom to choose to do absolutely any thing that they so wish to. If 'you', adult human beings, choose to do 'evil', bad ,or good things, then that is 'your' choice alone. 'You' can "TRY" to blame some thing else for your own behaviors, but you are completely FREE to choose to do whatever pleases 'YOU'. 'You are certainly NOT forced to do any thing that you do not like, so WHY "try to" blame some thing else?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am

Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
Not [edited] exactly.
Craving is essential to facilitate survival.
What is necessary is to manage and modulate 'craving' within the 8Fold Paths, i.e.
  • The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
This is similar to Aristotle's
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
    with the right person and
    to the right degree and
    at the right time and
    for the right purpose, and
    in the right way
    - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
    -Aristotle
But the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP model is very thorough and complete.
But WHY 'be angry' at all, in the beginning.
It is very easy indeed to feel anger emotions without 'being angry'.
What I found, which is much better and much easier, is to understand WHY anger emotions exist, and then use those emotions accordingly to achieve the best result for EVERY one.
The subject of 'emotions' is well researched with still a lot of room to understand the complexities of emotions. The original and core purpose of emotions, as such applicable to 'anger' is;
  • Emotions produce different physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. The original role of emotions was to motivate adaptive behaviors that in the past would have contributed to the passing on of genes through survival, reproduction, and kin selection.
There are loads of self-development programs for anger management out there and some are very effective.
But the main concern here is not anger management, but the deeper impulse of the existential crisis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
In addition, craving is merely an element of 12-elements cycle which need to be managed in one package.
If you say so. But it all sounds very complex. I am NOT sure WHY you want to follow "others" words and ideas anyway?
Do you NOT know how to resolve your own issues, by yourself?
Are you claiming you are omniscient or a-know-all who don't have to follow others?
I am not omniscient, that is why I have to learn knowledge of every field from others. Btw, what do you follow Scientific and various knowledge of others.

I claim to have resolve all issues I have faced but as for the existential crisis I have managed it reasonably to wean off from having to cling to a God in the past as a security blanket.

If you believe in a God as real you have not effectively resolve your own existential issue by yourself. It is the same with the > 80% of theists at present.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am

Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:09 pm
Instead of TRYING TO define some thing from "another's" perspective how about you just define things from 'your' own perspective only, which is what I been asking for anyway.

You wrote: (btw, God is an impossibility to be real)
I wrote: If you say so. Is that an absolute irrefutable True fact, to you?
You wrote: It is not a fact. It is via reason, i.e. a God [imperative definition] cannot be real.
I wrote: To you, what is the imperative definition for the word 'God'?

Now, if you provide what 'YOUR' definition for the word 'God', then we can keep discussing this properly.
How can present my own definition for a God when I believe God is an impossibility.
The most I can do is to understand the theists' definition of their God, in this case their best definition as I had presented above.
The cruder definition of God is 'God is that bearded man in the sky' etc.
Upon queried upon for justifications, the theists' definition has been refined from polytheism to monotheism to the one I had presented above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
OK, if theists defined their God as created all and enable salvation for all, then yes, from their perspective, salvation is for all.
But my point is that not all theists define the God as creator include the the salvation element in their definition.
So, WHY did you say you are defining the word 'God' from the theist's perspective IF you know admit and say that NOT all theists define 'God' that way?

Also, who cares what some "other" people say and how they define things? You are the one making claims, so I want to KNOW how YOU are defining things. I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?
Btw, the definition of God I presented as defined by theists is the most refined is only 'right' as inferred by the theists reasoning [albeit crude] based on their own limited conditions and arguments.

Note my analogy of how a child would define Santa Claus as real relative to the child's cognitive and reasoning power.
But Santa Claus cannot be real when subjected to the requirement of a higher degree of proofs and justification.
However we can explain how the child would come to their own conclusion with conviction, i.e. it is all psychological.

The above is the same with explaining how theists define their God as 'real' but such a claim failed when subjected to a higher level of reasoning, proofs and justifications.
I have explain the fundamental basis why theists define their God as real is psychological.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Would you like to move on past this?
No, this is fundamental, critical and the ground in my discussion of theism.
Okay, so you say that when I read the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions, including the religion and belief in buddhism, I can infer such things. So what?

Do you have any actual point for this?
I claimed when you read all the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions effectively you will understand the core intent of these religion are to deal with the existential crisis.

