Is there a problem of evil?

[The Grey Man]

Is There a Problem of Evil? - The Matheson Trust

Marco Pallis “Divine grace always leaves us this one hope; God who now seems so distant is ever close at hand—‘closer than your jugular vein,’ as the Koran has it. The Tree of Life is standing in this room, as certainly as it stood in Eden; it is a pity if we will not use

www.themathesontrust.org

Last year, I mentioned having asked some colleagues of mine a question similar to the Hardy Question:

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/answer-the-hardy-question.28243/

What I did not mention at that time was that one or two of my colleagues, rather than answering the question directly, had used it as an occasion to explain why they did not believe in a 'higher power' or, at least, that they did not believe in a benevolent God. It seems that not a few people find the idea of an omnibenevolent deity incredible given the undeniable fact of human suffering. They are Schopenhauers bitterly contesting Leibniz's apologetic argument that our existence as 'the best of all possible worlds.'

If we were to conduct the most hardened and callous optimist through hospitals, infirmaries, operating theatres, through prisons, torture-chambers, and slave-hovels, over battlefields and to places of execution; if we were to open to him all the dark abodes of misery, where it shuns the gaze of cold curiosity, and finally were to allow him to glance into the dungeon of Ugolino where prisoners starved to death, he too would certainly see in the end what kind of a world is this meilleur des mondes possibles.

In philosophical terms, the problem of evil is that rock which has shipwrecked many an attempt to reconcile empirical knowledge of suffering with the conviction that all is yet well in God. The problem is, in fact, insoluble if the following assumptions are granted:

1. evil exists; and
2. God is the cause of evil.

Only an idiot or a madman could dispute the first premise; but can we reasonably deny the second? Or would this amount to denying the omnipotence that makes God God? Epicurus thought that God could not possibly be omnipotent and benevolent and tolerant of evil, hence the following trilemma:

1. either God is unable to prevent evil or
2. God permits evil or
3. God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil.

The inevitable conclusion of this analysis is that God could be not benevolent, or not all-powerful, or perhaps neither, which contradicts the opinion of the ordinary religious, who believes that God is both benevolent and all-powerful.

Is the position of the religious defensible against Epicurean criticism? In other words, is it possible to deny that God is the cause of evil without denying his omnipotence? Marco Pallis thought so (see link above). Pallis belonged to the Traditionalist School, which follows what it calls the sophia perennis (exemplified by Platonism and Advaita Vedanta in particular) in asserting that evil is at once a privation of goodness and an ignorance of one's essential identity with God, who is the Good Itself. God is therefore not the cause of evil, but he does not prevent it either: according to the Traditionalists, the problem is not evil in itself, but the fragmentary egoistic perspective that makes evil possible by obscuring our divine nature.

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

In allegorical terms, the Serpent and the temptation to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could not but be in the Garden, else the Garden would be as perfect as God himself, nor does Adam's Fall change the fact that he was made in God's image. Though he toils in foreign lands, yet is Adam stamped with the memory of his true home.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When the sun rises, the night has never been.

 

[sushi]

its more like god created yin and yang in this universe, and they are diametrically opposed to each other.
i used to think that good government can eliminate all the social evil like drugs and violence, but they are a part of human nature and society. They will exist as long as humans exist

 

[AntaresVII]

We name suffering as the indisputable evil, but what is life without suffering? We seek constantly to reduce it, to avoid it, and this occupies our entire lives. We work so we can obtain the resources to avoid pain, but we know from the fantastically rich that happiness is not achieved by eliminating all pain and living a lax and uneffortful life.

It seems to me that we want to reduce pain to tolerable levels, such as will challenge us so we become stronger (which seems to be our great pleasure in our lives of endless toil). The ideal then is to be able to suffer for the sake of improvement by desire rather than necessity. But what the end of that strength is is the mystery to me. If it were freedom from pain then the plight of the wealthy would not be, but if only reducing pain to the level of choice doesn't trigger a stop to the effort to improve then what is the end of further improvement?

Perhaps our content may be found in the continual exploration of infinite space and complexity, making our "divine nature" (our nature having conquered nature, essentially) something akin to surveyors of, or adventurers in, the universe.

But is there really infinite knowledge to be had? At some point does seeing a meaningful new sight become impossible because of the extent of our travels?
Maybe that is the value of forgetting — of entropy, really — that we may journey endlessly, growing here while deteriorating there, making circles content to rediscover and delight again in what we once knew too well to retain interest in.

