Did God Create the Devil? The Philosophical Implications of a Religious Belief

[deda]

Did God made the Devil too?
Why, the hell, did he do that for?

 

[Dissident Dan]

The devil is supposedly a rebellious angel who started a war against god, with some of the other angels joining on his side.

 

[Sikz]

His question still stands... Why make an angel that will rebel? (This thread is doomed to be locked :P)

 

[one_raven]

<---- Not a Christian.

However, the typical Christian argument (one of the few Christian Apologist arguments that fly with me) is that God created all beings with free will.

Lucifer was free to rebel if that was his will.

However, the Agnostic in me would point out...

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn."

Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light.

In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

I wish I could remember where I got that from.
I would like to give credit to the author.
However, if you really want to know, you can do an exact phrase search on yahoo, and I am sure you will be able to find it on the net without too much trouble.

 

[Sikz]

Indeed. However:

An omnipotent God has power over everything.

Therefore an omnipotent God had to create everything:

If something existed without God creating it (telling it that it could exist), God's approval was not required in order for it to exist and therefore he did not have power over its creation. Therefore he would not have power over everything- so any omnipotent God had to create everything.

This includes logical constraints; if a God is confined by ANY rules whatsoever, including truth/falsehood, the laws of mathematics, etc, that God must operate under those rules. If the God is subordinate to the rules then that God must not be omnipotent.

Here we run across innumerable paradoxes (EG How could God create the act of creating?), but we shall skim over them for now.

Because of this, God had to create the concept of free will- he could have created it where every decision was good and it would still be free will. This would not be evil, because God has power over the definitions of good and evil.

God had to create the concepts of good and evil- why not create good and leave evil out, so any decision would be good? Some would argue duality is necessary, but God had to create duality and necessity as well.

So the free will argument holds no real ground- it is meaningful only if God is subject to the laws of reality, which he cannot be if he is omnipotent. (For the reason of the vast number of paradoxes involved in this argument that we skimmed over, and based on various other ideas, I find any omnipotent being an impossibility- but that is beside the point).

 

[one_raven]

I personally don't believe in "good" and "evil", but leaving that aside...

Who said God was "good"?
Who said that rebellion (and Lucifer, for that matter) was bad?

Anyway...
My view is that if there is a God, he would be closest to the Diest version.
He created all, set the rules, put the ball in play, then backed off to let it do what it's going to do.

He would still be omnipotent.

The ability to control all does not imply the necessity or obligation to do so.
I could invent a board game.
I would know all the rules.
I would know how to cheat.
I would choose to abide by the rules I created.
The game does not have power over me, I chose to follow the constraints I invented.

 

[Sikz]

Yes, but free will is part of the game. We are PIECES of the game, so we would be BOUND by the rules- since we can't will ourselves more powerful than God, obviously there are bounds. Meaning our choices must be monitored, meaning they are censored so God allows or disallows every thought and action.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Sikz
Meaning our choices must be monitored, meaning they are censored so God allows or disallows every thought and action.

Not at all.
The rules are imbedded into the game already.
The laws of physics.
There are no other unbreakable rules.

We can't break them, not because God is watching and will squash us with his thumb if we do, like the Tower of Babel or something.
We can't break them simply because they are integral to the design of the system.

I can kill you right now.
If God were "good" and enforced Biblical morality, I wouldn't be able to do that.
Since God created me with free will, I have the choice to kill you.
He CAN do something about it, but he doesn't because he is abiding by the rules of non-interference that he made for himself.

However, I can't fly to the moon right now under the power of the magic wings I tuck under my shirt while I am at work.
Not because God is watching me, but because it is a rule built into the game.

Allowing "evil" to happen to people does not make God malevolent himself.
He does not perpetrate the evil.
Abstention of interference does not imply malevolence.
Especially if "Heaven" exists.
The petty little woes that humans suffer on Earth are but a speck of sand in eternity.
That is like saying if you mother cared about you she wouldn't let you get a hangnail.

