God, Freedom, and Evil

Not exctly. I said that consciousness *is* a natural phenomenon.

The only thing I said which even *implied* evidence to this effect was the following:



The "evidence" is implied by the fact that we see nothing else except nature, and within nature, we see the mechanisms necessary to evolve the life and consciousness which exist.

Everything is a natural process to me. There is nothing else.

Rosborne979,

I was referring to "The only way your statement can become a paradox is to assume that consciousness is not natural. But we don't know enough to make that assumption, and all the evidence so far indicates the contrary."

What evidence is it that indicates to the contrary?

Nobody even knows what life really is. Evolution requires information to be passed on. In order for information to carry any meaning, it has to be decipherable by some kind of information system. So what is the origin of information? How can information arise from chaos? Why do we see order almost everywhere in the universe? There are lots of things that don't make sense seen strictly from a material point of view. Consciousness is one of them. It's a complete mystery. The day scientists manage to create life out of dead matter and build a self-aware computer which can understand concepts and contemplate its own existence, I will believe in it, but no sooner.

Ah, yes. I did say that

Please see my previous post then, as it still applies to answer the question.



There's a difference between a paradox and the unknown. Many things are unknown, and you ask good questions, but those unknowns don't imply a paradox the way that Child-of-Light demonstrated in the first post (to which my original reply was directed).

A good question, probably worthy of its own thread. The Definition of Life



Which it is, through DNA.



DNA interacts with the environment around it chemically, forming structures which perpetuate its own replication. Has the information been "deciphered" by the world around it? DNA clearly carries information, which is effective, if not meaningful.



What is the origin of everything... Time, Space, Matter, Thought. The origin is the origin, we don't know the details, but there is no reason to assume that it is a personal God.



Because it's natural for it to do so. I know that's not the answer you are looking for, but it is a logical conclusion.



We don't. We see a mixture of order and chaos. Spiral galaxies are orderly in one way, but disorderly in many others, it all depends on how you choose to look at them.



I know of many things which we don't understand. But I don't know of anything which doesn't make sense.



It's a grand mystery, maybe one of the greatest. But I wouldn't say that it doesn't make sense. We just don't understand every aspect of it yet.



I'm sure these things will happen. But I'm not sure you'll believe it, even when it does.

Ok, it's already been done. See below.

Copyright © 2002 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 297(5583) 9 August 2002 pp 1016-1018

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template

[Research: Reports]

Cello, Jeronimo; Paul, Aniko V.; Wimmer, Eckard*

Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5222, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Supporting Online Material: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1072266/DC1

Materials and Methods; Fig. S1; References and Notes

26 March 2002; accepted 25 June 2002

Published online 11 July 2002; 10.1126/science.1072266

Include this information when citing this paper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

Full-length poliovirus complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesized by assembling oligonucleotides of plus and minus strand polarity. The synthetic poliovirus cDNA was transcribed by RNA polymerase into viral RNA, which translated and replicated in a cell-free extract, resulting in the de novo synthesis of infectious poliovirus. Experiments in tissue culture using neutralizing antibodies and CD155 receptor-specific antibodies and neurovirulence tests in CD155 transgenic mice confirmed that the synthetic virus had biochemical and pathogenic characteristics of poliovirus. Our results show that it is possible to synthesize an infectious agent by in vitro chemical-biochemical means solely by following instructions from a written sequence.

You use that word 'natural' a lot. That explanation explains no more than "God works in mysterious ways". Nature is a system. Systems aren't formed by themselves out of chaos.



A system forming itself from chaos without intelligence makes sense to you?



I wouldn't call a few assembled nucleotides which replicate themselves life. Apparently those who did the experiment wouldn't either. They don't even seem to mention the word in their report. Not in the short version anyway.

You use the word 'God' a lot



Of course they are: Solar Systems, Weather Systems, Crystals, spheres, spirals, etc.

And besides that, you don't even know if everything started from Chaos, because we don't know what preceeded the Big Bang. We don't know if it started from Chaos or not. We do know that within the Bang Bubble, natural laws were in place which led to the evolution of systems in many forms. And we now understand many of those laws, but we don't know what led to the Big Bang itself, and we probably never will. If you want to call whatever led to the Bang 'God', then I have no problem with that, but there is no reason to ascribe a personality to that perception.



I'm not surprised (as predicted in the previous post). I didn't think you would call it life, and yet it has many of the attributes of life. As you noted in a previous post, defining life is difficult, so I guess it depends on which definition you choose.

None the less, every great journey always start with a single step, and we are taking steps on many fronts.

The following excerpts from Peter Kreeft's book, Fundamentals of the Faith, answers your question far better than anything I could write. Although it is from a Christian viewpoint, it still agrees with amman, as Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe in the same God. And for your atheists out there - just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist - because He certainly does!

