What would be your choice of order in the universe?

You have four choices of order that can be implemented in the universe. The first would be no god to intervene. In other words, order is static and never divinely altered. The second would be a god that never intervenes, which would be similar to the first scenario but still holds onto a belief in a god. This god is often necessary to plan order, but is never necessary to intervene in order to uphold order. The third would be a god that intervenes on a "need be" basis, such as the Virgin Birth, when necessary to uphold order. The fourth god is one that intervenes at every instant. As Albert Einstein says, "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." There are two versions of this. One is hypothetical: if God exists, there would be no evil in this world. Naturally, most people would rule this one out, given the existence of evil. The second version is the belief that God intervenes constantly, both in good and evil, to establish order. The fifth answer assumes that there is/are god(s) capable of good and god(s) capable of evil and that they all interact each other.

There's actually a trend here.

The first answer is atheism. The second answer is deism. The third answer is monotheism. The fourth answer is pantheism. The fifth is polytheism.

The second option, I suppose.

I don't think the fourth option is anything resembling pantheism, though. Pantheism is the belief that God is equivalent to all that is true in the universe. It is effectively saying that "God" is an idea that represents the sum of natural laws and existence, rather than a sentient being. As such, it would be impossible for the pantheistic God to "intervene" in the sense of a conscious action.

I'd like a benevolent God that intervenes to prevent evil.Funky_Llama

I'd like a benevolent God that intervenes to prevent evil.Funky_Llama

What a horrible thought.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I'd like a benevolent God that intervenes to prevent evil.GabuEx

What a horrible thought.

Bah, I beg to differ. I'd gladly sacrifice some degree of free will (which arguably doesn't exist anyway) in return for people no longer doing evil. Funky_Llama

How exactly are you defining "evil"?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Bah, I beg to differ. I'd gladly sacrifice some degree of free will (which arguably doesn't exist anyway) in return for people no longer doing evil. GabuEx

How exactly are you defining "evil"?

Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?WtFDragon

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?Funky_Llama

It seems to me that an argument could be made regarding the possibility of certain static constants that God can only obey, not change. An example of this would be the concept of morality: if God instructed us to murder innocents, surely we would not suddenly find that moral; rather, one would say that God would never do that, because such an action is evil. This would indicate that God only perfectly upholds morality, rather than defining it.

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?Funky_Llama

Gabu's theory is interesting in some ways. And to be fair, your assertion about the POTENTIAL for an omnipotent God to do what you stipulate is, in fact, true. But equally, it is only true if we fundamentally re-define our understanding of the concept of good, which in all its current forms implicitly sets itself against its contravention, and in fact requires that it can be contravened. We understand good, necessarily, in part by understanding that things exist which are not good.

Also, the question of potential versus realization emerges. I wouldn't disagree that God had the power to create an existence in which evil did not exist, but I wouldn't want to live in such an existence myself, because it would be an existence devoid of a loving God. That's a bit weird to assert (since I am in effect implying that a God's love required the creation of an existence in which evil exists), but it basically comes to the fact that in a universe in which there can be no evil, there can also be no love, nor indeed any freely chosen emotion...let alone freely chosen alignment with God's will.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?WtFDragon

Gabu's theory is interesting in some ways. And to be fair, your assertion about the POTENTIAL for an omnipotent God to do what you stipulate is, in fact, true. But equally, it is only true if we fundamentally re-define our understanding of the concept of good, which in all its current forms implicitly sets itself against its contravention, and in fact requires that it can be contravened. We understand good, necessarily, in part by understanding that things exist which are not good.

Also, the question of potential versus realization emerges. I wouldn't disagree that God had the power to create an existence in which evil did not exist, but I wouldn't want to live in such an existence myself, because it would be an existence devoid of a loving God. That's a bit weird to assert (since I am in effect implying that a God's love required the creation of an existence in which evil exists), but it basically comes to the fact that in a universe in which there can be no evil, there can also be no love, nor indeed any freely chosen emotion...let alone freely chosen alignment with God's will.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?GabuEx

It seems to me that an argument could be made regarding the possibility of certain static constants that God can only obey, not change. An example of this would be the concept of morality: if God instructed us to murder innocents, surely we would not suddenly find that moral; rather, one would say that God would never do that, because such an action is evil. This would indicate that God only perfectly upholds morality, rather than defining it.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]Funky: absent evil, what flavour or joy is there in good?GabuEx

It seems to me that an argument could be made regarding the possibility of certain static constants that God can only obey, not change. An example of this would be the concept of morality: if God instructed us to murder innocents, surely we would not suddenly find that moral; rather, one would say that God would never do that, because such an action is evil. This would indicate that God only perfectly upholds morality, rather than defining it.