Didn't you get it? I stated the Christianity and Islam represented more than 60% of theists is about salvation and the eternal life, re John 3:16 and it very explicit in the Quran.
The core of Buddhism is also an existential issue as reflected in the Buddha Story re the subliminal fear of mortality via the point of 'old age' 'illness' 'death [corpse] and how to deal with the fear arising from these existential issues.
You do NOT need to know any point I make, fundamental or not. To clarify ACCURATELY my clarifying questions all you have to do is to just answer my questions OPENLY and HONESTLY.

By the way if you do not understand my fundamental point, then what exactly do you want me to do. IF you do not understand some thing, but you really wanted to, then you would do some thing about it. I certainly do NOT know what you want from me if you do not ask for any thing.
Btw, you are at fault because you have not made your beliefs clearly but beat around the bush.
You should be bold and declare your belief openly, like;
  • I am a theist or whatever
    I define God as ...
Instead you are asking me to define 'God' when I am not-a-theist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Yes, BELIEVE, but I have provided rational arguments to support my point, note,
But, to me, you have NOT provide rational arguments at all to support your point, whatever your actual point is that you are 'trying to' make.

From my perspective you are only providing so called "rational arguments" that just support your own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
You are exposing your ignorance on the subject of knowledge.
How else do philosophers do philosophy and scientists do science?

Take Einstein for example.
Einstein initially provided 'rational arguments' for his own 'already held beliefs' with his personal conviction i.e. his theory of gravity. At this point this is only a belief and nothing more.
When Einstein beliefs were accepted by other scientists, it is recognized as a scientific theory [on paper only].
Subsequently when the accepted theories are proven with empirical evidence, the theory became Scientific Knowledge limited by conditions of the scientific framework.

It is the same with my personal belief of how theists came about to believe in an illusory God.
I have provided the necessary rational arguments to justify my hypothesis which is alignment with various philosophy [Buddhism, Hinduism, and the likes] plus philosophers like Kant, Hume and others.
You have not provided any counters to my rational arguments.

I have also linked my arguments to actual experiences of my own and reported by others.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
Where is your argument is it possible?
I have NEVER provided one because NO one has shown any real interest in knowing it.

Most people like you just BELIEVE things, and thus, like you, are NOT open to listening and learning more and anew.

In order to provide an argument, to you, for some thing, then I NEED to KNOW what your definition you have for things. Therefore, in order to be able to provide an argument that 'God' is possible to be real to a person, like you, who BELIEVES, wholeheartedly, that God is impossible to be real, then I NEED to know what THEIR, imperative definition, for what 'God' is. Until then it is just a complete waste of time to provide any thing at all.

So, will you provide 'your' (imperative) definition for the word 'God'?

HOW could I speculate 'God exists' If you NEVER tell me what 'your' definition of the word 'God' is?

That is extremely easy and simple to do when, and if, you provide 'your' imperative definition of 'God'.
What an escapist you are.
To depend on my definition of whatever to present your arguments is bad philosophy and intellectually immature.

If you have a sound argument, it should stand by itself.

If you have any rational backbone, provide a sound argument for your hypothesis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Show me on what grounds are you to prove, God exists?
What is this 'God' thing you keep talking about?

Define for me what a 'God' is, to you, then I can show what grounds I have. Until then I have some thing from you I absolutely nothing at all.
That is why I think you are very snaky.
If you don't believe in 'God' then what do you believe in?

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
Not [edited] exactly.
Craving is essential to facilitate survival.
What is necessary is to manage and modulate 'craving' within the 8Fold Paths, i.e.
  • The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
This is similar to Aristotle's
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
    with the right person and
    to the right degree and
    at the right time and
    for the right purpose, and
    in the right way
    - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
    -Aristotle
But the Buddhist's 4NT-8FP model is very thorough and complete.
But WHY 'be angry' at all, in the beginning.
It is very easy indeed to feel anger emotions without 'being angry'.
What I found, which is much better and much easier, is to understand WHY anger emotions exist, and then use those emotions accordingly to achieve the best result for EVERY one.
The subject of 'emotions' is well researched with still a lot of room to understand the complexities of emotions.
So, from your perspective, there are some things that are WELL researched but with still a LOT of room to understand more. Who cares?