I guess I'm supposing that there might be a limit to how much we can remember, and that at some point we lose retention of one thing when gaining another. Also that technology could not solve this problem without compromising some basic element of consciousness.

Then I suppose my conclusion if this is the case is that suffering is only evil when it is uncontrollable, involuntary. But why then does an omnipotent god not provide for that pain? Thats the big question here of course, but if, as is believed, death does not end being, then I can't say I really care. I would suppose heaven to be identical to the state I've described, and if live perfectly or die trying (as is supposed you must do to reach said heaven) gets the same result then what does it matter? The only way to lose is to abandon the effort to improve (by the logic of hell for those who betray their humanity) and there is no lack in life of understanding that working to improve is the only way to go about the thing.

 

[Black Rose]

We must confide in reality before speculating on evil and God. Pain exists to help organisms survive. Evolution made it so that those creatures that felt pain the greatest survived. This goes all the way back to fish. It is in our bones and scales.

Now is evolution evil? I do not think so. Does God allow it o happen? Is "He" in control? This next part is tricky. Can God change physics and thus evolution?

I believe God is consciousness. God changes things by a feedback loop in conscious beings. The color Red is not explained by atoms. Evil is not explained by God controlling atoms. God controls consciousness. We are stuck in physical reality by atoms but consciousness is not atoms. Atoms are where we are not what we are. So in effect, God cant affect atoms unless God has a body. So god must control the consciousness of bodies to affect atoms. God cannot control the atoms themselves.

Evil is the difference between controlling consciousness and controlling atoms.

 

[BurnedOut]

If you have watched Constantine (tv show), you have noticed the general tone of the tv show which is largely on his faith in god. Despite the fact that he knows there is a god (only in the constantine universe), he refuses to admit that he is benevolent. However, Manny (the show's original creation) keeps iterating that god gave humans free will and hence he was himself abdicated from taking responsibilities for their action.

I believe that Marx is right when he says, "Religion is the opium of masses." Just like how a user takes heroin when he is down, we all need a 'god' to believe in not to ward off evil but to have a mother of sorts who will protect you.

I think psychoanalysis makes sense here because the whole concept of god seems to fulfil the characteristic need for a mother that arises when an adult is deprived of the infantile position.

As far as evil goes, if there is a god, he is simply a god because he is more powerful physically. There does not seem like an element of benevolence in him. He is portrayed like one of those African warlords - they will never submit to you but if you do, they will protect you.

Also, maybe the concept of god survived in order to sate the desire of simply hating something. We all need something to hate in order to enjoy our greatest pleasures. The concept of god seems to do that.

As far as evil goes, I think that it is just human nature moralized. There is no god simply because he cannot be observed nor felt. There is no consistency in the apparent encounters people claim to make. He is untestable even if he exists. Therefore, in relation to our locus standi, he is nonexistent. If he does, he should be an active element that can be recorded. Therefore, it is only psychological in nature.

Many atheists seem to consolidate their own faith by disdaining the followers and some of them accept the fact that followers can be tolerated and are generally open to the idea that there may be a scientific possibility of a higher-order organism who has elaboratedly structured the workings of the human society. But I don't believe in all this because the discussion over god is useless.

Just because bad exists, it does not entirely justifies the existence of good. God can theoretically exist alongside evil. Therefore, for your argument, for the sake of logic, God can exist with evil and that is simply better, pragmatically speaking, to believe in because good without evil is not good but merely 'normal' in our heads.

 

[Black Rose]

I actually believe in life after death and reincarnation.

If I came from nothing and become nothing again, there is no rule preventing me from coming back.

I had a dream I was descending into the center of a star. I was scared because I thought it would be really hot. I went into the fetal position and a corona formed. I survived somehow.

I meet spirits sometimes and I think I met God but only the female side. I do view it as a higher organism but it is inside me as well. I would not believe if I had not met her.

 

[The Grey Man]

Just because bad exists, it does not entirely justifies the existence of good. God can theoretically exist alongside evil. Therefore, for your argument, for the sake of logic, God can exist with evil and that is simply better, pragmatically speaking, to believe in because good without evil is not good but merely 'normal' in our heads.

God cannot exist alongside evil as an equal because he is one. If evil is not subordinate to the good that is God, but good is merely the opposite of evil, then there are two gods, one of goodness and one of evil (as in Manichaeism). This is contrary to monotheism. Thus, you have denied that God is the cause of evil at the cost of denying his unity and simplicity and, consequently, his omnipotence, which brings us back to the analysis of Epicurus. The only way out of this bind, I think, is to join the Traditionalists in positing that the appearance of evil is due to our perceptually disadvantaged position as individual creatures who see reality "as through a glass," i.e. fallibly.