Besides, the VAST majority of suffering humans go through is caused by other humans.
Maybe he is watching and saying, "You deserve it you shallow, self-absorbed, arrogant little fux!"

Who's to say?
The point, however (believe it or not, I do have a point buried in here somewhere), is that someone could very well be omnipotent, but not interfere.
If he IS omnipotent, he has the power to turn his back if he wishes.

 

[Sikz]

Isn't God, by engaging in any action, not engaging in another? And seeing as he isn't engaging in another he must be bound by reality.

Doesn't God exist or not exist? Either he doesn't exist, or he does. If he does he is bound by existence.

God can do anything- therefore he can create a rule by which he is bound. But then he is bound by a rule...

God created all concepts. How can you create the concept of creating before it exists?

How can God know that he is omniscient? What if something else created God and purposely MADE HIM THINK he was omniscient?

Since free will operates under the rules of the "game", and God created the rules of the game, God still had to create every decision we make. How can you jump if there's no such thing as jumping?

What motivation would an allpowerful and allknowing God have to create a universe? He already knows everything that will happen and can already do whatever he wants. Needs and desires indicate a lack- how can God be lacking something, since anything he creates must necessarily come from himself?

How can there be a beginning to time anyway? Whatever units we use to measure back in time, the last "instant" can always be divided into subinstants and get us farther and farther back.

If there was no beginning to time, there was an infinite wait before the creation of the world... That's odd, wouldn't you say?


These are general arguments against the existence of any omnipotent/omniscient being... There are infinitely more against specific religions' Gods which I shan't go into since they are off the topic of the philosophical discussion (and everyone already knows them anyway). So what of these?

 

[Shahil]

Hindus don't believe in the devil.

If you don't like the devil - become a hindu!




Oh and hindu girls are very nice looking!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Perhaps the "problem" is viewing "God" as an the Great Outsider who "created the Universe" ...rather than viewing the Universe Itself as an eternal Entity of energy whose "bodily functions" comprise "the Game".

 

[scott]

God=omnicient does not = free will:


Let's take a question like, "Are you going to hell?" Assuming there is a definite answer, i.e. either you are, or you aren't, that means that there will eventually be a factual truth associated with the question. You either went to hell or you didn't. If God is omnicient, he already knows the answer to the question. If he knows the answer to the question, then that means there ISan answer to the question, and therefore your fate has already been decided. You could argue that God could change his mind, but he already knew he was going to do that, and so your ultimate fate is still known. The consequence of this is that you have no free will. Your fate is already decided. If, on the other hand, you do have free will, and the question of your going to hell is not known yet by God, then he is not omnicient.

When God created everything, he already knew every single thing that was ever going to happen. He was the architect of every single act. He knew perfectly well that Satan would turn evil, men would do evil, etc ...

Makes me wonder why its so important for me to believe and be "born again" and all of that stuff, since God has already made up his mind about me anyway and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by scott
God=omnicient does not = free will:


Let's take a question like, "Are you going to hell?" Assuming there is a definite answer, i.e. either you are, or you aren't, that means that there will eventually be a factual truth associated with the question. You either went to hell or you didn't. If God is omnicient, he already knows the answer to the question. If he knows the answer to the question, then that means there ISan answer to the question, and therefore your fate has already been decided. You could argue that God could change his mind, but he already knew he was going to do that, and so your ultimate fate is still known. The consequence of this is that you have no free will. Your fate is already decided. If, on the other hand, you do have free will, and the question of your going to hell is not known yet by God, then he is not omnicient.

When God created everything, he already knew every single thing that was ever going to happen. He was the architect of every single act. He knew perfectly well that Satan would turn evil, men would do evil, etc ...

Makes me wonder why its so important for me to believe and be "born again" and all of that stuff, since God has already made up his mind about me anyway and there is nothing I can do about it.

And THAT's the "problem" with the paradigm that has "God" as "omnicient". Instead, might not the Universe Itself be an evolving Entity that DOESN'T KNOW what's going to happen next. What, in fact, would be the POINT -- or even ENJOYMENT -- of a highly intelligent Being knowing everything in advance and just watching It's little "creations" walking through their parts? It's a flawed (and primitive) paradigm -- IMO -- that presents "God" as the Great Outsider with a "Plan"!