The Problem of Evil:

There are four parts to the solution to the problem of evil. First, evil is not a thing, an entity, a being... No, evil is not a thing but a wrong choice, or the damage done by a wrong choice. Evil is no more a positive thing than blindness is. But it is just as real. It is not a thing, but it is not an illusion..

Second, the origin of evil is not the Creator but the creature's freely choosing sin and selfishness. Take away all sin and selfishness and you would have heaven on earth...

Furthermore, the cause of physical evil is spiritual evil. The cause of suffering is sin.

God is the source of all life and joy. Therefore, when the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life and joy. Now a human being is body as well as soul. We are single creatures, not double: we are not even body and soul as much as we are embodied soul, or ensouled body. So the body must share in the soul's inevitable punishment?-a punishment as natural and unavoidable as broken bones from jumping off a cliff or a sick stomach from eating rotten food rather than a punishment as artificial and external as a grade for a course or a slap on the hands for taking the cookies.

If the origin of evil is free will, and God is the origin of free will, isn't God then the origin of evil? Only as parents are the origin of the misdeeds their children commit by being the origin of their children. The all-powerful God gave us a share in his power to choose freely. Would we prefer he had not and had made us robots rather than human beings?

A third part of the solution to the problem of evil is the most important part: how to resolve the problem in practice, not just in theory; in life, not just in thought. Although evil is a serious problem for thought (for it seems to disprove the existence of God), it is even more of a problem in life (for it is the real exclusion of God). But even if you think the solution in thought is obscure and uncertain, the solution in practice is as strong and clear as the sun: it is the Son. God's solution to the problem of evil is his Son Jesus Christ. The Father's love sent his Son to die for us to defeat the power of evil in human nature: that's the heart of the Christian story. We do not worship a deistic God, an absentee landlord who ignores his slum; we worship a garbageman God who came right down into our worst garbage to clean it up. How do we get God off the hook for allowing evil? God is not off the hook; God is the hook. That's the point of a crucifix.

The Cross is God's part of the practical solution to evil. Our part, according to the same Gospel, is to repent, to believe, and to work with God in fighting evil by the power of love. The King has invaded; we are finishing the mop-up operation.

Finally, what about the philosophical problem? It is not logically contradictory to say an all-powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions.

First, who's to say we are good people? The question should be not "Why do bad things happen to good people?" but "Why do good things happen to bad people?" If the fairy godmother tells Cinderella that she can wear her magic gown until midnight, the question should be not "Why not after midnight?" but "Why did I get to wear it at all?" The question is not why the glass of water is half empty but why it is half full, for all goodness is gift. The best people are the ones who are most reluctant to call themselves good people. Sinners think they are saints, but saints know they are Sinners. The best man who ever lived once said, "No one is good but God alone. "

Second, who's to say suffering is all bad? Life without it would produce spoiled brats and tyrants, not joyful saints... Suffering can work for the greater good of wisdom.

Third, who's to say we have to know all God's reasons? Who ever promised us all the answers? No wonder Socrates was declared by the Delphic oracle to be the wisest man in the world. He interpreted that declaration to mean that he alone knew that he did not have wisdom, and that was true wisdom for man.

God has let us know a lot. He has lifted the curtain on the problem of evil with Christ. There, the greatest evil that ever happened, both the greatest spiritual evil and the greatest physical evil, both the greatest sin (deicide) and the greatest suffering (perfect love hated and crucified), is revealed as his wise and loving plan to bring about the greatest good, the salvation of the world from sin and suffering eternally. There, the greatest injustice of all time is integrated into the plan of salvation that Saint Paul calls "the righteousness (Justice) of God". Love finds a way. Love is very tricky. But love needs to be trusted.

The worst aspect of the problem of evil is eternal evil, hell. Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator's offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God's love. Therefore hell is a result of God's love. Everything is.

No sane person wants hell to exist. No sane person wants evil to exist. But hell is just evil eternalized. If there is evil and if there is eternity, there can be hell. If it is intellectually dishonest to disbelieve in evil just because it is shocking and uncomfortable, it is the same with hell. Reality has hard corners, surprises, and terrible dangers in it. We desperately need a true road map, not nice feelings, if we are to get home. It is true, as people often say, that "hell just feels unreal, impossible." Yes. So does Auschwitz. So does Calvary.

Source

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus

Child, a God who loved us would not have created people with such flawed brains that they were compelled to commit evil acts. (Of course, a God who loved us would not have created the loathsome diseases and parasites which plague this world either, but that's another question.)

There is no justification for an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow evil of such magnitude to exist, unless he is sadistic enough to enjoy watching helpless creatures suffer.

Since there is no force in the universe that could compel God to be good and loving instead of cruel and hateful, what makes anyone believe that he is kind and caring? Considering all of the despicable acts the Old Testament attributes to God, it amazes me that anyone trusts him at all.

ptreegrdn, according to Christian theology, all men are sinners. Why do you suppose a Creator would design creatures who would inevitably choose sin and selfishness, and in what sense do we have free will if it is absolutely impossible for anyone to choose never to sin?