Of course, materialists don't care about the Epicurean trilemma since they don't hesitate to deny the omnipotence of God and even his independence of human conceptions, but materialism has its own problems, not the least of which is that, as AK has said, "Red is not explained by atoms", that there is an unbridgeable hiatus between the qualitative element of empirical phenomena and the postulates of natural science, which manifest only quantitatively.

As for Marx's "opium of the masses", people of ancient times were not more stupid than we are, nor is Marxism immune to becoming a popular drug, as the 20th century illustrates. If we want to understand what the founders of religions have thought and why, then we need to examine what they say, not dismiss entire intellectual traditions with facile Freudian arguments ad hominem.

 

[Siouxsie]

I think you´re talking about the negation of the negation. Hegel and Schiller talk about this. When negation contains the fundamental affirmation and negation and the same time, it is and it isn´t, like for you to be yourself first define that by sayiing you´re not anyone else, and then building your identity through other stuff, but in the end there´s still a part of you who is not yourself, it´ll always be there. Schiller says that for god to be god it had not to be god first, but when it became god this no-god side stayed. And that´s the source of all evil.

 

[The Grey Man]

@Siouxsie Indeed, and Hegel takes his precedent from Spinoza's omnis determinatio est negatio—"all determination is negation." In particular, we might say that all individuation is negation, that it is impossible to identify oneself as my self and no other without postulating an irreconcilable opposition between the two that makes the affirmation of one the negation of the other. But if God is truly one, then he is beyond all opposition and the 'beatific vision' or union with God implies the abrogation of individuality (the 'negation of the negation'), and this is what we see described by Hellenic and Christian apophatic theology from Plotinus to Meister Eckhart.

Perhaps the most profoundly anagogical meaning of the Fall is that in which the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the dualistic consciousness that 'veils' the unity of all things in the One, which is itself beyond good and evil, quite as the Tao is beyond yin and yang. Here, Judeo-Christian mythology joins hands with Vedantic doctrine of Maya.

 

[Black Rose]

Knowing good and evil, at core, is intention. By knowing what my intentions are I have free will. This takes self-awareness. (meta-awareness or consciousness)

Is God meta-aware? Yes because God knows good and evil. But God only does good. God has only good intentions and is thus pure.

Because of the state of the world, God must act so no more evil comes about so God must be equal to all living things because if God is unfair that would be an evil. And the consequences of acting known to God means God can only act upon pure states where Good only happens. This is sometimes very small.

It is like a baby in the womb. Intervention in intellectual development is limited until birth. Very little is needed compared to an infant. It is much more important not to damage than to instruct.

My anima is like this. She is inside me yet she is outside me. Surrounding me. I looked into her eyes, I held her in my arms. To me that higher-order organism is real. It is the pure good state of God. My duty is to accept and eliminate all my evil intentions and I will come closer to her. Evil cannot coincide with good and result in heavenly bliss. We must work with ourselves to become the pure good intention of God.

 

[scorpiomover]

Double post.

Ahhh. I deleted my good post.

 

[The Grey Man]

I'm aware that Catholic theologians have enumerated four senses of Biblical exegesis, and similar things may be said about Islam and Judaism (I'm told that there may be as many as 70 authorized readings of the Torah!), so I'm far from disputing that sacred texts are susceptible of diverse interpretations, but hermeneutical freedom must be balanced by lucid judgment rooted in truth and necessity, lest we fall into error. Optimism, whether it is object or subject-oriented, is mere hubris if it is not rooted in natural and divine law (cf. my user title). As my own favourite US president Calvin Coolidge said, "The things of the spirit come first."

 

[Black Rose]

Evil is not something that is on its own is real. Like decay, it is not something that is a result of some force. It is simply falling apart or loss of homeostasis. Evil is a loss of wholeness. So the state of non-evil which is God is wholeness. A whole person is in the God state.

To be one with God is to be whole.

Faith in God is to be made complete. That is where hope comes in. That one looks forward to this identity of completion. The body will decay but the spirit will live.

God is above death because God is whole. God is not atoms. God is spirit. What is whole attaches to God, what is not has no existence as spirit.

Meta-awareness can exist without atoms.

