(Firstly, I’m most familiar with Christianity, so my argument will mostly pertain to this religion. Although if you’re comfortable with another religion you could of course join in for the ride.)
I think I’ve heard it said that if you question God, then that’s wrong, or a sin, or, well, not cool. Often people try to prove or disprove God by using rationale and logic (“If God were all-loving, how can he watch as millions of people suffer?”). I wonder, even if we did use logic and rationale to prove or disprove God, and even if the argument was absolutely fool-proof, would it even matter? Does/Can God exist outside of logic and rationality?
Chances are, we’ve seen one of the disciples or Moses or one of the writers of the books of the Bible use logic and rationality in their writings when arguing for God. So from that we could presume that logic and rationality do hold some godly significance. But then again, none of the writers of the books are perfect, so perhaps we could ignore their use of logic and rationality when we read their books. But then again once again, the Bible is said to be the Word of God, so from that perhaps we can infer that even God uses logic and rationality, or at least approves of it.
Now let’s all use logic and rationality to argue this issue
god is all powerful
god is all good
evil exists
if god allows evil to exist, he is not all good
if god is powerless to stop evil, he is not all powerful
god is all powerful
god is all good
evil exists
if god allows evil to exist, he is not all good
if god is powerless to stop evil, he is not all powerful
god logic 201
god is all powerful
god is all good
It appears that evil exists
If god allows the appearance of evil to exist, the appearance of evil must not be evil.
Nothing is wrong with logic and rationality as long as it doesn’t attempt to provide what is impossible for it.
Contemplating God requires contemplating "now’ which is impossible for reason since it measures comparisons in linear time. But in “now” there is no linear time and reason requires linear time in which to function.
This is why pondering replaces mechanical reason and logic at this level since this form of emotional thought is open to distinctions of qualitative wholeness which reside in the domain of “now”.
if evil is naught but appearance, then evil doesn’t actually exist
the evil (sinful) actor is promised eternity in hell
the evil (sinful) act isn’t really evil because evil doesn’t actually exist
going to hell for something that doesn’t exist because god is all good
if evil is naught but appearance, then evil doesn’t actually exist
the evil (sinful) actor is promised eternity in hell
the evil (sinful) act isn’t really evil because evil doesn’t actually exist
going to hell for something that doesn’t exist because god is all good
god logic 401
if evil is the relative absence of good, then it is only the insufficient relationship to God
the evil (insufficiently related) actor is not promised anything but the consequences of his actions
the evil (insufficiently related) act is separation from God
“going to hell†is the establishment of a relation and its consequences.
evil is not the relative absence of good, evil does not exist
the “evil” actor cannot act in an evil way
the actor who cannot act in an evil way is promised consequences
seperation from god (which is goodness) is a threatened punishment
the actor who cannot act in an evil way is seperated from god/goodness because god is omnibenevolent
evil is not the relative absence of good, evil does not exist
the “evil” actor cannot act in an evil way
the actor who cannot act in an evil way is promised consequences
seperation from god (which is goodness) is a threatened punishment
the actor who cannot act in an evil way is seperated from god/goodness because god is omnibenevolent
Let me re-sum your convoluted presentation (I think you need to take god logic 501 over)
Evil does not exist
One cannot be evil
Everyone bears consequences
Separation from good is a consequence
Separation from good is an result of God’s omni-benevolence
It is the same as god logic 401, but you have ceased calling separation from Good, evil. No matter.
Well, I guess we wouldn’t know what’s impossible for logic unless we attempt it, huh?
So contemplating God requires contemplating in the present? Why? I don’t see how the two connect. And reason measures comparisons in linear time… I guess so, but I’m not convinced. Maybe if you could prove this for me.
Pondering and appealing to our emotions? Recognizing distinctions between immediately present (and thus absolute) objects… which is how we may contemplate God…
But I still don’t see why contemplating God requires contemplating the present.
If anything were rational apart from God, where would it get it’s rationality if not from the first cause of reason [and being]? But if God is beyond our thought, maybe that just means our knowledge of God and hence of philosophy, has more it can understand. [If the end of the universe is knowledge of God, then perhaps the diligent scholar will never be forced into a state of ennui.]
one cannot be evil
everyone bears consequences
consequences means one can act in a good way or an evil way and reap the reward
seperation from good is a consequence of that which one cannot do (be evil)
the omnibenevolent god demands consequence for evil be demanded on those for actions they could not have done
Alas, alas, we really are going have send you back to 501
consequences means one can act in a good way or an evil way and reap the reward
Consequences imply no such thing. Consequences simply means the effect of a cause.