From what I have learned about 'emotions' already, that is enough in order to be able to NOT be controlled by them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
The original and core purpose of emotions, as such applicable to 'anger' is;
  • Emotions produce different physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. The original role of emotions was to motivate adaptive behaviors that in the past would have contributed to the passing on of genes through survival, reproduction, and kin selection.
Emotions ONLY produce behavior if they are allowed to control behavior.

For me, however, emotions are just a SIGN of what is going on outside of the body, but I am still in control of emotions and I do NOT allow emotions produce behavior. I control ALL behavior, and therefore I am responsible for ALL of what behavior occurs. I, unlike you, however, do NOT blame emotions for behavioral and cognitive changes. I am responsible for these things and so like to always be in control of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
There are loads of self-development programs for anger management out there and some are very effective.
But the main concern here is not anger management, but the deeper impulse of the existential crisis.
You keep going on and on and on about some 'existential crisis' that you are stuck in.

Tell us what is this 'existential crisis' exactly you have? Until then I have absolutely NO idea what 'existential crisis' you have or are in, understood?

Also, do you yet understand that, unlike you, I have NO 'existential crisis' and I have NO need for 'anger management', so there is nothing that needs resolving here for me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:44 am
In addition, craving is merely an element of 12-elements cycle which need to be managed in one package.
If you say so. But it all sounds very complex. I am NOT sure WHY you want to follow "others" words and ideas anyway?
Do you NOT know how to resolve your own issues, by yourself?
Are you claiming you are omniscient or a-know-all who don't have to follow others?
Define who/what the 'you' is and who/what the 'I' is. When you can do that successfully, then 'you' will KNOW what the answer IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I am not omniscient, that is why I have to learn knowledge of every field from others. Btw, what do you follow Scientific and various knowledge of others.
None.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I claim to have resolve all issues I have faced but as for the existential crisis I have managed it reasonably to wean off from having to cling to a God in the past as a security blanket.
Who cares?

And WHY did you believe in a God previously? To me, that seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
If you believe in a God as real you have not effectively resolve your own existential issue by yourself. It is the same with the > 80% of theists at present.
I do NOT believe that and I have NO 'existential crisis'.

WHY did you have an 'existential crisis' and why do you still have an 'existential crisis'?

You really do have NO idea what I have been saying here, have you?

The reason WHY you have NO idea is blatantly obvious, to me.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:42 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:15 pm

But WHY 'be angry' at all, in the beginning.
It is very easy indeed to feel anger emotions without 'being angry'.
What I found, which is much better and much easier, is to understand WHY anger emotions exist, and then use those emotions accordingly to achieve the best result for EVERY one.
The subject of 'emotions' is well researched with still a lot of room to understand the complexities of emotions.
So, from your perspective, there are some things that are WELL researched but with still a LOT of room to understand more. Who cares?

From what I have learned about 'emotions' already, that is enough in order to be able to NOT be controlled by them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
The original and core purpose of emotions, as such applicable to 'anger' is;
  • Emotions produce different physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. The original role of emotions was to motivate adaptive behaviors that in the past would have contributed to the passing on of genes through survival, reproduction, and kin selection.
Emotions ONLY produce behavior if they are allowed to control behavior.

For me, however, emotions are just a SIGN of what is going on outside of the body, but I am still in control of emotions and I do NOT allow emotions produce behavior. I control ALL behavior, and therefore I am responsible for ALL of what behavior occurs. I, unlike you, however, do NOT blame emotions for behavioral and cognitive changes. I am responsible for these things and so like to always be in control of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
There are loads of self-development programs for anger management out there and some are very effective.
But the main concern here is not anger management, but the deeper impulse of the existential crisis.
You keep going on and on and on about some 'existential crisis' that you are stuck in.

Tell us what is this 'existential crisis' exactly you have? Until then I have absolutely NO idea what 'existential crisis' you have or are in, understood?

Also, do you yet understand that, unlike you, I have NO 'existential crisis' and I have NO need for 'anger management', so there is nothing that needs resolving here for me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
If you say so. But it all sounds very complex. I am NOT sure WHY you want to follow "others" words and ideas anyway?
Do you NOT know how to resolve your own issues, by yourself?
Are you claiming you are omniscient or a-know-all who don't have to follow others?
Define who/what the 'you' is and who/what the 'I' is. When you can do that successfully, then 'you' will KNOW what the answer IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I am not omniscient, that is why I have to learn knowledge of every field from others. Btw, what do you follow Scientific and various knowledge of others.
None.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I claim to have resolve all issues I have faced but as for the existential crisis I have managed it reasonably to wean off from having to cling to a God in the past as a security blanket.
Who cares?