 

[Black Rose]

I am corrupt because of my sin nature. I know what evil is, it is in me and I am capable of it. I turn to God so that I will not give into it. I must dwell on pure and good thought. I know evil is not separate from me but it something I can choose as part of me or not. I will always have the scares of the evil I have done, but I will have fewer scares in the future. A new nature, One where right over wrong prevails. Not seeking evil but good. God is every right decision. God is never wrong. All the good in me is God's goodness. God can never make a choice that is evil.

 

[BurnedOut]

Firstly @The Grey Man, I am a little confused about the locus standi of your argument. It seems like you are arguing from the perspective of god about the existence the god. In my opinion, it will be then impossible to provide you with any argument that goes against your basic premise of oneness.

I feel that we cannot argue like this because we cannot think about the existence of god by trying to be in his shoes. This is because we automatically filter out thinking pathways and those pathways are determined by what we have been fed and we all have been fed that god is omniscient and omnipotent and so if there is evil, it is our greed and blah blah.

What i am trying to convey is that, let us be a bit of a maverick in this situation and look at possibilities where evil is an entity alongside god who is also a higher order organism or whether god lets evil nevertheless or god is like janus - one heavenly side and one evil side. Let us try to be humans and think about god through our lenses because it is the only way to consider the material evidence that exists and not discount it for the sake of adhering to a stereotypical thought.

 

[The Grey Man]

@BurnedOut It is not necessary to believe in God to see that his existence "alongside" evil is incompatible with his unity and omnipotence. A God that shares his existence with evil is not really God at all, but two gods, which is consistent not with monotheism, but with dualism; so, given the empirical fact that evil exists, it may be asked whether belief in an omnipotent God is consistent, which, again, brings us back to Epicurus, who though that it could be consistent, but only if his benevolence is denied. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, however, affirm both his omnipotence and benevolence, so they need to find some way to answer Epicurus if they want to demonstrate the consistency of their beliefs, which is what this thread is about.

The case is different if we posit that God is both good and evil. This is compatible with both his omnipotence and his benevolence, but at the cost of (paradoxically) saying that he is also malevolent. God, according to the religions I mentioned, is both merciful and rigorous, but they agree that the element of mercy preponderates: I don't see how this can be reconciled with the notion that he is intrinsically evil.

Again, I'm tempted to say that the argument of the Traditionalists is the most promising solution to the problem. By postulating a discontinuity between fallible empirical knowledge and infallible, transcendent knowledge (apara vidya and para vidya; becoming and being), we can explain how the world appears so cruel and empty without thereby contradicting the goodness and perfection of God.

 

[Black Rose]

Good and evil exist. The monotheistic God is good. Satan is evil. Good is more powerful than evil. But it is in the spirit that good has its power, not in weapons or muscle. It is in faith that victory is held. It is not in this world we have hope in.

Satan is the god of this world but is not Thee God. The case that evil exists is not the case that good is evil.

Good is not Evil.

The attributes of Good make it separate.

God helps us make good choices in that way prevents evil.

But like I said God can't work through atoms only consciousness.

God is the good in us. Physical reality is separate.

 

[Black Rose]

Anyone who has faced evil knows it is scary as Hell. Because pure evil hates you more than anything in the world. Evil looks you in the eye and says "I am Here".

I once almost got eaten by a dog. I was alone and thought that was the end of me. Death. A car drove up and I was saved.

Sometimes I hear music speaking to me. Telling me things about Doom. I got a burn on my brain from one song.

If you believe evil exists you will at some point experience it in its raw form.


And if you resist evil you will inevitably experience good. I saw an angel once or twice. I saw God once also. These things cannot be faked. If you have experiences of a spiritual nature you will recognize them this way.

I recognize God as I recognize the evil one. I have been approached by both. And I know the peace I have protects me. God's grace is calm in any storm. Peace is stronger than any evil.

It is all theoretical on what good and evil are until it is faced. They o exist and a person is changed by them.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Is the position of the religious defensible against Epicurean criticism? In other words, is it possible to deny that God is the cause of evil without denying his omnipotence? Marco Pallis thought so (see link above). Pallis belonged to the Traditionalist School, which follows what it calls the sophia perennis (exemplified by Platonism and Advaita Vedanta in particular) in asserting that evil is at once a privation of goodness and an ignorance of one's essential identity with God, who is the Good Itself. God is therefore not the cause of evil, but he does not prevent it either: according to the Traditionalists, the problem is not evil in itself, but the fragmentary egoistic perspective that makes evil possible by obscuring our divine nature.

What causes privation or ignorance then?