In MY paradigm, the Universe Itself is evolving over infinite incarnations twixt one Big Bang through a Big Crunch to next Big Bang, at infinitum. At each Big Bang, It SEEMINGLY "blows apart" ...except Everything is STILL CONNECTED via "forces". As to It's "consciousness"? ...Its Mind "blows apart" as well, then goes through the process of "coming together" via "forces" ...much like the "physical plane". IOW, the Universe "looses It's marbles" "in the beginning" when IT is "born again"!

Thus, free will is in play and everybody -- including the Universe -- is happy.

 

[scott]

which makes you wonder this: if we are part of the universe, (and we certainly are) and we are self aware, and we are aware of the universe, does that mean the universe is aware of itself, and intelligent?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sort of answered your own question, didn't you?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by scott
which makes you wonder this: if we are part of the universe, (and we certainly are) and we are self aware, and we are aware of the universe, does that mean the universe is aware of itself, and intelligent?

Good point - one that gets forgotten. If science is right then the physical universe can self-reference itself, can know itself. How this idea makes sense I have no idea at all.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by scott
which makes you wonder this: if we are part of the universe, (and we certainly are) and we are self aware, and we are aware of the universe, does that mean the universe is aware of itself, and intelligent?

Yes, if all parts of the universe, other than us, don't lack self-awareness. "We" are only one part of the universe. So if anyone part exists that is not self-aware, the universe (as a whole) is not aware of itself. If, in fact, "we" are self-aware, then the universe is either partly or wholly self-aware. Therefore, the answer is only contingent upon the awareness of the remaining parts.

Any suggestions on how to, if possible, determine awareness in, say, inanimate objects? Maybe we should start by defining awareness itself?

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And THAT's the "problem" with the paradigm that has "God" as "omnicient"...

Absolutely! Countless logical proofs show that God’s omniscience is suspect. But, his almost certain ignorance does not necessarily negate his completely uncertain existence. And if he does exist, I wonder if God made it outright impossible to prove his existence for purposes of amusement.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
Yes, if all parts of the universe, other than us, don't lack self-awareness. "We" are only one part of the universe. So if anyone part exists that is not self-aware, the universe (as a whole) is not aware of itself. If, in fact, "we" are self-aware, then the universe is either partly or wholly self-aware. Therefore, the answer is only contingent upon the awareness of the remaining parts.

Any suggestions on how to, if possible, determine awareness in, say, inanimate objects? Maybe we should start by defining awareness itself?

I have proposed elsewhere -- and am now proposing here -- that ANY "exchange of information" constitutes "awareness" ...from simple to complex.

IOW, an electron is at least "aware" of the positive charge of the proton, and RESPONDS to with regard to its spatial relationship to same. Likewise larger systems detecting and responding to each other's masses via gravity ...a form of "information".

Many currently contend that consciousness "emerges" when biological organisms reach a certain level of complexity, but I propose that consciousness is on a continuum from simple to complex ...based on the complexity of the sensing and responding entity ...be it elementary particle, star, galaxy or gnat.

Perhaps we are being "elitist" when we deem only biological systems with BRAINS as being conscious when brains are "merely" biological devices that have evolved to sense/process/store/respond-to a LOT of information. Lesser systems can -- at the very least -- sense and respond to "information" ...which -- at the very least -- is mediated by the current count of four forces (weak, strong, gravity, em)

Also -- in response to the title of this thread -- there is no "day of creation" if the Universe Itself is "eternal" ...and, if It's an "eternal Entity of energy that's responsive to all of It's parts" ...so much the better. Moreover ...no "God" need apply.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...ANY "exchange of information" constitutes "awareness"...

Yes, that's good! Of course, it all depends on the definitions we choose--but, I like this one for the moment.