Which would of course imply that God isn't omnipotent - and I'm relying on WtFDragon following conventional belief that he is. :PFunky_Llama

If we assume that omnipotence does not necessitate the ability to do the impossible (something that seems reasonable to me), then it would necessarily follow that if it were impossible to know the value of what is good without experiencing its lack, then God could not make us capable of doing so.

The problem with that, is that it necessitates that absolute moral truths are external to God -- which is a logical contradiction.MetalGear_Ninty

Why? If we assume that God exists necessarily, I don't see why that would preclude the necessary existence of anything else.

If we assume that omnipotence does not necessitate the ability to do the impossible (something that seems reasonable to me), then it would necessarily follow that if it were impossible to know the value of what is good without experiencing its lack, then God could not make us capable of doing so.

GabuEx

But for a God to be omnipotent, nothing must be impossible where the impossible is defined as that which cannot under any circumstances happen - since if anything is impossible, then God can't do it, and is thus not omnipotent. So if it's impossible to know good without evil, then God must not be omnipotent.Funky_Llama

Like I said, that all depends on the definition of omnipotence. Some definitions include the ability to do what is impossible. Some definitions don't.

I don't exactly see the problem with God being unable to do what is impossible.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]The problem with that, is that it necessitates that absolute moral truths are external to God -- which is a logical contradiction.GabuEx

Why? If we assume that God exists necessarily, I don't see why that would preclude the necessary existence of anything else.

What is left is not the Abrahamic God.

God is the creator of all that 'is', if absolute morals don't come from God, then they can't exist. If you posit the existence of such independent moral truths, then you would have to conclude that those moral truths are also necessary -- which diminishes the status of what is percieved as God.

MetalGear_Ninty

What verses from the Bible are you deriving that from?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]But for a God to be omnipotent, nothing must be impossible where the impossible is defined as that which cannot under any circumstances happen - since if anything is impossible, then God can't do it, and is thus not omnipotent. So if it's impossible to know good without evil, then God must not be omnipotent.GabuEx

Like I said, that all depends on the definition of omnipotence. Some definitions include the ability to do what is impossible. Some definitions don't.

I don't exactly see the problem with God being unable to do what is impossible.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

God is the creator of all that 'is', if absolute morals don't come from God, then they can't exist. If you posit the existence of such independent moral truths, then you would have to conclude that those moral truths are also necessary -- which diminishes the status of what is percieved as God.

GabuEx

What verses from the Bible are you deriving that from?

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:15-20

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:15-20

MetalGear_Ninty

That's talking about physical things, objects and entities which exist.  Morality does not fall under that banner; it is an abstract idea.  The Genesis creation story does not say that God created morality.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:15-20

GabuEx

That's talking about physical things, objects and entities which exist. Morality does not fall under that banner; it is an abstract idea. The Genesis creation story does not say that God created morality.

Yeah, and I wasn't born yesterday.

The verses say: For by him ALL things were created.

Nowhere in there does it raise the disclaimer: "Oh, sorry guys, when we say all things, we don't really mean all things, but we actually mean physical objects."

Yeah, and I wasn't born yesterday.

The verses say: For by him ALL things were created.

Nowhere in there does it raise the disclaimer: "Oh, sorry guys, when we say all things, we don't really mean all things, but we actually mean physical objects."

MetalGear_Ninty

How exactly would God reconcile morality or moral truths to himself?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Yeah, and I wasn't born yesterday.

The verses say: For by him ALL things were created.

Nowhere in there does it raise the disclaimer: "Oh, sorry guys, when we say all things, we don't really mean all things, but we actually mean physical objects."

GabuEx

How exactly would God reconcile morality or moral truths to himself?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

How exactly would God reconcile morality or moral truths to himself?

MetalGear_Ninty

I'm specifically talking about this pair of verses:

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things."

