The Greatest Conceivable being???

Originally posted by Dasa
Why on earth would the understanding that I am an eternal spiritual being, equate to me jumping in front of a car.

Of course no one asks for cancer, and when someone smokes they do not pray for lung cancer either.

This sort of response occurs when you minimize others suffering by comments such as, "There is no real death", or, "There is no real disease". The point here is that there is suffering. So how can there be an all powerful and all loving God with suffering in the world? That is the age old question.

What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
This sort of response occurs when you minimize others suffering by comments such as, "There is no real death", or, "There is no real disease". The point here is that there is suffering. So how can there be an all powerful and all loving God with suffering in the world? That is the age old question.

What say you?

If a silly person drives to fast and crashes then they will suffer.

If a person eats incorrectly they will suffer.

If a person doesn't learn to swim they might drown when they fall out of the boat.

And even if they do everything perfectly, their karma will have them suffer anyway for what they have done wrongly in the past.

If you put your hand in fire your karma will give you instant reaction.

If you bash and rape a young girl in this life and evade the police, then in your next life you will be bashed and raped, and you will raise your fist to the sky and say....oh why God...oh why its not fair.

.............

Telling you the truth of the reality of existence....that no one really dies and the body is just dust, is truth and when I present it I do not have any malice in my heart....I am just presenting the truth.

If it seems that I am taking it all too lightly, then I cant help that, because I have no fear of death and dying one more time on top of the millions of other times we have all died, does not register in my mind as anything sad or bad.

You are born and you die....you are born and you die....you are born and you die, and the only thing that is really sad, is coming back over and over again to this world of suffering and doing all again.

Originally posted by Dasa
And even if they do everything perfectly, their karma will have them suffer anyway for what they have done wrongly in the past.

Ok, so lets play it your way. So lets assume that Jesus Christ was one such person. He came and suffered for the sins in his past. So he "dies" and then comes back and lives another "perfect" life. Does he then suffer the same or maybe a little less? I know, maybe they just shoot him in the head rather than torture him with beatings and a cross.

Also, why did people originally choose "evil"? Surely the suffering had to start somewhere that did not come from their past.

BTW: You never did answer the question as to why God allows suffering. You only blame humanity for their suffering. Why does God allow humanity to choose suffering?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, so lets play it your way. So lets assume that Jesus Christ was one such person. He came and suffered for the sins in his past. So he "dies" and then comes back and lives another "perfect" life. Does he then suffer the same or maybe a little less? I know, maybe they just shoot him in the head rather than torture him with beatings and a cross.

Also, ...[text shortened]... only blame humanity for their suffering. Why does God allow humanity to choose suffering?

God allows suffering because God allows everything.........even the killing of Jesus....because God has the greater perspective and knows that even suffering is an illusion and not real.

This world is a place of illusionary suffering.........big suffering and small suffering, and when a person lives the spiritual life suffering ends....but for the person who whole heartingly accepts this illusionary world as real then his suffering is increased.....why?

An example.....if you owned an old bomb car and you crash it, then you would not care and therefore you do not suffer anxiety over the loss.....but if you worked very hard and owned a very expensive car and crashed it, you would suffer much anxiety.....right.

Now take that example and apply it to your body and mind......if you realize through spiritual realization that you are not the body and you are something apart from the body which is eternal, then you do not suffer if your body is damaged or even if someone who is close to you is damaged.

But if you believe your body is the real you and this life is the only life, then when stuff happens to you...you are affected much more and therefore suffer much more.

Really when a person is living on the transcendental platform and is self realized, all suffering ends....and even if he breaks his leg it might hurt but he does not suffer.

Pain does not equate to suffering....and it only equates to suffering if you believe you are that body with that broken leg.

Originally posted by Agerg
Putting aside Anselm's argument (which I think is flawed anyway - merely by a few trivial substitutions) Some theists (I suspect many) hold that their formulation of "God" is the greatest conceivable being. Now If we suppose hypothetically, that such a god exists (and say it's your god [hidden](assuming you, the reader of this post, believe in \"God\" and agre ...[text shortened]... of the universe's potential to improve - and so would be bettered by one that did.

you are assuming that a great god would be required to fix everything in the world. which he isn't.

Originally posted by Agerg
I realise this is your contention but it is not a necessarily true statement that your god is maximally great - it is a human claim yet to be substantiated. [hidden](I say that in a loose sense because it is impossible for you to provide such substantiation - since you are not supernatural and as such can only have accounts of the supernatural you or other hum ...[text shortened]... you think one can conceive of no greater god despite the fact this world could be improved???)

If one can percieve that this world can be improved, then reason dictates that the rational creatures existing on it should be the ones to improve it. Everything you mentioned in the o.p. can be resolved if human beings did their duty to the moral law and created lives of genuine moral worth.

people suck, God is Great!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are assuming that a great god would be required to fix everything in the world. which he isn't.

I'm starting from the premise (which a number of theists insist upon) that God has to be maximally great in all of it's attributes - including benevolence. As far as I can tell, one does not need to hold this premise as true for a coherent notion of some god - indeed why should any of the attributes of this entity be maximal?

I think however that if a theist does insist their god must have such properties then problems arise. Similarly the binary position wrt lying where all lies, no exceptions, are bad leads to problems.

Originally posted by whodey
You remind me of one Joseph Stalin who made it his lifes endevour to stamp out all religion while all the while insisting that God does not exist. Then on his death with fist raised in the air in defiance, breathed his last.

Only one? 😕
Not even one and a half Joseph Stalins?