So now we have to figure out if there is any part of the universe that does not partake in this information exchange. And by exchange I understand you to mean that an aware part must not only receive, but also send information. So if we can identify the existence of a part of the universe that does not receive and/or send information (in any way), we can conclude that the universe is not wholly self-aware. And if we can't identify such an existence then the state of the universe's self-awareness is unknown, but certainly possible.

Does the information itself fall under such identification? For example, along with the information the gravity wave is transmitting in the first place between its source and all destinations to follow, does it also send and/or receive subsequent information? As far as I know, gravity does not interact with anything in that sense. In order to be wholly self-aware, gravity (as a part of the whole) should partake in information exchange itself among other parts and not simply be the actual message between other parts.

Imagine two people speaking to each other: John says "Hello" to Jane. John initiated the message and is fully capable of receiving messages himself--therefore, he is self-aware. Jane received the message and is fully capable of initiating her own messages--therefore, she is self-aware. The question lies not in whether John or Jane is self-aware, but in whether the message "Hello" itself is self-aware. The example is a bad one practically because one could reason that the message is transmitted with sound waves and sound waves certainly affect each other along with whatever they collide into. But, conceptually it is easy to see where I was going because a gravity wave is very different from a sound wave in that (to the best of our knowledge) it does not interact with anything except massive bodies. And we certainly can't exclude gravity as a part of the whole universe simply because it disagrees with our process of identification.

So on that note, can anyone think of how gravity participates in a communication process in a way other than simply being the message between other aware parts?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
Yes, that's good! Of course, it all depends on the definitions we choose--but, I like this one for the moment.

So now we have to figure out if there is any part of the universe that does not partake in this information exchange.

IMO, there is NO part of the Universe that does not partake of the information exchange. Try to name something that exists that doesn't detect and respond to something.

And by exchange I understand you to mean that an aware part must not only receive, but also send information.

Not exactly. It MAY "send information" or it may "simply" just RESPOND. Of course, "sending information" would BE a "response".

Basically, however, I see the process at its most FUNDATMENTAL LEVEL to be basically the detection and response to something else.

Consciousness would then be on a continuum from very simple to very complex, based on quantity and array of data it can detect and the complexity of its OPTIONS to respond.

So if we can identify the existence of a part of the universe that does not receive and/or send information (in any way), we can conclude that the universe is not wholly self-aware. And if we can't identify such an existence then the state of the universe's self-awareness is unknown, but certainly possible.

The Universe is aware of Itself by this very process.

Does the information itself fall under such identification? For example, along with the information the gravity wave is transmitting in the first place between its source and all destinations to follow, does it also send and/or receive subsequent information?

The information exchange is on-going. It's a Cause & Effect Universe ...and, it's "all information all the time"!

As far as I know, gravity does not interact with anything in that sense. In order to be wholly self-aware, gravity (as a part of the whole) should partake in information exchange itself among other parts and not simply be the actual message between other parts.

Well, this seems to align with my (flawed?) understanding of QM: that everything -- including the "forces" -- are quanta of energy that are vibrating LIKE "strings". I believe they are "looking for" the "graviton" even as we speak.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure that "self-aware" and "conscious" are synonomous. I think self-awareness might be a "higher form" (more complex form) of "consciousness" ...that, reduced down to the lower common denominator, it is "only" the detection/sensing of stimuli/signals and the capacity to respond. Period.

Imagine two people speaking to each other: John says "Hello" to Jane. John initiated the message and is fully capable of receiving messages himself--therefore, he is self-aware. Jane received the message and is fully capable of initiating her own messages--therefore, she is self-aware. The question lies not in whether John or Jane is self-aware, but in whether the message "Hello" itself is self-aware.

I don't think the "graviton" is self-aware ...but it MAY be. Again, self-awareness is another topic for me ...but I'm willing to discuss it.

The example is a bad one practically because one could reason that the message is transmitted with sound waves and sound waves certainly affect each other along with whatever they collide into. But, conceptually it is easy to see where I was going because a gravity wave is very different from a sound wave in that (to the best of our knowledge) it does not interact with anything except massive bodies.