Is there really order in the universe?7guns

That was something that I didn't define well. I blurred order to mean two things as one. There is order of the material universe, in that laws are upheld and never defied supernaturally (or, alternatively, are upheld because of the supernatural). There is also the moral order, which is a balance between right and wrong, which I can most certainly say is due to perception, unless anyone would prefer to profess omniscience in being able to comprehend and judge every instant of history.

I believe in the first order; the second order I'm not so sure about. I'm a firm believer in absolute morality, but I don't believe that it can be evaluated accurately.

[QUOTE="7guns"]Is there really order in the universe?Genetic_Code

That was something that I didn't define well. I blurred order to mean two things as one. There is order of the material universe, in that laws are upheld and never defied supernaturally (or, alternatively, are upheld because of the supernatural). There is also the moral order, which is a balance between right and wrong, which I can most certainly say is due to perception, unless anyone would prefer to profess omniscience in being able to comprehend and judge every instant of history.

I believe in the first order; the second order I'm not so sure about. I'm a firm believer in absolute morality, but I don't believe that it can be evaluated accurately.

This is one of thouse topics I find confusing. Not sure which way to go. If I believe with absolute certainty there is no god things become much simpler and I would say the world is in order although it wouldn't mean our survival as a species is ensured. But if there is a possible conscious being out there this would make me question a lot of things, especially meteor strikes! Yes, this is one of a kind of natural disaster that has happened in the past and no one can say it was our fault. Is there a possibility it will hit us? I think so, yes. But I don't think we would be responsible for it. But god should have the answer to that...

I find the universe is in balance as well as the moral order but the slightest possibility of the existence of metaphysical entity make things blurry!

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

How exactly would God reconcile morality or moral truths to himself?

GabuEx

I'm specifically talking about this pair of verses:

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things."

If the passage you quote is indeed including morality in the set of things it is talking about, then what does this mean?

I don't see how the quote you've added there is really relevant at all i.e. I don't see how that points to the argument you're putting forward.

I don't see how the quote you've added there is really relevant at all i.e. I don't see how that points to the argument you're putting forward.

MetalGear_Ninty

What I'm saying is that if the passage you've quoted does indeed talk about abstract concepts in addition to objects and entities, then the part I quoted wouldn't make any sense.  You can't reconcile an abstract concept to yourself.

Really, all throughout that passage I see evidence that it's not talking about abstract concepts like morality.  It talks about "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible"; it talks about "thrones", "powers", "rulers", "authorities"; it talks about "making peace through (Jesus') blood"... I can't prove anything definitively, but it really does not sound like abstract concepts fall under the banner of its subject matter.  An abstract concept is not a thing located somewhere; it is not an object, person, or group of people; it cannot be reconciled to oneself; and one cannot make peace with it - it is an idea that exists external to any form of reality, something that defines reality rather than existing within it.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I don't see how the quote you've added there is really relevant at all i.e. I don't see how that points to the argument you're putting forward.

GabuEx

What I'm saying is that if the passage you've quoted does indeed talk about abstract concepts in addition to objects and entities, then the part I quoted wouldn't make any sense. You can't reconcile an abstract concept to yourself.

Really, all throughout that passage I see evidence that it's not talking about abstract concepts like morality. It talks about "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible"; it talks about "thrones", "powers", "rulers", "authorities"; it talks about "making peace through (Jesus') blood"... I can't prove anything definitively, but it really does not sound like abstract concepts fall under the banner of its subject matter. An abstract concept is not a thing located somewhere; it is not an object, person, or group of people; it cannot be reconciled to oneself; and one cannot make peace with it - it is an idea that exists external to any form of reality, something that defines reality rather than existing within it.

BTW, the quote I gave talks about 'heaven', which is suppossedly neither wholly physical nor localised.

BTW, the quote I gave talks about 'heaven', which is suppossedly neither wholly physical nor localised.

MetalGear_Ninty

Not really going to get involved in this......but just to point something out, there are three meanings of the word 'heaven' used in Scripture: 1) The sky, 2) Space, 3) The heavenly realm of God. When placed next to the word 'Earth', it usually means the first meaning, rather than the last. :)

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

BTW, the quote I gave talks about 'heaven', which is suppossedly neither wholly physical nor localised.

Lansdowne5

Not really going to get involved in this......but just to point something out, there are three meanings of the word 'heaven' used in Scripture: 1) The sky, 2) Space, 3) The heavenly realm of God. When placed next to the word 'Earth', it usually means the first meaning, rather than the last. :)