And WHY did you believe in a God previously? To me, that seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
If you believe in a God as real you have not effectively resolve your own existential issue by yourself. It is the same with the > 80% of theists at present.
I do NOT believe that and I have NO 'existential crisis'.

WHY did you have an 'existential crisis' and why do you still have an 'existential crisis'?

You really do have NO idea what I have been saying here, have you?

The reason WHY you have NO idea is blatantly obvious, to me.
That is what a schizophrenic would say, i.e. everyone else have no idea and understand the reality they are in.
Until you make your stance clear and support it with arguments there is nothing for me to say.

You are too arrogant upon ignorance.
It is said the subconscious mind is 90% while the conscious mind is 10%.
To claim you are in control of your emotions, inner mind and subconscious mind is really "woo woo" beliefs based on ignorance of one's self.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woo_woo

Being snaky and not being open with your beliefs is a sure sign of a lack of control of your existential crisis generating a defense mechanism.

Btw, the OP is about 'God'.
I have explained God is an impossibility as real.
God [as defined by theists] is only possible within the minds of theists.

Meanwhile you [you have nothing to do with 'God'] have wasted my time with your straw-man.

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Age wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:09 pm
Instead of TRYING TO define some thing from "another's" perspective how about you just define things from 'your' own perspective only, which is what I been asking for anyway.

You wrote: (btw, God is an impossibility to be real)
I wrote: If you say so. Is that an absolute irrefutable True fact, to you?
You wrote: It is not a fact. It is via reason, i.e. a God [imperative definition] cannot be real.
I wrote: To you, what is the imperative definition for the word 'God'?

Now, if you provide what 'YOUR' definition for the word 'God', then we can keep discussing this properly.
How can present my own definition for a God when I believe God is an impossibility.
Very ,easily just present your own definition of what a 'God' IS. It is NOT that hard at all REALLY. But considering you asked; " How could you present some thing when you BELIEVE some thing contrary?" then this goes straight to what I have been pointing out. That is; You are completely and utterly incapable of SEEING any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is true and right. In other words. I can NOT show any thing to you which could prove your BELIEF wrong because you are NOT open to any thing other than your own BELIEF, which from your perspective is 100% absolutely True, Right, and Correct. You ALSO totally incapable of even you presenting absolutely any thing at all that opposes your own BELIEFS. You are so stuck in 'confirmation biases' that you can not even come up with any thing yourself that opposes your own BELIEF.

You are a prime example of what my whole point revolves around.

Until you provide YOUR definition for the word 'God', then the crux of what you write is;
I BELIEVE some thing is an impossibility, but what that some thing is that I am actually talking about I have absolutely NO idea nor clue about at all.

Well done. You have proved, and have said, absolutely NOTHING at all here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
The most I can do is to understand the theists' definition of their God, in this case their best definition as I had presented above.
If that is the "most" you can do, then that is all you can only really do.

Tell me, did you hear me when I previously said;
'I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?'

If yes, then what now?
If you have NOT heard me, then why not?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
The cruder definition of God is 'God is that bearded man in the sky' etc.
Now that is the version told to children, usually through cartoons, and closely aligns to the other LIE that you adult human beings tell your children.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Upon queried upon for justifications, the theists' definition has been refined from polytheism to monotheism to the one I had presented above.
And, upon queried for YOUR definition/justification of what you say, you are completely and utterly incapable of doing so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
OK, if theists defined their God as created all and enable salvation for all, then yes, from their perspective, salvation is for all.
But my point is that not all theists define the God as creator include the the salvation element in their definition.
So, WHY did you say you are defining the word 'God' from the theist's perspective IF you know admit and say that NOT all theists define 'God' that way?

Also, who cares what some "other" people say and how they define things? You are the one making claims, so I want to KNOW how YOU are defining things. I have already said that the definition that you provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But if you want to now say that that is not your personal imperative definition of 'God', then what shall we now do?
Btw, the definition of God I presented as defined by theists is the most refined is only 'right' as inferred by the theists reasoning [albeit crude] based on their own limited conditions and arguments.
You REALLY do have an inability to HEAR.