Whoa! It acts on everything ...that's why I'm not floating away from this keyboard.

And we certainly can't exclude gravity as a part of the whole universe simply because it disagrees with our process of identification.

What is "our process of identification" and how does gravity "disagree" with it?

So on that note, can anyone think of how gravity participates in a communication process in a way other than simply being the message between other aware parts?

No. That's IT.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by scott
If God is omnicient, he already knows the answer to the question. If he knows the answer to the question

Does he?

omniscient means all-knowing.
omnipotent means all-powerful.

A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.

Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... By anyone.

If there is a "God" that designed this system, he very well could have designed it so the future is not known nor entirely predictable.

Plus, as I said earlier, even if he DID have the ability to see into the future, he could simply choose not to.

Even if God does exist, what makes humans so arrogant to think that he would give a sh1t about the absurdly petty troubles and wishes of ANY of us, nevermind ALL of us.
If he cared even in the least about us, what would compel him to intervene in any way, nevermind orchestrate every least detail of everone's lives?
Even if he cared enough to intervene on some level, what makes us say that he would want life to be easy and happy for all?

If there is such thing as heaven, shangri-la, paradise, nibbana, etc, existence there, by account of all the major religions, is without trouble, difficulty, pain, strife...
If anything, life here would be a diversion from that, and the risks faced during your earthly lifetime is what would give this whiole existence any appeal to someone in a "paradise".
Don't you think?

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...Whoa! It [gravity] acts on everything ...that's why I'm not floating away from this keyboard...

The phrase "massive body", to a physicist, means "any body of mass" as opposed to its literal translation of a relatively large body.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...Not exactly. It MAY "send information" or it may "simply" just RESPOND. Of course, "sending information" would BE a "response"...

Again, it all depends on our definitions. So until a new process is identified that is known not to send or (not and/or) receive information, the universe is aware at the level you have referred to as information exchange.

Now let's figure out how this applies to why God made the devil.

 

[ewoodlief]

This has been discussed for ages...

Does not all-knowing include knowing tomorrow? Of course it does: so he must choose not to know it. Is that not reckless for God to do so? Of course it is: why would God, who could see my future, create me only to eventually have me become a victim of my own free will? The problem is if one wants God to be omniscient then one must accept that he is ethically irresponsible (by human standards influenced by religious doctrine.)

I'm not saying I know or care whether or not he exists or can tell the future; I'm saying it’s easy to understand why people have been talking about this issue for millennia: simply put, no one wants to view God as anything other than a perfect role model, while at the same time they insist that he is all-knowing--a strong conflict indeed.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
Does not all-knowing include knowing tomorrow? Of course it does

Why?

Please explain to me why "all-knowing" would necessarily directly imply knowledge of future events.

All-knowing means knowing everything that it is at all possible to know.
Where does your assumption that it is at all possible to know the future come from?
Is that assumption based on anything other than the admittiely flawed human language used to convey the properties of omniscience?

Not that the Bible would be proof of God's ability to know all future events, but where does it say even in the Bible that God has knowledge of all future events?

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by one_raven
Please explain to me why "all-knowing" would necessarily directly imply knowledge of future events... Is that assumption based on anything other than the admittiely flawed human language used to convey the properties of omniscience?

I realize that it is all about etymological syntax, but it is the only measuring stick we have; however, words do change over time. It is generally accepted that all-knowing means knowing everything—including future events. I should not have to explain that to anyone. Furthermore, "that it is at all possible to know" is also linguistically limited, for one implies that our impossibilities apply to God as well.

Please read the last paragraph in my last post, synthesize the widely accepted principle of omniscience versus recklessness into your own knowledge base, and consider how it pertains to the topic of this thread.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
This has been discussed for ages...

Does not all-knowing include knowing tomorrow? Of course it does: so he must choose not to know it.

In my belief system, the Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that -- with each Big Bang -- starts a new incarnation.

At the time of the Big Bang, Everything "blows apart" ...then spends the next 30-or-so billion years coming together again.