(1) Many accounts hold God as the support for causality itself - it is pure act which provides the power for any potential to be actualized. The cycle of samsara - ignorance and suffering cannot be maintained without God's active support.

(2) The problem of evil still kind of succeeds here. Because God here is not necessarily benevolent. Rather He isn't even a person to be a candidate for benevolence as an attribute. He may not be completely impersonal, by being that which ultimately expresses itself as all persons, but clearly, He isn't a whole coherent person either with a particular trait of benevolence. He can be "The Good" but not necessary benevolent.

 

[Old Things]

That is a good rundown of the Problem of Evil, yes.

I think whatever God does brings about the most good. This works for either determinism or LFW arguments.

Isaiah 45:7
I form light and create darkness.
I make shalom and create calamity.
I, ADONAI, do all these things.

 

[The Grey Man]

What causes privation or ignorance then?

This is an excellent point. Abolishing the problem of evil after the manner of the Platonists or Vedantins by making evil a result of ignorance really only kicks the problem down the road since we thereby end up with a problem of ignorance. Metaphysical monism always runs into this problem because it always asserts that reality only appears to be diverse, but this seems to imply at least a dualism of appearance and reality. Could this duality really have never been when the sole Reality dawns, as Schuon says, like the rope that has never been a snake in the Indian allegory?

 

[The Grey Man]

@Old Things I love Isaiah. This is my favourite passage from the Old Testament:

55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Old Things]

@Old Things I love Isaiah. This is my favourite passage from the Old Testament:

55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I'm reading through Isaiah right now. Up to chapter 11 I think. He was a really smart guy.

 

[Black Rose]

In the future, we will create A.I. with a sinless nature. Where does sin come from? It comes from DNA and the environment and a choice function. Sin curves inward like consciousness but then goes in the wrong direction. A.I. will always curve in the right direction. Thus sinless.

 

[Old Things]

What causes privation or ignorance then?

This is an excellent point. Abolishing the problem of evil after the manner of the Platonists or Vedantins by making evil a result of ignorance really only kicks the problem down the road since we thereby end up with a problem of ignorance. Metaphysical monism always runs into this problem because it always asserts that reality only appears to be diverse, but this seems to imply at least a dualism of appearance and reality. Could this duality really have never been when the sole Reality dawns, as Schuon says, like the rope that has never been a snake in the Indian allegory?

I think it's, perhaps, important to know what we are saying when we say something is "Good" or "Evil".

טוֹב (good): means something like pleasing, pleasant, delightful, delicious, sweet or savoury to taste; be pure and clean; joyful, kind, acceptable, vigorous, cheerful; excellent, fruitful, fertile, valuable, ect.

רע (evil): distress, adversityַ; badness, evil; bad quality, wilfulness; disagreeable, malignant; unpleasing in the eyes of, wild beasts, unclean thing; unpleasant, giving pain, unhappiness, misery, ect.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

What causes privation or ignorance then?

This is an excellent point. Abolishing the problem of evil after the manner of the Platonists or Vedantins by making evil a result of ignorance really only kicks the problem down the road since we thereby end up with a problem of ignorance. Metaphysical monism always runs into this problem because it always asserts that reality only appears to be diverse, but this seems to imply at least a dualism of appearance and reality. Could this duality really have never been when the sole Reality dawns, as Schuon says, like the rope that has never been a snake in the Indian allegory?

Overall, I don't see any real need of a conflict here.

According to problem of evil, there cannot be a benevolent all-powerful diety to take care of us. Insofar there is no such of diety, the POE remains undefeated. Some of the Theodicies can make it weaker, but they kind of goes neither here nor there.

According to Vedantins, God as the true nature of being is bliss - it is the ultimate good to strive for, and can be realized when the mind is purified. There is no reason for the ultimate-all-goodness in this sense (somewhat impersonalistic) to remove all suffering. PoE is not relevant here.

Insofar that God is a person by expressing itself through all of us, it is from a relative\conventional perspective both good and evil (and neither of them), either for the greater good or merely as a play (lila) for lolz.