Because there is no evil does not mean that there is no separation from good. Separation from good is simply the perspective of separation through localized act (now were getting into 501). The consequences of such separation are experienced as “evil” but from the perspective of “Good”, there is no separation. Evil is simply a lack of Being.
seperation from good is a consequence of that which one cannot do (be evil)
One cannot do it from the perspective of Eternity. From the illusionary perspective of a single soul, it can be experienced as a lack of Being, a source of suffering, it too an illusion.
the omnibenevolent god demands consequence for evil be demanded on those for actions they could not have done
No consequences are demanded, they are resulted. No one demands that one gets burned when putting a hand in the fire. One is burned.
Quite true. We must learn by experience. Try using logic and reason and see how far it can take you. My own experiences have taught me that it can only go so far. On a more profound level, consider what Meister Eckhart suggests:
At some point logic and reason will give way to what lies behind it. There is no reason to believe this but instead keep trying and learn by experience how far it takes you.
Our connection with higher being lies in the present. In the past as well as the future, we’ve already conceptualized their existence bringing them down to our level.
It really is quite fascinating. Both the past and future for us exist in imagination and we are so caught up in them we cannot experience the present.
Try using logic and you’ll see that as soon as you start, the process is already in the past. Associative thought functions in linear time. It cannot be any other way for us as we are
What do we possess that can contemplate the present? I see them as conscious affirmation that reconciles duality and the higher emotional qualitative states that when functioning together with consciousness, produce real objective perception within the quality of the moment itself.
Because God exists in the present. Contemplating the past or future is contemplating results but God is “being” exclusive of results and being exists in the present. Contemplating the laws of results can only take you so far and then it becomes a very personal decision for a person whether or not to continue by putting aside preconception and becoming open.
“this is why baruch was laughed off the proverbial stage… ohmmmm…”
It was exactly the proverbial nature of the stage that Spinoza criticized. And if you had any knowledge of the historical reaction to him, it was not laughter, it was terror, and rightfully so.
“spoken like an atheist…”
No. A pantheist.
Let’s rush you through grad school and straight onto your god logic PhD.
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem seems to prove what you’re saying, that logic is an incomplete system. So maybe we could never use logic to arrive at the truth about God. But that’s not what my topic is about.
Hm… I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “conceptualized [the existence of God]”, and in turn “bringing them down to our level”. So maybe what you’re saying is that any time we attempt to “conceptualize” (do you mean to say “figure out”?) God, the result is always false because God cannot be conceptualized by our limited human minds? Or maybe God is not something to be conceptualized, period?
The process of logic is already in the past? So, you mean that thoughts, which we use when reasoning and in logic, occur successively, which therefore relegates every prior thought to the now-imagining past. Okay, but this seems to marginalize every thought process that we use, including all forms of logic and thoughts outside of logic. And does this really serve to render them ineffective?
Emotional states combined with consciousness, producing real objective perception in the present? That sounds sort of like imagination though (maybe my definition of imagination is different from yours). They seem to be objective to ourselves. But even hallucinations and illusions and imagination are objective perceptions to ourselves (the mind) as well, no?
Does God really exist only in the present? I wrote in my first post that I was primarily referring to the Christian God, and in the Bible it says that God is the beginning and the end. Perhaps God exists at all times, or maybe “time” isn’t really a process of objective, successive events.
I don’t really get what you mean when you say that the future is a result, because it seems like a future result would be of a different nature than a past result. If the past and the future are both imaginations, it would seem as if the past is an imagination of a particular sort, and the future an imagination of a different sort.
If God is “being” exclusive of results, it could also seem that God would then exist in all times, and not just the present as you wrote.
But it seems like you’re actually arguing that logic and rationality are ultimately unable prove/disprove God (because the process is in the past, etc.). I don’t mind continuing this, but it’s not what my topic is about.
“the priests and rabbis were quaking in their boots perhaps, the philosophers laughed…”
Spinoza was the foregoing expert on Cartesian philosophy in all of the Netherlands. Leibniz sought his council and may have even plagarized. What philosophers are you dreaming of?
