If there's a 'caring' deity, how do you 'explain' the problem of an apparently 'indifferent' God/Nature? (scientific, Jehovah)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In response to Mateo45, I would only suggest that for an omni-benevolent , omnipotent and omniscient creator god to create a cosmos like this one wherein the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is universally present and functioning (still a great problem for the theory of micro-evolution) is absolutely ridiculous, even from an Orthodox Christian perspective.
Orthodox Christianity does not posit the theory that God created the world as it presently is. Rather, it was created in a deathless state and degenerated into its present condition due to Adam's sin. The two trees in the garden of Eden were actually two states in which one cosmos exists. Adam was created between the two and could thus choose the tree of life or the tree (cosmic state) of duality.
In the former tree
GOD IS NOW HERE.
In the latter tree
GOD IS NOWHERE.
For God to be nowhere implies that God is unmanifest and that would imply an entirely different set of Cosmic scientific norms like in what modern science thinks it knows something about. I guess that makes intelligible the saying of Jesus Christ, ”My Kingdom is not of this world (cosmos)”.
Therefore it is impossible to trace back the origin of a universe such as ours and which has no metaphysical correlate in the reality of God. As soon as one thinks they have, big bang for example, another origin manifests...Sir Roger Penrose's theory of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, for instance.
But then, finally, one has to remember that reality may be to quantum physics what quantum physics is to newtonian physics. And quantum physics may yet be found to be separated from reality by yet another physics involving vast involutionary metaphysics more in common with Platonic Forms than presently expected.
Of course this latter would be more akin to thought ascending toward or else descending away from the telos of a world-tree in which a unitary divine is NOW HERE.
I have always said that there is no way to tell an absent, indifferent, or non-existent god apart. They all behave exactly the same.
If I thought that gods were falsifiable, this would be my main obstacle to believing in at least a hands-off god. I could never be sure.
The "answers" to this objection usually fall into some mystical explanation that amounts to God's Mysterious Ways, which is just a hand-waving assertion, not an answer. Or, in the alternative, some traditional "omni" characteristic of god, usually omnipotence, must be thrown under the bus. This is the approach of the Rebbe who wrote the popular book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People many years ago. God bleeds for us, he really cares, but he is powerless to help us. Or at least, not all-powerful. His hands are tied, if not unable.
For me, it has been far simpler to just accept life as a series of events I'm experiencing, not part of some Plan nor some sort of concoction for my benefit. Then I don't have to tie myself in pretzels explaining why (1) god loves and cares about me but on the other hand (2) permitted certain tragedies and losses to occur anyway, for which I am paying a dear price.
In any event life is about more than my personal (dis)satisfaction with it ... but the context of our conversation here is "the problem of pain" as CS Lewis styled it.
The writings of Clive Staples Lewis presents a clear reasoning leading up to Deism, but not well beyond. One can most certainly arrive at a Deist conception of some nebulous Creator by observation of the cosmos via the sciences and philosophical disciplines. But it ends there and fractures into many differing cultural views as is obvious from understanding the presuppositions of all ancient and modern cosmologies.
From an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective, one will never find proof of God and his Christ in the Cosmos. This is because, as they teach, the cosmos is in a ”fallen” condition.
To know the otherwise hidden God is only possible through active participation in the Church which the second person of the Divine Tri-unity incarnated as a man in order to establish. So outside of this, from a New Testament perspective, our investigations are really no more than guesses based on presuppositions founded on the shifting sands of relativism.
But unless one follows through with the entire logic of Eastern Orthodox theology on the subject of ”why a good God would allow for evil” and understand their reasoning and how it ties in with all other aspects of their dogma, then it cannot be justly ruled for or against.
I believe that Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology alone holds the supreme absolute truth and is thus the pyramidion atop the entire edifice of all other philosophy on the nature of reality and which brings the All into resonance.
25 yrs ago I majored in the study of world religions and have subsequently studied Christian history and this that I've here writ is my own personal conclusion. Do with it as ya may.
The writings of Clive Staples Lewis presents a clear reasoning leading up to Deism, but not well beyond. One can most certainly arrive at a Deist conception of some nebulous Creator by observation of the cosmos via the sciences and philosophical disciplines. But it ends there and fractures into many differing cultural views as is obvious from understanding the presuppositions of all ancient and modern cosmologies.
From an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective, one will never find proof of God and his Christ in the Cosmos. This is because, as they teach, the cosmos is in a ”fallen” condition.
To know the otherwise hidden God is only possible through active participation in the Church which the second person of the Divine Tri-unity incarnated as a man in order to establish. So outside of this, from a New Testament perspective, our investigations are really no more than guesses based on presuppositions founded on the shifting sands of relativism.
But unless one follows through with the entire logic of Eastern Orthodox theology on the subject of ”why a good God would allow for evil” and understand their reasoning and how it ties in with all other aspects of their dogma, then it cannot be justly ruled for or against.
I believe that Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology alone holds the supreme absolute truth and is thus the pyramidion atop the entire edifice of all other philosophy on the nature of reality and which brings the All into resonance.
25 yrs ago I majored in the study of world religions and have subsequently studied Christian history and this that I've here writ is my own personal conclusion. Do with it as ya may.