That definition is OBVIOUSLY not the most refined definition of and for the word 'God'.

And, if the definition you gave is only 'right' as inferred by the theists reasoning, then what is the definition YOU give, which is only "right" by your reasoning that God is an impossibility to be real? Is YOUR reasoning also based on your own limited conditions and arguments?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Note my analogy of how a child would define Santa Claus as real relative to the child's cognitive and reasoning power.
You use the word 'note' as though you have some ALL-KNOWING, IRREFUTABLE information that you are passing on.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
But Santa Claus cannot be real when subjected to the requirement of a higher degree of proofs and justification.
However we can explain how the child would come to their own conclusion with conviction, i.e. it is all psychological.
The reason WHY santa claus is REAL to children is because you adults LIE to them. Children had NO previous reason to NOT believe what you tell them. That is the reason WHY children do such things. Surely that still does NOT need to be explained to 'you', adult human beings, does it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
The above is the same with explaining how theists define their God as 'real' but such a claim failed when subjected to a higher level of reasoning, proofs and justifications.
I have explain the fundamental basis why theists define their God as real is psychological.
So, to you, is the fundamental basis WHY you can NOT define YOUR God as any thing, is 'psychological' also?

Are you aware that EVERY thought and emotion IS psychological. The fundamental definition for 'psychological' IS thought and emotion.

You really are so distorted and twisted.

I have already said: The definition that you have provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified. But this 'falls on completely deaf ears'. WHY does this fall on deaf ears? This is because YOUR BELIEFS are so strong that you are completely incapable of even hearing things now.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am

No, this is fundamental, critical and the ground in my discussion of theism.
Okay, so you say that when I read the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions, including the religion and belief in buddhism, I can infer such things. So what?

Do you have any actual point for this?
I claimed when you read all the scriptures of ALL the mainstream religions effectively you will understand the core intent of these religion are to deal with the existential crisis. Didn't you get it?
I KNOW what you have claimed. That is why I asked; So what? Are you aware that by just repeating the exact same claim is getting nowhere. If, however, you answered my actual question, then we move forward.

Do you get and understand that there is and was NO 'existential crisis' to "deal" with at all, in the beginning?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
I stated the Christianity and Islam represented more than 60% of theists is about salvation and the eternal life, re John 3:16 and it very explicit in the Quran.
And I have also stated previously then when you are just making up some figures, and proposing that as though it has any actual truth to it and that you actually have any know-how about what you are talking about, then this is just as ridiculous and absurd as the other things that you are trying to say and claim here.

Did you get this this time?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
The core of Buddhism is also an existential issue as reflected in the Buddha Story re the subliminal fear of mortality via the point of 'old age' 'illness' 'death [corpse] and how to deal with the fear arising from these existential issues.
Have you heard that I do NOT have an 'existential crisis' NOR 'fear of death', like buddha did and like you do?

When 'you' learn NOT to fear any thing, then 'you' do NOT need such stories as buddhas. Do you understand?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
You do NOT need to know any point I make, fundamental or not. To clarify ACCURATELY my clarifying questions all you have to do is to just answer my questions OPENLY and HONESTLY.

By the way if you do not understand my fundamental point, then what exactly do you want me to do. IF you do not understand some thing, but you really wanted to, then you would do some thing about it. I certainly do NOT know what you want from me if you do not ask for any thing.
Btw, you are at fault because you have not made your beliefs clearly but beat around the bush.
Tell me this; Can you read and understand the words following this question?
I do NOT have any beliefs, therefore I can NOT make my "beliefs" clear.

Did you see, hear, get, and understand, this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
You should be bold and declare your belief openly, like;
  • I am a theist or whatever
    I define God as ...
So, you want me to define 'God' as .... Yet you admit that you are totally incapable of doing so yourself, correct?

By the way 'I' do NOT follower nor belong to any 'ism', like 'you' do. So, I can not declare that 'I am .... [any of these human being made up concepts].
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Instead you are asking me to define 'God' when I am not-a-theist.
When you STOP saying that 'God' is an impossibility, THEN I will STOP asking you to define what you are actually talking about. Understood?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
Yes, BELIEVE, but I have provided rational arguments to support my point, note,
But, to me, you have NOT provide rational arguments at all to support your point, whatever your actual point is that you are 'trying to' make.