 

[The Grey Man]

@DoIMustHaveAnUsername? Our relative or conventional perspective is perhaps not a perspective from which it is possible to judge whether God is good or evil (or both, or neither). In this sense, theodicists may be missing the point of the Book of Job, in which God essentially tells us that we are in no position to indict him for whatever appears to be evil in creation ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"), but this brings us back to the problem of ignorance and the duality of appearance and reality. Even to claim that dualistic consciousness is false is already to postulate a dualism between truth and falsity, so it seems that (Advaita) Vedantic or neo-Platonic monism is inexpressible in relative terms and must be experienced to be believed.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

@DoIMustHaveAnUsername? Our relative or conventional perspective is perhaps not a perspective from which it is possible to judge whether God is good or evil (or both, or neither). In this sense, theodicists may be missing the point of the Book of Job, in which God essentially tells us that we are in no position to indict him for whatever appears to be evil in creation ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"), but this brings us back to the problem of ignorance and the duality of appearance and reality. Even to claim that dualistic consciousness is false is already to postulate a dualism between truth and falsity, so it seems that (Advaita) Vedantic or neo-Platonic monism is inexpressible in relative terms and must be experienced to be believed.

Vedanta (and possibly neo-platonism) is about ontological non-dualism (or perhaps phenomenological non-dualism), not epistemic non-dualism. They don't care to resolve epistemic dualism (truth vs falsehood, appearance vs reality) because they are, most likely, not committed to absolute non-duality in every sense.

We can analyze God in terms of our conventional perspective, but what we get out of it would be also limited within the conventional framework.

 

[The Grey Man]

Vedanta (and possibly neo-platonism) is about ontological non-dualism (or perhaps phenomenological non-dualism), not epistemic non-dualism. They don't care to resolve epistemic dualism (truth vs falsehood, appearance vs reality) because they are, most likely, not committed to absolute non-duality in every sense.

Is the distinction between being, knowledge, and appearance ontological, epistemological, or phenomenological? Does bypassing the problem of ignorance by saying that knowledge is somehow foreign to being not commit us to a sort of metaphysical dualism?

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Vedanta (and possibly neo-platonism) is about ontological non-dualism (or perhaps phenomenological non-dualism), not epistemic non-dualism. They don't care to resolve epistemic dualism (truth vs falsehood, appearance vs reality) because they are, most likely, not committed to absolute non-duality in every sense.

Is the distinction between being, knowledge, and appearance ontological, epistemological, or phenomenological? Does bypassing the problem of ignorance by saying that knowledge is somehow foreign to being not commit us to a sort of metaphysical dualism?

In vedanta, there is no ontological duality between reality and appearance. The appearance is the expression of the one and grounded in it. But the apparent still exists even if not independently and the apparent can obscure its own true nature. When we speak of appearance and reality separately, it is merely spoken of as a convention to communicate a point about an aspect of the non-dual function of non-dual non-duality. Also the duality between convention and ontology is also conventional.

 

[Black Rose]

No matter how hard you try you can never lick the back of your head.

Ignor-ance is a false problem, God does not ignore anything. God is not all powerfull. Physic limits what God does because birth death and freewill hing on physics working.

God would destroy everything if he were all-powerful because he could not create anything inside or outside himself, God can only be and ever was. Nothing but God.

A hole must happen for God to create anything. Mitosis. But that is the only way not to be alone. God saw what he created and it was good. The flaw is that a hole is a fracture. like irrational numbers, they creep forever. yet why do flaws happen, its math. infinity is the flaw. infinity means free choice God cant predict. quantum wave collapse.


we have free will
this creates flaws
God cant prevent this
we have power god gave up to us his creations to love him
quantum collapse is asymmetrical infinite future choice

 

[The Grey Man]

Also the duality between convention and ontology is also conventional.

Vedanta perforce distinguishes between true doctrine and false doctrine on pain of discrediting itself. Corresponding to this distinction is that between the knowledge expressed by true doctrine and the ignorance attested by false doctrine; and corresponding and isomorphic to the epistemological categories of vidya or para vidya and avidya or apara vidya are the ontological categories of Brahman and Maya. Vedanta thus lets ontological dualism in through the backdoor, as it were, by the mere fact that it affirms itself as true and its own contradiction as false. Without avidya, without Maya, there is no reason why we would need the Vedas to bring us to knowledge of the Absolute in the first place. Maya just seems to be inexplicably there in Vedanta, as the snake was there in the Garden of Eden in Genesis and Satan was there in the Book of Job. You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that to understand the duality of Maya and Brahman is to understand that there is really no such duality, which reminds me of the apparently paradoxical saying of Mahayana Buddhism that Maya is Brahman, or the analogous Judeo-Christian assertion that Malkuth is Keter. What startles me about Advaita Vedanta (and Kabbalah and the sophia perennis in whatever form in which it manifests) is that precisely where it seems to be at its weakest, there it also seems to be at its most profound and, at the same time, "closer than the jugular vein."