To know the otherwise hidden God is only possible through active participation in the Church which the second person of the Divine Tri-unity incarnated as a man ... outside of this, from a New Testament perspective, our investigations are really no more than guesses based on presuppositions founded on the shifting sands of relativism.
And a holy book is somehow not guesses and presuppositions?
It is the conceit of every religion that it has the only correct understanding of reality ... yet it is grounded in a pretend immaterial world, conveniently beyond examination.
Everything in my field of experience points away from an interventionist god and toward an impersonal universe which we are then obliged to make the best of. I suffered trying to force fit lived experience to Christian theology (though admittedly not your one and only "correct" take on it). I am much happier with explanations that fit the facts of what life is actually like in the real world.
On the other hand, glad to have you here with some actual expertise. It is refreshing even if I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from it.
And a holy book is somehow not guesses and presuppositions?
It is the conceit of every religion that it has the only correct understanding of reality ... yet it is grounded in a pretend immaterial world, conveniently beyond examination.
Everything in my field of experience points away from an interventionist god and toward an impersonal universe which we are then obliged to make the best of. I suffered trying to force fit lived experience to Christian theology (though admittedly not your one and only "correct" take on it). I am much happier with explanations that fit the facts of what life is actually like in the real world.
On the other hand, glad to have you here with some actual expertise. It is refreshing even if I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from it.
It will not be possible to comprehend a non-intervening God in the physical world as long as you think that the physical world is the purpose of our existence. Only by recognizing that we are spiritual beings growing in a physical venue designed to form our spiritual character is it possible to make any sense of it all.
God then becomes our Spiritual Father guiding and comforting our developing Spirit through the vicissitudes of this physical existence helping us to overcome and endure whatever we face. Intervention in the physical world would vitiate the developmental purpose of our experiences.
I have always said that there is no way to tell an absent, indifferent, or non-existent god apart. They all behave exactly the same.
If I thought that gods were falsifiable, this would be my main obstacle to believing in at least a hands-off god. I could never be sure.
The "answers" to this objection usually fall into some mystical explanation that amounts to God's Mysterious Ways, which is just a hand-waving assertion, not an answer. Or, in the alternative, some traditional "omni" characteristic of god, usually omnipotence, must be thrown under the bus. This is the approach of the Rebbe who wrote the popular book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People many years ago. God bleeds for us, he really cares, but he is powerless to help us. Or at least, not all-powerful. His hands are tied, if not unable.
For me, it has been far simpler to just accept life as a series of events I'm experiencing, not part of some Plan nor some sort of concoction for my benefit. Then I don't have to tie myself in pretzels explaining why (1) god loves and cares about me but on the other hand (2) permitted certain tragedies and losses to occur anyway, for which I am paying a dear price.
In any event life is about more than my personal (dis)satisfaction with it ... but the context of our conversation here is "the problem of pain" as CS Lewis styled it.
And according to Christianity, his hands are tied by man. According to that story, the heavens, the devil, the angels, the depths, all of creation is subject to his whims, just not man, who has the power to 'just say no' and god's only recourse is to BBQ those people indefinitely, because that's the best he could do. It'd be laughable if so many people's lives weren't impacted badly due to those beliefs, by believers.
And according to Christianity, his hands are tied by man. According to that story, the heavens, the devil, the angels, the depths, all of creation is subject to his whims, just not man, who has the power to 'just say no' and god's only recourse is to BBQ those people indefinitely, because that's the best he could do. It'd be laughable if so many people's lives weren't impacted badly due to those beliefs, by believers.
This article -- along the same lines -- caught my eye this morning:
It will not be possible to comprehend a non-intervening God in the physical world as long as you think that the physical world is the purpose of our existence.
I don't think the physical world is the purpose of my existence but I am obliged to live, and, sometimes, to suffer in it. And so any version of god who is supposed to care about my well-being and doesn't see to it can bugger all the way off.
A god who is a least honest and admits he doesn't care, I'd have less of a problem with.
I also do not buy the notion that the best way that one grows is through "vicissitudes". You CAN learn from suffering but I submit that my best growth has been during times in my life where I'm undistracted by physical or emotional pain and well-rested. Learning comes after other things on the hierarchy of needs.
It will not be possible to comprehend a non-intervening God in the physical world as long as you think that the physical world is the purpose of our existence. Only by recognizing that we are spiritual beings growing in a physical venue designed to form our spiritual character is it possible to make any sense of it all.
God then becomes our Spiritual Father guiding and comforting our developing Spirit through the vicissitudes of this physical existence helping us to overcome and endure whatever we face. Intervention in the physical world would vitiate the developmental purpose of our experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I don't think the physical world is the purpose of my existence but I am obliged to live, and, sometimes, to suffer in it. And so any version of god who is supposed to care about my well-being and doesn't see to it can bugger all the way off.
A god who is a least honest and admits he doesn't care, I'd have less of a problem with.
I also do not buy the notion that the best way that one grows is through "vicissitudes". You CAN learn from suffering but I submit that my best growth has been during times in my life where I'm undistracted by physical or emotional pain and well-rested. Learning comes after other things on the hierarchy of needs.
Your life is about becoming a Spirit with a specific character forged by your experiences in this physical venue, period. There is no material purpose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