From my perspective you are only providing so called "rational arguments" that just support your own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
You are exposing your ignorance on the subject of knowledge.
How else do philosophers do philosophy and scientists do science?
If you say so, then it MUST BE. Therefore, I MUST BE ignorant on the 'subject of knowledge', which would then infer that you are NOT ignorant on the 'subject of knowledge' correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Take Einstein for example.
Einstein initially provided 'rational arguments' for his own 'already held beliefs' with his personal conviction i.e. his theory of gravity. At this point this is only a belief and nothing more.
When Einstein beliefs were accepted by other scientists, it is recognized as a scientific theory [on paper only].
Subsequently when the accepted theories are proven with empirical evidence, the theory became Scientific Knowledge limited by conditions of the scientific framework.

It is the same with my personal belief of how theists came about to believe in an illusory God.
I have provided the necessary rational arguments to justify my hypothesis which is alignment with various philosophy [Buddhism, Hinduism, and the likes] plus philosophers like Kant, Hume and others.
You have not provided any counters to my rational arguments.
This is because you have NOT provided any 'rational' arguments at all, just like I have been saying. All you are doing is providing, to me, 'irrational' arguments, to support your already held beliefs.

Whenever you become interested in some thing other than your own obviously, to me, distorted beliefs, then you will hear what I have been saying, which IS; When you STOP assuming and believing things, prior to LOOKING AT things, then you will SEE and KNOW the actual and real Truth of things. Now this is HOW the True, Right, and Correct is obtained.

Also, being Truly OPEN allows you to SEE and OBTAIN this kind of knowledge almost instantaneously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
I have also linked my arguments to actual experiences of my own and reported by others.
But most of your so called "arguments" are invalid anyway, so there is NO need to look any further.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:25 am
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
Where is your argument is it possible?
I have NEVER provided one because NO one has shown any real interest in knowing it.

Most people like you just BELIEVE things, and thus, like you, are NOT open to listening and learning more and anew.

In order to provide an argument, to you, for some thing, then I NEED to KNOW what your definition you have for things. Therefore, in order to be able to provide an argument that 'God' is possible to be real to a person, like you, who BELIEVES, wholeheartedly, that God is impossible to be real, then I NEED to know what THEIR, imperative definition, for what 'God' is. Until then it is just a complete waste of time to provide any thing at all.

So, will you provide 'your' (imperative) definition for the word 'God'?
HOW could I speculate 'God exists' If you NEVER tell me what 'your' definition of the word 'God' is?
Now this is a good question. You could NOT speculate IF 'God exists" IF I NEVER tell you what 'my' definition of what the word 'God' is.

But you have ALREADY speculated IF 'God exists' or not AND you have ALREADY concluded that 'God' is an impossibility, which you now BELIEVE is absolutely true and right. AND, just like I have been showing and pointing out to the readers, you are now NOT open to any thing other than your OWN BELIEF, and this is the reason WHY you are totally incapable of SEEING and HEARING what I have been writing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
That is extremely easy and simple to do when, and if, you provide 'your' imperative definition of 'God'.
What an escapist you are.
To depend on my definition of whatever to present your arguments is bad philosophy and intellectually immature.
Is it?

If you are the first one to make a claim such as: 'God is an impossibility'. But, you are the one who will NEVER provide your own definition of what 'God' is exactly, which is exactly what you are doing here, then is that good philosophy and intellectual immaturity?

I have already said that with the definition you have provided so far I could do some thing about 'it'. But you do not appear at all interested in this. Maybe this is because you can not hear this because that brain will not even consider that this is even possible.

Is it even possible to you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
If you have a sound argument, it should stand by itself.
It does.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
If you have any rational backbone, provide a sound argument for your hypothesis.
I do NOT have a 'hypothesis'.

I only LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things as they actually are.

For example,
'You' are the one here first claiming; 'God is an impossibility' to exist.
What I am doing is I am TRYING TO understand how you are defining this 'God' thing, which you assert and insist could NOT exist.
I can not understand what this 'God' thing is, from your perspective, if you do NOT define 'It' for me.
You are NOT defining 'God', from your perspective.