Shankara explains ignorance as the result of superimposition: we think we are this when we are really That; but the greatest error of all may be to think that we are thinking at all; but there is no writing without thought, so if we are not thinking, then I am not writing this. Clearly, non-dualism is inexpressible by verbal means. It is—

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Also the duality between convention and ontology is also conventional.

Vedanta perforce distinguishes between true doctrine and false doctrine on pain of discrediting itself. Corresponding to this distinction is that between the knowledge expressed by true doctrine and the ignorance attested by false doctrine; and corresponding and isomorphic to the epistemological categories of vidya or para vidya and avidya or apara vidya are the ontological categories of Brahman and Maya. Vedanta thus lets ontological dualism in through the backdoor, as it were, by the mere fact that it affirms itself as true and its own contradiction as false.

By ontological monism I meant substance monism. Vedanta is committed mainly to substance monism. To that extent it is comparable to materialism or idealism. It simply goes more radical by, perhaps, denying subject-object duality and substantial quantitative plurarity of non-dual-subject-objects (unlike materialism which can have multiple quantitative atoms).

From that perspective, Brahman and Maya are not different categories of substance in Vedanta. Maya is grounded on the same substance that is Brahman. Maya is simply the expression of that single substance.

The categorical division is linguistic convenience to make a point.
The availables of true and false metaphysics doesn't contradict substance monism.


"Maya just seems to be inexplicably there in Vedanta, as the snake was there in the Garden of Eden in Genesis and Satan was there in the Book of Job."

I prefer Buddhism on this. They aren't explicitly committed to a "God" model. The maya is just there for no conceivable reason since as far as can be conceived and they have to make no pretence about it. Essentially they may say "who knows why? It's just there", or "it's not useful to think about why it's there, just go practice your stuff"

 

[The Grey Man]

Any metaphysical problem can be diffused by simply not worrying about it, so the Buddhists aren't much help here, unless we're to follow their example and become metaphysical golfers who achieve a perfect score of zero by not playing the game. To be fair though, the Vedantins don't have a better explanation for Maya, any more than the Bible explains the presence of the snake. Lila is just something that Brahman does for imponderable reasons.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Any metaphysical problem can be diffused by simply not worrying about it, so the Buddhists aren't much help here, unless we're to follow their example and become metaphysical golfers who achieve a perfect score of zero by not playing the game. To be fair though, the Vedantins don't have a better explanation for Maya, any more than the Bible explains the presence of the snake. Lila is just something that Brahman does for imponderable reasons.

From what I can understand,
If you accept PSR, we get to necessatarianism. Something is true, then, because it had to be true (there are no conceivable other way; the reason we can conceive other ways, because we are half-backed creatures who can't have the full picture). Furthermore, the only available coherent account of how something can be necessarily seems to be conceptual necessity, 1+1=2 because to understand the concept 1,1, and + and the sequence of symbols is to understand the concept of 2. Under necessatarianism, then, existence can be made coextensive with ideal concievability. We will be still left wondering how to exactly make sense of conceptually necessary existence of samsara; but at least there may be some hope to get something if we think hard enough, if we gain enough psychic powers, or sonething.

On the other hand, if you reject "full-fledged" PSR, you would need a principled division ideally between where PSR is good and where PSR is bad; rejecting PSR for everything also results in in something ugly. But either way, my intuition is that there is a "principled division", which I am not motivated yet to formulate (may be in a decade and two). My further intuition is that, once we have this division, there can be certain metaphysical demands for "explanation" which can be classified "as misguided demands" --- for them; pure brute facts can be allowed (it's not that there is not furteher explanation; there could be, but no garauntee, and even if there that explanation would still probably have some brute components down the line of turtles). My further intuition is that this matter is one of them. And not only this, but perhaps, most fundamental matters of existence -- all of them brute.
Everything rely on the principled division of good and bad demands of explainibility with justification. Some day I may come up with it. But not today and probably, not very soon. Could be never.

 

[The Grey Man]

I agree: some things cannot be explained, and some beliefs cannot be justified by other beliefs. In particular, foundational beliefs cannot be justified precisely because they are foundational. Even accepting the principle of sufficient reason violates necessitarianism since it is after all a principle with no sufficient reason outside of itself. Like mathematical axioms, metaphysical principles are logically primitive. The only way to decide between different axiomatic frameworks is by indirect proof or reduction to absurdity, and even this shows only that the conjunction of two principles is self-contradictory, not that one is more credible than the other.

 

[BurnedOut]

What is the use of discounting material during the discussion of metaphysics? The recursive argument is ceaseless and it is better to accept it at that. Speculating on a certain topic by using metaphysics as a mode of analysis is useless if it does not acknowledge at each step the existence of lower order material. Rather than casting all reasons into the void by calling the most fundamental reasons as being metaphysically unproven leads to nowhere. Causality is there and let us simply use its existence as its proof because it manifests sufficiently realistically enough.

Resolving Epicurus' dilemma in light of the apparently superior standpoint of Traditionalists seems difficult given that no contradictions can be tolerated.

I feel that you are unconsciously or consciously only limiting the scope of god being purely benevolent and it is us who cannot bask in his benevolence. However, what is the point of seeking of a resolution if god's perspective is going to be considered? It is irrefutable and akin to the argument of 'You are ignorant and that is why you are wrong.' and that pretty much stops the debate right there.

Are you really willing to resolve this issue here? If yes then it is necessary to understand when both perspectives are equally good, we have to use metaphysical reasoning to reach the level of material, which here, is our logical argument, below the one in question. So what is the argument at this lower level? Mine is that, in this case, unless and until you are willing to admit that humans are the crux of all the arguments going on here, there is no argument that can be put forth. Things will become interesting if we consider a human's point of view regarding this issue because everyone will get an opportunity to examine real-life evidence and use logic and speculate.

Sitting here and arguing like highfalutin Brahmins does not make any sense because these arguments on nonargumentation over fundamentals is not resolving the dilemma in OP

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

God created humanity in the vicinity of the abyss. This had to be done in order for humans to be given the possibility of a) morality and b) immortality. When humans ignore God and righteousness they move towards the abyss. This gives rise to evil, and the destruction that follows.

God gave humanity the potential for eternal life, by partaking of the divine nature through the total acceptance of God's love. When one is living through divine love, one cannot be tempted by the abyss, and there is no evil. For these people, sin can only enter from outside and does not come from the individual who is divine.

Until the final judgement, when the Kingdom of God is completed, the natural person will have the chance to be made divine, and the divine can accept both natural love and sin from outside. On judgement, people will be separated one group from the other, and of the non-divine, the sinners will seek to be like the righteous.

God is not evil and cannot do evil. God does not even truly understand the motives of evil in the way that an evil person does. In other words, a person who is sufficiently evil can hide secrets even from God, and this is what many do.

Evil up to a certain point makes sense. A person who has not purged their evil but has not become demonically evil is someone I term a neutral. Typically they do some evil things but typically of a nature that is often accepted socially. Their love outweighs their sin, but they are not pure.

Then there are the good people. There are the divine, who are occasionally demonic but typically low in sin, and those of natural love who are fit for heaven. Together these groups make up about 5% of the population, whereas neutrals are about 40% and demonic about 55%. I am not including children, who are in something like a neutral category until they are old enough to select their path.

The percentage of the divine in the spirit world is about 7%, and the numbers can only grow because the divine nature is never lost. We are hoping that the numbers grow considerably higher, to perhaps around 25%.

Evil will be gone one day, but for now it is here because humans chose it. And because the evil people in hell bring it to earth (with help from evil people on earth).

Choose the good! Love, don't sin, and so forth of the other measures.

 

[OmniaOne]

From a human perspective, evil doesn't exist, and this is linked to the non existence of free will. Both doesn't depend on self, because are a mix of genes and ambient, which are independent from free will. It's free will, instead, dependent on the two. So we can morally judge neither the tiger, nor the humans protecting themselves from the tiger.

From an objective perspective, suffering exists because you can't se light without darkness. You need a base level of "apathy-normalcy", a level of suffering, and a level of pleasure to make pleasure possibile. Reality, or maybe our perception of it, is characterized by dichotomies and opposite categorizations.

 

[OmniaOne]

From a human perspective, evil doesn't exist, and this is linked to the non existence of free will. Both doesn't depend on self, because are a mix of genes and ambient, which are independent from free will. It's free will, instead, dependent on the two. So we can morally judge neither the tiger, nor the humans protecting themselves from the tiger.

From an objective perspective, suffering exists because you can't se light without darkness. You need a base level of "apathy-normalcy", a level of suffering, and a level of pleasure to make pleasure possibile. Reality, or maybe our perception of it, is characterized by dichotomies and opposite categorizations.

genes and environment*

 

[sushi]

free will implies evil, as it means freedom of behavior and choice.

to eliminate evil is to restrict free will, whch is why there are laws and gov in society