I'm not trying to stamp out religion btw...just challenging some of the, as I see it, crazier notions you have; and laying the groundwork for future questions.

Originally posted by Doward
If one can percieve that this world can be improved, then reason dictates that the rational creatures existing on it should be the ones to improve it. Everything you mentioned in the o.p. can be resolved if human beings did their duty to the moral law and created lives of genuine moral worth.

people suck, God is Great!

The short list of examples in the OP was not by any means exhaustive - more of a warm up. That said, I can strengthen my question:

if both

1) your God exists, and
2) one can conceive of no greater god (where benevolence is included in the set of things that are great)

are true then we must conclude, objectively, this world is the best it can be, any and ALL improvements that would be possible are because of the current inaction on the part of humans (your god need perform no further action to improve it)...do you agree with this now? i.e. may I continue?

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm starting from the premise (which a number of theists insist upon) that God has to be maximally great in all of it's attributes - including benevolence. As far as I can tell, one does not need to hold this premise as true for a coherent notion of some god - indeed why should the attributes of this entity be maximal?

I think however that if a theist does insist their god must have such properties then problems arise.

but absolute benevolence doesn't mean you fix everything everywhere.

as an example, would you say that a father that feeds, clothes and takes care of his son until the son is 60 is more benevolent than a father who tells the lazy bum to get a job?



i have argued before. a life in which there is no struggle is boring. how would you feel about a world where every single individual is king. where anything you ask for is just given to you? sometimes benevolence means you get refused.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but absolute benevolence doesn't mean you fix everything everywhere.

as an example, would you say that a father that feeds, clothes and takes care of his son until the son is 60 is more benevolent than a father who tells the lazy bum to get a job?



i have argued before. a life in which there is no struggle is boring. how would you feel about a worl ...[text shortened]... . where anything you ask for is just given to you? sometimes benevolence means you get refused.

I say it does; practical (and non-maximal) benevolence may well sugest it need not fix every problem - but maximal benevolence is whole different kettle of fish - it is a very strong claim. It is the claim that for all benevolent acts, no other act of benevolence may be conceived, which for some god holding this property, is more benevolent.

Moreover if, for example some 14 kid (lets assume not a Christian - so hasn't been "saved" ) is being raped and killed by some wierdo in a secluded area (no other humans around to help him out), then assuming maximal benevolence and a failure of this god to step in (despite it's potenetial to do so) we must assume not stepping in to prevent 14 year old kids being raped and killed (who will then fail to go to heaven) cannot be any less benevolent than causing, say, a seizure on the part of the wierdo (so the kid can leg it).

Originally posted by Dasa
[
This world is a place of illusionary suffering.........big suffering and small suffering, and when a person lives the spiritual life suffering ends....but for the person who whole heartingly accepts this illusionary world as real then his suffering is increased.....why?

Let's take Jesus as an example once again. I think everyone would say that of all people, he lived a spiritual life, yet without question he suffered.

Again, you are diminishing peoples suffering when you say that it is illusionary. Even if you are right in that it does not exist, it matters little. All that matters is what is real to you.

Originally posted by Agerg
Only one? 😕
Not even one and a half Joseph Stalins?

I'm not trying to stamp out religion btw...just challenging some of the, as I see it, crazier notions you have; and laying the groundwork for future questions.

Ok, one and a half Joseph Stalins. 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
I say it does; practical (and non-maximal) benevolence may well sugest it need not fix every problem - but maximal benevolence is whole different kettle of fish - it is a very strong claim. It is the claim that for [b]all benevolent acts, no other act of benevolence may be conceived, which for some god holding this property, is more benevolent.

Moreover ...[text shortened]... s benevolent than causing, say, a seizure on the part of the wierdo (so the kid can leg it).[/b]

does that mean 14 year old kids won't ever need to not go in dark alleys at night? does that mean all policemen can just go home because a father figure will fight all crime? how about free will? is there a free will if you cannot choose but from a set of actions determined by an outside figure? could we all jump from the tenth floor and demand god to catch us? because by your claim, his benevolence compels him to "step in".


you said that practical benevolence may well suggest not fixing every problem. i agree. i don't agree that maximal benevolence implies it does need to fix every problem. to me, making a being dependent on you in every aspect is malice, not benevolence.

we have the potential to fix anything on this planet and maybe even the universe. some things are hard to fix. that doesn't mean we may demand a supernatural being to do it for us.

Originally posted by Agerg
The short list of examples in the OP was not by any means exhaustive - more of a warm up. That said, I can strengthen my question:

if both

1) your God exists, and
2) one can conceive of no greater god (where benevolence is included in the set of things that are great)

are true then we must conclude, objectively, this world is the best it can be, [b]a ...[text shortened]... perform no further action to improve it)...do you agree with this now? i.e. may I continue?[/b]

I live in the Northeastern part of the USA, it gets very cold here in the winter, it also gets very hot and humid in the summer. The winter would not be survivable for human beings if we didn't build shelter, store ample supply of heating fuels, and larder foods. All of these things take a cooperative effort in order for the species to thrive and survive in this place...as it does in most places.

Each individual creates inputs for the success of the species. if food were plentiful, and weather was not a factor, where would that leave humanity? Our intellectual achievements and scientific advances have occured because the conditions on this planet are harsh. Marx said that it is in the nture of man to labor. Labor does not simply mean hefting and toting, but creating, inventing etc...

My point is this: a world with no challanges creates no growth or incentive for growth in the human species, therefor the world is perfect just as it is.