Why do you suppose that God gives people defective brains and characters such that they are beset by biological urges that they are simply unable to resist? Why do you suppose that he created alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, and other substances that cause addictions in susceptible people? How do people who commit evil acts while under the influence of drugs, hormones, mental illness, or military orders have "free" will in any sense of the words?

It is illogical to claim that God "must" allow evil people to have free rein, since he obviously has no concern for the loss of free will by their victims.

And it is intellectually dishonest to blame the creation for the supreme incompetence of its creator.

Logic
Seems to me that most people strive for logic. When logic fails then they opt for faith.

The story of Adam and Eve about the forbidden fruit from the tree makes no sense to me.

I was going to post the story and try to descibe the illogic of it but have decided not to waste my time and energy on it.

I don't believe in a God that directs actions on this planet or the universe. The Master of the Universe concept may be comforting to millions but it does zero for me.

Pistoff, Christian fundamentalist mythology makes no literal sense to me either. But as I've said at least twice on other threads, the myth of the forbidden fruit can be interpreted fruitfully (pardon the intended pun), at least from my perspective. Metaphorically, I see the eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, and all other symmetrical dichotomies as mankind's Fall from non-dualist grace/bliss (Eden). Adam and Eve were not cast out by an angry CEO (as in "you're fired"), as far as I'm concerned, their newfound analytical ability to divide experience into opposing parts automatically delivered them from Eden. Now, in the real world it has become an essential ability. But mystics try to have it both ways: to live dualistically in relative reality because of its practical value; and to be able to enter the bliss of Ultimate Reality through the gate of non-dualism.

Hi JL,

I agree with your interpretation on this completely. We weren't thrown out of Eden, we simply found ourselves on a one way path which led us away from the innocent bliss of simpler animals. Considering how closely this event must match the actual transition which homo sapiens went through getting where we are, I have often wondered if the writers of that particular story knew this, and were explaining that actual event.

The ability to pass judgement, as implied by access to concepts like good/evil would seem to be the dividing line between the bliss of ignorance (Eden), and the place we find ourselves today. The entire story of Eden and the Apple takes on much more rational meaning when seen this way.

Eden wasn't just a place, it was a time in history of this planet before human thought had stepped upon the stage. And I find it unlikely that we had any choice in the matter of eating the apple, it was our destiny. If we had the ability to choose our destiny, how many would choose to remain in Eden (as simple animals), or to awaken as we are today?

Very good. What choice was there? I too wonder if the ancient authors were aware of this. Then again, I guess lacking technology is not the same thing as lacking wisdom. By the way, your earlier post refers to the rise of "consciousness". My interpretation of the Eden scene refers to the rise of "analysis" as a general mental orientation. Consciousness itself is larger than analysis, as far as I can see. My dog is conscious but cannot analyze situations as far as I can tell--well my deceased border collie may be the exception. I'm thinking of my dumb but cute beagle.

What if God is?

What if God created the universe and everything in it by whatever means?

What if in the beginning, God created everything perfect, without fault or flaw or blemish?

What if the most perfect existence is not worth living without love?

What if love, in order to be experienced, must include the ability to not love? (Love here is defined as doing what is best for oneself or others.)
Love in fact cannot exist without free will.

What if God provides direction and guidance but not interference so that there can be love? And what if some, okay all, fail to listen or reject that direction and guidance and make wrong choices?

And what if every time the wrong choice is made, a part of the perfect creation is spoiled?

What if some do their best to make right choices and repair some of the broken creation, but others insist on staying on the path of wrong choices?

Would that explain the existence of evil?

Consciousness & Ultimate Reality


I think it is hard to say anything about ultimate reality based on the fact that we humans possess consciousness.

The word "consciousness" as used by Derevon reflects a fact. That is, we all, I think, agree that humans have consciousness. We call that a fact. The word "above," as used in the quotation, reflects a value judgment. That is, Dervevon has constructed a hierarchy of values upon which we cannot all agree.

Consciousness is simply something that exists. We cannot reason that some other reality must also possess that something based on an assumed set of un-agreed upon and unverifiable values.

Well, I suppose we can do the reasoning if we want to, but we cannot expect that it will ever be generally agreed upon.

What If...


Yes, but, what if God isn't?

I understand. Forgive me JL, but in such posts as these, I tend to use terminology loosely (consciousness or self awareness or judgement). I'm very familiar with the mind numbing restrictions implied by the rigors of science, and ultimately mathematics. And as much as I appreciate those things in the proper context, I also appreciate the value of a gentle prose at the right time.

Best Regards,

Evil doesn't exist outside of human thought. It's just a dream, like love and hate an joy and purpose. The Universe in intrinsically more elegant than these whisps of thought.