Element,

"The only potential problem I see with your explanation on this is.....what we understand as "logical" is directly linked to our knowledge. Logic is a derivitive of knowledge, and since our knowledge is very limited (when compared to all possible knowledge in the universe) it follows that our logic is equally as limited. In other words, perhaps there is some dimension where a "square circle" is possible, we just don't know it yet."

Logic concerns relations among concepts and propositions.  It’s not relative to knowledge because how concepts and propositions are related to each other doesn’t depend on whether someone knows them or not.  The only thing that new knowledge does to concepts and propositions is present new propositions and concepts since they are then under new or updated information.  

For example, if we say if x then y, we are saying under x as it is currently defined in the proposition, if we have proposition x, then y follows.  If we suddenly get new information about x, then you are talking about a new x', not the old one.  But this doesn’t mean that the old proposition suddenly becomes illogical or disappears, it simply means from the old premise x (under which that x is defined), the old conclusion y still follows and from the new premise x' (under which that x is defined), the new conclusion y' follows.

So I would disagree that logic is a derivative of knowledge.  

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/17/2005 1:40:04 PM (GMT-5)

I understand what you are saying, but you're missing the boat.  New knowledge or old knowledge is irrelevant.  The point is, in either case (old or new), KNOWLEDGE is required in order there to be a definition for X or Y.  The moment there is an X, you have knowledge.  X is a statement of some of type of knowledge.  New knowledge creates new logic, as you described above.  This shows they are linked.  So rather than rebutting the claim "logic is a deritivative of knowlege", your example actually buttressed it because you explained how new knowledge of "x" directly causes a new logic to arise.  They are linked.  If logic was NOT a derivitive of knowledge, then "new" knowledge would have no bearing on "new" logic.

I know what you are saying, but don't overlook quantum physics.  In a quantum field, virtual particles can both simultaneous exist and not exist, they pop in and out of existence randomly.  Particles also appear to simultaneously move and stand still at the same time.  Sting theory postulates there may be as many as 11 dimensions, etc.  All of these possibilities could affect how we understand what a square or circle is, and perhaps there are conditions that could allow for something like a square circle, but you are correct that the current definitions for each would need to be modified in order for that to be logically possible.

.....Okay, it appears we've spent a lot of time discussing logic.  Lets move on and address the God-concepts described in the Bible.  I believe the Biblical God is a projection of the cultural/human aspects of the Bible writers and their times.  This God is described as - Jealous, tribal, violent, racist, territorial, needs blood offerings in order to be appeased, is conditionally loving, commits genocide, and generally believes that death/killing/torment are good ways of resolving problems and coercing obedience through threats of violence.  These are behaviors and practices that are extremely common among human societies, both now and throughout all history.  Human history is LOADED with myriads of examples of humans performing these behaviors.  The fact that the Bible God is described as also possessing these inherently human attributes strongly suggests that the Bible God is a man-made god; a mere projection of the Hebrews own human nature and cultural practices.

Nature’s ELEMENTS are all over the map of contradictions. Sometimes the disaster is part of God’s design, other times they are just stupid people getting in the way. What is it? To resolve “d", you violate “a) Is it a theology that contains self-contradicting attributes?”  Please tell me, are you one of those people that believe in little dancing fairies or not?

Element said: 9/12/2005 "These people that say God was behind hurricane Katrina might as well believe little  fairies dance with invisible elves atop needles...But God does not force people to live in danger zones, like near volcanoes (like Mt. Vesuvius) fault lines (in CA), or near coastal areas. People do that on their own. There are plenty of safe places to live throughout the world, so its not like we have no options."

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/19/2005 10:20:13 PM (GMT-5)

Hey Element,

Yeah, I was going to suggest we move on as well.  It seems that we both have slightly different ways of thinking about logic and knowledge, so I hope this doesn’t become problematic later in the discussions.  (There are still some things in what you posted that I disagree with... (and agree with too), but if the topic comes up again, great... if not, great.)

Alright, so it seems the next area would be “benevolence”, the concept of “good”, since this is the main area which causes you to reject the Biblical God (am I right about that? Or are there other areas as well?).  You wrote, “This God [of the Bible] is described as - Jealous, tribal, violent, racist, territorial, needs blood offerings in order to be appeased, is conditionally loving, commits genocide, and generally believes that death/killing/torment are good ways of resolving problems and coercing obedience through threats of violence.”  

So I guess this comes with two questions off the top of my head: 1) what does “good” entail? and 2) do these terms accurately describe God?  Let’s leave the blood offerings and sacrifices to the side for the moment until the end because that’s a huge thing in itself.  Hmm… I’m also trying to think of good ways to approach this issue to keep out as much confusion as possible.  Should we get in to defining “good” or should we just go through the descriptors one by one (ie, jealousy, tribal, etc…) and see if they accurately describe God?  What do you think?

PS- I still want to get back to the issue of omnipotence at some point to find out how you cash that out in both the Panentheist and Christian belief systems and so I can also explain how I cash it out in the Christian belief system. But we can save that for later. 

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/20/2005 3:23:14 PM (GMT-5)

Element,

Wow, your response contained bits of everything!  I’m glad you are interested in the topic of benevolence.  However, I was hoping to go through this piece by piece, because if I simply try to respond to all that you wrote, first it would take me about a week or two just to put my response together, and second it would probably be an extremely lengthy response.  I already am aware of most of the passages you quoted, so before we delve into that, how about we evaluate your definition of good.  

(Side note, just to let you know where I stand at the moment:  I don’t really have a full definition of “good”, but here’s what I have so far: goodness is rooted in God’s character. Yes, I know, that’s probably ‘begging the question’ in the context of our discussion, but if you’ve read Plato’s Euthyphro, perhaps with keeping that context in mind, you’d see somewhat where I’m coming from in forming that definition.  Also, one who is “good” will promote the goodness of another if there is anything that is good within that other to promote, regardless of what methods might be used.  Also ultimate and true “good” automatically is distinguished from that which is not good.)

So here’s what you wrote in your definition: “I define a "good" all moral decisions/acts that promote survival, harmony, order, peace, empathy, and pleasure, etc. "Evil" is defined as all moral decisions/acts that promote - suffering, chaos, death, selfishness, disharmony, pain, etc.”  

Can you explain a bit further what it means to “promote survival”?  Is this promoting survival for the majority or for each individual?  (Yes, ideally both.  But here in this world we live in, we know there are situations where decisions must be made: individual or group, among many other factors.)  So specifically, the survival of what?

(My answer to the last question I wrote here would be this: survival of goodness, which includes (among other things) innocence, all the 'Fruits of the Spirit', etc, and those who cling to goodness.  Hmm.. looking at this, I realize this may be circular... I'm trying to be as fair as possible in this discussion by letting you know where I stand on these issues as much as I can.)

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/20/2005 7:45:30 PM (GMT-5)

Element said: "If ever there were an "award" for taking comments out of context, you would have just won it! Perhaps you were not intending to do this, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain my comments and show exactly how they are not contradictory."

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I’m not trying to quote you out of context I’m simply confused about how you reconcile your god with your creator.  You have to understand that I’m at a disadvantage not having a book to reference, so the only illustration I have of your god’s character comes from you.  So please allow me to subject your “bigger more advanced god” to the same level of scrutiny that my smaller less advanced god is subject to. 

"First - "These people that say God was behind hurricane Katrina might as well believe little fairies dance with invisible elves atop needles..." The context of this comment was specifically referring to the claim that Katrina was a direct ACT OF JUDGMENT - by God. In other words, the claim God was personally instigating this storm for the sole purpose of killing/destroying people. Got it? Now for the next comment....."

Ok I understand that you’re trying to separate the guilt of your god’s creation from any form of judgment.  But did you not say:  “Acts of nature that result in death/pain are most definitely part of God's design for the natural universe.”    So are you not saying your god creates arbitrary acts of natural evil, a booby-trapped world by design?  Is this a Dr. Frankenstein that creates random acts of evil that's suppose to bring us more comfort then a god of justice?  I’m not sure how you get your creator off the hook and still keep him benevolent, please explain.   Personally, if I was to dream up a bigger more advanced god, I would some how skip this world of pain and suffering and stick with the original paradise.  Seems like your god skipped the paradise altogether and just created an unexplained painful world from the start.  Anyways, if we are just victims of natural disasters by arbitrary force through design, well then I don’t find much comfort in your god being a very loving creator. Unless of course natural evil has freewill, then I suppose that could fall under some kind of "violation" of the creator.  You’re not saying Mother Nature has freewill, are you?

"Second - "Acts of nature that result in death/pain are most definitely part of God's design for the natural universe." This comment was specifically referring to the topic of "natural evil"!! So the first comment was referring to God's Judgement, and the second was referring to natural evil.....two TOTALLY different things".

As a loving father, when I create an environment for my children I try to make it as safe as possible.  What if I created an environment that for the most part was safe, but for no apparent reason, out of the blue the floor opened up and sucked down a few of my kids.  Responding to my kids, I would say they would not appreciate and value the lovely environment I created if it was always lovely, you know, "up needs down". So the kids corner in fear and say “sure dad”, all along making a conscience effort to try and stay far away from any cracks in the floor. Then in time, out of nowhere a bolt of electricity comes down from the ceiling and fries another child of mine.  The other kids scream out in horror and fear, “dad we already new the lesson about the floor, why the electrocution”?   I would tell them about the three dimensional shadows and how pain was good for them.  I would go on and explain how stupid they were for being so close to the floor and to close to the ceiling.  But of course I would have to flood the room once in awhile and drown a few kids or blow them around while smashing a few heads.  Let’s not forget genetic defects, disabilities, famines, disease and ultimately a slow decaying death.  Please show me why such a person (your god/creator) would be deemed praiseworthy.

No, I disagree; I would rather have justice served (regardless if I personally opposed the ruling) then arbitrary evil and anarchy. Through Devine judgment, a just creator would be deemed justified in cursing the ground, contrary to the unexplained haphazard natural evil you suggest. 

You can't have up without down, you can't have hot without cold, you can't have right without left, and you can't have good without evil.  The existence of both is necessary in order for either to have any definition or meaning at all.  God wants us to understand what "good" is, to know its definition, and value it.  But the only way that is possible (logically) is if there exists an opposite to contrast it; a juxtaposition to compare it with.  Think of it like this......all light casts a shadow.  Without the existence of shadows, we wouldn't live in a 3 dimensional world.  Just like shadows are necessary to give 3D objects depth, shape, and form, so too the contrast of "evil" is necessary in order to give "Good" - depth, shape, and form.  In this respect, Evil is necessary and part of God's design for the sentient universe.  

So in order for my wife and me to experience the pleasure of a full loving and faithful relationship we need to commit adultery? 

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/22/2005 12:53:44 PM (GMT-5)

Element: God designed us all with a survival instinct, which automatically proves that its God's design and will for us to live. (Just like seeing a transmission in a car is proof that it was meant to drive.) People working together for the common good of all is what promotes survival. When people work together - there is harmony, order, peace, empathy, pleasure, and even love. God created us as a social species, we are genetically hardwired to create social orders and build communities. This is God's design and will for humans, as evidenced by the way we were made.

VFG: I agree.  God did design us with these things, and these desires.  But on the other hand, we know that not all people desire everyone to be happy.  We know there is tremendous corruption, malice, and deceit that goes on and there are plenty of people who don’t work for the common good.  There are times where, for example, there are groups of people torture who others.  This happens repeatedly in history.  So here, society A defeats and tortures society B.  Society B is now pretty much helpless.  Society C decides to come in and rescue society B (and the question is, why even care about society B’s wellbeing?  Society C could be content living in ignorant bliss & society A is content in their form of order.  Why should B even matter?), but in order to do this, individuals from society C must be willing to sacrifice their lives for society B; the individuals have the choice to refuse, but nevertheless they go.  This goes against the “survival instinct” the individuals (in C) have.  Which is better: 1) to sacrifice your harmony, order, peace, empathy, pleasure, and even love for yourself and your own family for society B or 2) to sacrifice the harmony, order, peace, empathy, pleasure, and even love for society B to survive and be with your family?  In the world we live in today, these choices must be made.  Which choice is better and why?

Element: Now, when you read the Bible and you see a god that is promoting divisions and disorder among humans by encouraging tribalism, war, bloodshed, territorialism, racism, and violence.....you automatically see a contradiction with that, and the natural design we see in our biological selves. This is a tipoff that the god of the Bible is probably not the true God of Creation because the God of Creation would be encouraging us to follow his natural design for our human lives - which includes being communal, peaceful, empathic, loving, and seeking the greater good of our species, and not just ourselves. These traits promote survival, which we already know is God's intention for us as evidenced by the survival instinct he infused us with.

VFG:  Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems there is a contradiction with how you view the Bible and your own view about God.  Regarding the Bible, you believe it misrepresents God, that He wouldn’t really do anything like that, but on the other hand you say that evil is used within God’s design so we can know the difference between “good” and “evil”.  God uses it or doesn't use it?  Is it good or is it not?  Does it become good?  If it's good (or becomes something good), then why do you use this for a reason against the Bible?  Back on 9/19/50 when you wrote to Mark (sparknheart) it seemed you were saying that even when free will is “used to violate that interconnection, it is being used in a way that is also part of God's design because it is through experience of sin/affliction that we have a way to define what good and evil are.”  I do think that you are taking these occurrences in the Bible out of context, which leads to misunderstandings, but I hope we can get into these types of passages later.  So how about we stop bringing up passages in the Bible for now until we hash out our understandings of “good” vs. “evil”?

So back to the issue of survival.  Are we talking about survival in terms of numbers, survival of those that who appear peaceful and empathetic (even if it’s just a few within a large society), survival of the species, survival of an ideology, or what?

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/22/2005 8:57:20 PM (GMT-5)

"Element, I have a question about your ideas on natural evil and good/evil balance.  You said the effects of natural catastrophes could be avoided by living in appropriate geographical places.  But it took a lot of scientific knowledge to understand that, didn't it?  How do we explain the balance of good/evil due to natural catastrophes until humans had enough information to know WHERE to live?"

I don't know how much scientific knowledge the ancients had.  I mean, look at the science that must have been used to build the pyramids in Eygpt, the Sphinx, the Aztec fortresses, etc.  And if you believe the Bible story, at one point mankind had so much knowledge that they were capable of uniting the whole planet and creating the tower of Babel.  Surely ancient civilizations capable of such amazing scientific feats were capable of simply reading the sky and taking shelter when ominous clouds appeared, or moving away from rumbling mountains that billowed smoke, etc.   

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/23/2005 9:39:17 PM (GMT-5)

Hey Mephi-

Remember that OT scholar I told you I'd check in with about the Hebrew behind 'nacham' (regret)? He did get back to me. He basically says we should take the text as an authoritative revelation of God. If the text means God actually regretted 'having created' (which he thinks is the case) then that's the truth of the matter. End of story. What about omniscience? He says if the traditional understanding doesn't jive with scripture, chuck the traditional understanding. God is, knows, does, understands, regrets and/or otherwise as scripture describes him. If that means wholesale process, then--says he--so be it.

Thing is, what he may not understand is that even within process, God's knowing truths positing the contingency of future events and God's perfect evaluation of those possibilities are held to. The more I read Hartshorne, for example, the more I see that my own defintion of omniscience, infinite intelligence, perfect evaluation and planning--all the things that logically rule out God's actually regretting his own past choices--are consistent with process theology. Hartshorne would, I believe, have had just as much a problem with the idea that God really regrets his own decisions as I'm having. Wish he were still around to talk to. I'd just call him up! Don't have time to read through all his works to see if he ever said anything about this directly.

A little off the subject, but thought I'd throw it in.

Tom