Then I have been saying that; The definition that you have provided can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified.
I have asked is this YOUR DEFINITION, alluding to; Do you want to use this definition.
You then say, that that is NOT your definition and that is just a definition that just some theists use.
I have then queried you about, What it is that you now want us to do?

I have explained that I NEED to KNOW what definition that you want to use for me to be able to show any thing.

The Truth of any thing can be SHOWN, but only when the definitions are KNOWN.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am

What is this 'God' thing you keep talking about?

Define for me what a 'God' is, to you, then I can show what grounds I have. Until then I have some thing from you I absolutely nothing at all.
That is why I think you are very snaky.
So, by just wanting to gain clarity from you, this leads you to think that I am very snaky (or is that sneaky), correct?

What would you prefer?

Some might even suggest by you NOT providing clarifications on what it is that you are 'trying to' say that in fact it could be you who is the one who is trying to be sneaky.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:30 am
If you don't believe in 'God' then what do you believe in?
Do 'I' have to believe some thing?

Age
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:42 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am

The subject of 'emotions' is well researched with still a lot of room to understand the complexities of emotions.
So, from your perspective, there are some things that are WELL researched but with still a LOT of room to understand more. Who cares?

From what I have learned about 'emotions' already, that is enough in order to be able to NOT be controlled by them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
The original and core purpose of emotions, as such applicable to 'anger' is;
  • Emotions produce different physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. The original role of emotions was to motivate adaptive behaviors that in the past would have contributed to the passing on of genes through survival, reproduction, and kin selection.
Emotions ONLY produce behavior if they are allowed to control behavior.

For me, however, emotions are just a SIGN of what is going on outside of the body, but I am still in control of emotions and I do NOT allow emotions produce behavior. I control ALL behavior, and therefore I am responsible for ALL of what behavior occurs. I, unlike you, however, do NOT blame emotions for behavioral and cognitive changes. I am responsible for these things and so like to always be in control of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
There are loads of self-development programs for anger management out there and some are very effective.
But the main concern here is not anger management, but the deeper impulse of the existential crisis.
You keep going on and on and on about some 'existential crisis' that you are stuck in.

Tell us what is this 'existential crisis' exactly you have? Until then I have absolutely NO idea what 'existential crisis' you have or are in, understood?

Also, do you yet understand that, unlike you, I have NO 'existential crisis' and I have NO need for 'anger management', so there is nothing that needs resolving here for me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
Are you claiming you are omniscient or a-know-all who don't have to follow others?
Define who/what the 'you' is and who/what the 'I' is. When you can do that successfully, then 'you' will KNOW what the answer IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I am not omniscient, that is why I have to learn knowledge of every field from others. Btw, what do you follow Scientific and various knowledge of others.
None.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
I claim to have resolve all issues I have faced but as for the existential crisis I have managed it reasonably to wean off from having to cling to a God in the past as a security blanket.
Who cares?

And WHY did you believe in a God previously? To me, that seems like a pretty stupid thing to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:29 am
If you believe in a God as real you have not effectively resolve your own existential issue by yourself. It is the same with the > 80% of theists at present.
I do NOT believe that and I have NO 'existential crisis'.

WHY did you have an 'existential crisis' and why do you still have an 'existential crisis'?

You really do have NO idea what I have been saying here, have you?

The reason WHY you have NO idea is blatantly obvious, to me.
That is what a schizophrenic would say, i.e. everyone else have no idea and understand the reality they are in.
Until you make your stance clear and support it with arguments there is nothing for me to say.

You are too arrogant upon ignorance.
It is said the subconscious mind is 90% while the conscious mind is 10%.
To claim you are in control of your emotions, inner mind and subconscious mind is really "woo woo" beliefs based on ignorance of one's self.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woo_woo

Being snaky and not being open with your beliefs is a sure sign of a lack of control of your existential crisis generating a defense mechanism.

Btw, the OP is about 'God'.
I have explained God is an impossibility as real.
God [as defined by theists] is only possible within the minds of theists.

Meanwhile you [you have nothing to do with 'God'] have wasted my time with your straw-man.
The readers will SEE what i have said in relation to the opening post question. They can also SEE that all you can say is "God is an impossibility as real".

I have also SHOWN that you do NOT even have your own definition for the word 'God', and that I have said that the definition you provided so far can be shown to be True, Right, and Justified.

Now, IF you do NOT want to go into this any further, then so be it. But I am more than willing to.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests