The 'If Gods so good' Paradox

[Silk]

Just throwing this one out there. What have animals done to deserve the suffering they go through? They don't have origonal sin, or being tested in any grand scheme, yet they suffer no less, while stil being gods creatures.

[Cooper5362]

No living thing has done anything to deserve suffering.  Suffering just happens.  A tornado will maim anyone and there is no amount of moral fiber that can prevent someone from becoming a victim.  There is no "why me" that is valid.  Babies get killed that have done nothing wrong.  There is no right to life that is real.  It's a concept people believe in erroneously.  Everything has their innate ability to choose who they will be, but they are subject to the choices everything else makes and very bad things can easily befall good lives.

In reply to Shjade:

1.  God does not require anything in order for God to be all knowing.  All time has already completely passed for God, if it exists, and God already knows the infinite set of conclusions no matter what we do or choose because all of those existences are already known in and out in their totality.  Our finite state required for us to make mistakes and practice evil, whether we try not to or not, makes us think that all things are not already in existence.  We think invention is new when, in fact, if God exists, nothing is new at all but all is infinitely old.  Our futures, each and every one of them, have to already exist for God to exist.  If our futures are not currently in existence, it would be firm proof God doesn't exist; however, we can prove we at least have one future because we know time is going to pass and all of us are going to die at some point.  If there is only one time line and it was finite, that would be solid proof that God does not exist; however, we have no way to prove there isn't an infinite set of time lines.  I would submit, that to believe in fate in the strictest sense, you have an extremely strong probability that God doesn't exist, though he still could exist in the one time line because it is possible the universe just rearranges itself infinitely along the one time line to make everything happen in all possibilities forever in both past and future.  If that is the case, we are actually going to live this life over an infinite number of times exactly replicating what we do and also an infinite number of times doing completely different things.  I have my doubts on fatalism though even though there is no way to refute or prove the premise.  Bear in mind, for free will, all choices have to exist.  A choice that doesn't exist means you could never make it.  If in my past when I had sex with that person, if there isn't a dimension where I didn't have sex with that person, I never had the choice not to.  It is why we are probably just rocks if fatalism is in fact true.

2.  I would suggest that a God entity, in order to know everything actually has to be everything.  To know it all you have to suffer it all.  For this reason, I think it would be impossible to be selfish to be a God.  To be God, you would have to go through everything's existence, all living and non-living things to know them in totality.  Absolute knowledge requires absolute empathy.  You literally have to go through all the torture, rape, live burnings, and other forms of horror all things encountered.  It would create pain levels that would kill any of us swiftly.  Selfish is actually a premise of evil.  To practice selfish as an all powerful Evil being, you would actually not want to know the pain and suffering you caused and would be eternally flawed for not knowing that.

The paradox you think is occurring is caused from thinking evil actually has a chance of survival in pure form.  It doesn't.  It is guaranteed to fail and can only exist because good uses it for knowledge and understanding of what it isn't.  If you are innocent, you are ignorant, and that is not good.  Adam and Eve were in a pointless state before knowing good and evil and being in a position to choose evil.  It is a useful fairy tale in that respect because the concept is introduced of two beings that were too in the dark to make any choices, and in being that ignorant and innocent, could not actually do anything.  Evil is actually a facsimile of falseness.  It is a choice to move against reality and try to disrupt other beings and objects for the purpose of self promotion which is the true paradox.  That is why I maintain you have to have ignorance to practice evil.  In moving against reality, you are actually moving against yourself even though you have tricked yourself into thinking you are promoting yourself.  Rapists end up in the sad company of other rapists if they are allowed to persist and the results are a nasty place to live.  Same for the other forms of evil.  Greed invariably shuts down economies and nasty wars erupt to start them back up again.  The pure evil location of reality, which I would construe as the true universe, would actually be a void of absolutely nothing.  It just doesn't exist as proven by you reading this post.  If God does exist, evil has to be created out of illusion and ignorance, and constructs have to already be in place to fracture absolute knowledge in order to know evil is a void and all of the other things good is not.  The universe, at its core has to be good because it is real.  In order to know evil in totality, it has to be every facsimile of it at least once to know it all.  So, for God to exist as an all knowing being, each of our lives have to be in complete existence in all forms.  Our lives cannot be just sample machines or false images though to authenticate real knowledge.  Each of our lives are real, our past is there in full real form as is our future.  Our choices have to be real too and the consequences have to be real and final in all forms.

[Shjade]

1.  God does not require anything in order for God to be all knowing.

The fact is, if God exists, that awareness needs us to make those mistakes for its perfection of knowledge, and our fractured lives are an integral part of its knowledge base.

Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

2.  I would suggest that a God entity, in order to know everything actually has to be everything.

This is similar to what I posited, though from a different angle. However...

The paradox you think is occurring is caused from thinking evil actually has a chance of survival in pure form.  It doesn't.  It is guaranteed to fail and can only exist because good uses it for knowledge and understanding of what it isn't.

...I didn't say there was a paradox. I said there was a contradiction: you said not acting was evil, then you said acting was evil. That's problematic.

It is a choice to move against reality and try to disrupt other beings and objects for the purpose of self promotion which is the true paradox.

Sorry, what? "Move against reality?" How do you do that, exactly? What does that even mean? You're using a lot of abstract statements and concepts and not really explaining what you're talking about in terms that actually mean something concrete along the way.

[Cooper5362]

Shjade,

Well, I can't pick one, because taken out of context of the thoughts they were in, the do appear contradictory, but in fact they are complimentary when you pick up on the concept.  If God exists, it is not forcing you to do anything.  You have only to do what you will and God would just know it because God would experience your perspective and why you did what you did while also knowing the true context of when you did it.  The point is, if God exists, we are part of its knowledge base and experience.  God would know exactly just how your actions are good and how they are evil because God would know the reality and exactly what happened as well as your perspective;  it's a knowledge level we can not possess in this state.  I'm not picking one, sorry, picking one isn't the point of the concept, and I'm sure it would not help me communicate with you better.

Nice we agree on a point.  Maybe we can do something constructive from there.

Evil actions drain reality.  They add disorder and eliminate knowledge of truth.  Again, we have things taken out of context to create a very neat media trick that doesn't help us learn.  Pure evil is null, no reality, nothing.  Actual evil practice has good at its disposal and works to destroy it to get to nothing.  We already understand pure evil isn't around, so using the end point of evil to say it contradicts evil working to get to end point doesn't help us.  Again, this point leads me to guess I'm not communicating with you.

Moving against reality is to try to dissolve it.  Evil has no way to actually exterminate reality, so it settles for chaos and smearing it across empty reaches of infinite space to try to render it null.  This is why I illustrated that the end point of evil is a true void to help convey the concept.

My apology for failing to communicate with you.  I'm certain my concepts are not coming across, and I have a feeling I won't possess the command of language to present them.  I'm willing to use specific points of evil acts versus good acts to elaborate on these concepts if that would help.

[Noelle]

So what is the point of God if he didn't create anything? What is he/she/it doing? As far as I can tell, apparently God can tell if we're doing good or evil, has some kind of mystical knowledge we can't obtain, but why? What is the point? If God does not act and does not create, then God is essentially a sitting duck and whatever made the universe is a hell of a lot more productive with their time.

Your concept of evil "draining reality of truth" in of itself makes no sense. What is truth and why can't it be obtained from evil things? Tragedies happen all the time that show us new perspectives or give us a new understanding. They help us better appreciate the truth of being unaffected by tragedy or "evilness" or whatever you'd like to call it.

For all the examples we've given you of why your theories and statements are contradictory, I have yet to see you present a universal constant that stands up to scrutiny. Give us some tangible examples of the vague, lofty, and metaphysical descriptions and concepts you're trying to convey. Right now, you're using all your own definitions for things, ones that we can neither guess nor do we adhere to, ourselves. What evil actions are you specifically talking about?

As far as I can tell, there may be some examples of cases where evil actions are just to cause disorder and "eliminate knowledge of truth" (what truth, exactly, are you referring to? Isn't disorder and chaos a part of the reality we live in, thereby making it some kind of "truth"?), but they are hardly universal and hardly consistent.

Also, please be aware that the fact that we are picking holes in this may not necessarily be because "we don't get it" -- if there are genuine flaws in your theory, no amount of attempts at comprehension will reconcile that fact. That doesn't mean you're dumb or incompetent or crazy, it just means that there are flaws in your theory. It happens. That's why we discuss things here.

[Cooper5362]

Nothing ever deserves what it gets ever.  The probability of anything getting exactly what it deserves, no more, or no less, is statistically impossible in any finite construct.  The only way anything could ever get exactly what it deserves is if the construct is in fact infinite.

[Shjade]

The point is, if God exists, we are part of its knowledge base and experience.  God would know exactly just how your actions are good and how they are evil because God would know the reality and exactly what happened as well as your perspective;  it's a knowledge level we can not possess in this state.

My point is that if God is all-knowing to that extent and, more importantly, if, as I gather from your description of God, being all-knowing and encompassing all of existence is essentially the entire purpose of God existing at all, we wouldn't need to be here. With perfect knowledge he would have been perfectly aware of everything that would, could, and should have happened if he'd created life and the universe, which means he wouldn't need to literally create the universe to already know the outcome of doing so if he chose to do so.

I suppose what I'm asking you is why did God create life if he was already aware of everything that would follow? Or, if he didn't create life and is simply an external all-knowing force observing existence, I have to echo Noelle's line of inquiry: why does he exist at all? What's the point of a perfect observer who doesn't even need to observe (since he knows everything before it happens anyway)? What would create something like that and for what purpose?

Also, when you say things like "We already understand pure evil isn't around," who's "we?" I know it doesn't include me.

[Noelle]

I look forward to your answers to my questions soon, as I'm sure you're in the midst writing a thoughtful reply

[Apple of Eris]

Evil actions drain reality.

What does this even mean? How does one 'drain reality'? If a man runs up and whacks another guy over the head with a shovel for no reason, that doesn't lessen reality, it adds to it. Every action adds to reality, every unaction adds to reality. I don't see how anything except perhaps a complete collapse of the universe could undo reality.

Especially if god as a creator is everything as you have stated before. If God is everything and must experience everything, then every action or unaction adds to the fullness of god, which since god is everything, adds to the fullness of reality.

  They add disorder and eliminate knowledge of truth.  Again, we have things taken out of context to create a very neat media trick that doesn't help us learn.  Pure evil is null, no reality, nothing.  Actual evil practice has good at its disposal and works to destroy it to get to nothing.  We already understand pure evil isn't around, so using the end point of evil to say it contradicts evil working to get to end point doesn't help us.  Again, this point leads me to guess I'm not communicating with you.

Moving against reality is to try to dissolve it.  Evil has no way to actually exterminate reality, so it settles for chaos and smearing it across empty reaches of infinite space to try to render it null.  This is why I illustrated that the end point of evil is a true void to help convey the concept.

I'll be honest, I can't comprehend your definition of Evil. But I disagree that Chaos is inherently evil. Chaos and Order are neither good nor evil. They are simply states of being. This is an extremem simplification but I will use it for the point of discussion. Imagine for example a brick of gold - a perfect rectangle of shiny yellow matter. It's a solid, the atoms within lined up in neat little rows. Now think of air, those atoms are zipping around every which way, crashing into each other, to you and me, and just having a great old time of things. Neither is inherently good or evil, they just are. My lamp is no more good than the breath leaving my lungs is evil.

I would further argue that if everything were 'Good' which in your definition seems to mean 'Ordered' we would have no free will, no choices to make. We would all be the same, look the same, act the same. There would be no differences in the way you think or the way I think. We would look at a wall and all perceive exactly the same. Where maybe you admire the color, while I might think the texture is pretty. Chaos is not bad, Chaos allows us choice, chaos to me is freedom, what I choose to do with that freedom ultimately can lead to good or evil outcomes and actions.

[Jude]

If reality is infinite as you posit, then why would "draining" reality be a problem?  You can't scratch the sum total of infiniteness no matter what you do.

[Cooper5362]

Attempting to drain reality is not a problem for an infinite universe, it only puts you in a location that is worse off than other locations you could have chosen.  If the universe is finite, then you are in big trouble indeed, the ship will sink if enough damage gets done.

[Oniya]

The point is that if reality is infinite, it can't be drained.  Draining implies a loss, and whatever you take away from an infinite 'something' still leaves you with an infinite 'something'.

[Cooper5362]

We agree entirely Oniya.  That is very important to my concepts.  In an infinite universe, the attempts of evil are actually fruitless.  Evil just puts itself in the unpleasant reaches of the universe rather than doing any actual harm.

[Noelle]

In an infinite universe, anyone's efforts are fruitless.

[Cooper5362]

Their efforts don't seem fruitless to me.  You can travel to the better parts of the universe.

[Oniya]

If we agree completely, then you must agree that the term 'draining', which is defined as 'depleting' or 'emptying gradually' cannot apply.

Terminology is exquisitely important when engaging in debate.  So far, I have seen multiple instances in this thread where your terminology has been brought into question without resolution.  It's very difficult, if not impossible to have a constructive conversation when words are continually being redefined.  There's glory for you.

[Noelle]

The problem is that none of your replies make sense -- it's bordering on being trollish. From redefining words to suit your own ends to avoiding proper evidence when asked, to being incredibly unclear and seemingly tangential (what in the world are you talking about? Efforts? Traveling the universe? What does this have to do with my post?), I'd say you're less interested in discussion and more concerned with just talking. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I do welcome your clear, concise correction.

[Cooper5362]

Good and evil have consequences.  It is necessary to understand where the practice of them put you to give meaning to a discussion about them.  If this just is a troll to you, that was not the intent.  My apologies for wasting your time.