In the interim, It is having an Experience ...of which we are a part.

As to "consciousness", it was -- IMO -- present in the "primal Singularity" and -- at the moment of the Big Bang -- "blew apart" like Everything Else. And now it -- like Everything Else -- is "coming together" again (despite cosmological theories that currently say otherwise).

Thus -- finally, I make my point: -- It -- the Universe -- has NO PLAN ...nor does It "know" what's going to happen next. And that's because of the "wild card" of "free will".

But, it's not a "choice" not to know ...as you have suggested ...although, of course, you were talking about a personified God in "whom" I do not believe. IMO, it is part of the "body" of the Universe -- the "free will factor" -- thus an intrinsic element of UNCERTAINTY! Otherwise, Everything would just be "walking through a pre-scripted play" ...and why would an intelligent Entity want to spend an eternity watching THAT!

Is that not reckless for God to do so? Of course it is: why would God, who could see my future, create me only to eventually have me become a victim of my own free will?

Maybe it's entertaining to the Universe to see what you actually DO with your "free will". I think the Universe EXISTS to HAVE AN EXPERIENCE ...a real complex one that includes everything we do and experience. And we don't ALWAYS have to be "victims" of the choices we make and that actions we take, do we?

Also, I don't think the Universe is "being reckless". It can't "hurt" Itself, can it?

The problem is if one wants God to be omniscient then one must accept that he is ethically irresponsible (by human standards influenced by religious doctrine.)

Actually, the Universe DOES know "everything that's going on" -- in the moment -- but it doesn't know what It -- or It's "sub-systems" (us, and everything else)-- is/are going to DO.

But even in your paradigm, I do not understand how the "omniscient God" so many seem to want is being "ethically irresponsible" by so being?

I'm not saying I know or care whether or not he exists or can tell the future; I'm saying it’s easy to understand why people have been talking about this issue for millennia: simply put, no one wants to view God as anything other than a perfect role model, while at the same time they insist that he is all-knowing--a strong conflict indeed.

To tell you the truth, I think it's much more COMMENDABLE to be an EVOLVING ENTITY -- than One Who is "perfect" from the git-go, and never changing!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by one_raven
Does he?

omniscient means all-knowing.
omnipotent means all-powerful.

A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.

Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... By anyone.

If there is a "God" that designed this system, he very well could have designed it so the future is not known nor entirely predictable.

Of course, perhaps the System Itself was NOT "designed" by a Great Outsider, but is Itself an eternal conscious Entity within Whom the Natural Processes includes Uncertainty.

Plus, as I said earlier, even if he DID have the ability to see into the future, he could simply choose not to.

Or not a choice: integral.

Even if God does exist, what makes humans so arrogant to think that he would give a sh1t about the absurdly petty troubles and wishes of ANY of us, nevermind ALL of us.

OTOH, if the Universe -- having blown It's own consciousness apart -- then spent quite a while giving rise to consciousness complex enough to DISCUSS IT! -- I think we might be valued as contributors to Its intellectual -- as well as spiritual -- evolution. And that ain't chopped liver.

If he cared even in the least about us, what would compel him to intervene in any way, nevermind orchestrate every least detail of everone's lives?

Because the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that RESPONSIVE TO ALL OF ITS PARTS?

Even if he cared enough to intervene on some level, what makes us say that he would want life to be easy and happy for all?

The Universe obviously doesn't care whether we're enjoying ourselves or suffering. What matter to It is what we DO in a Cause & Effect Universe ...and is RESPONSIVE to our actions and intentions.

If there is such thing as heaven, shangri-la, paradise, nibbana, etc, existence there, by account of all the major religions, is without trouble, difficulty, pain, strife...

Wishful thinking ...like a LOT of religious beliefs.

If anything, life here would be a diversion from that, and the risks faced during your earthly lifetime is what would give this whiole existence any appeal to someone in a "paradise".
Don't you think?

Or, "life here" is what we make of it by our actions and intentions, an "Heaven" and "Hell" are basically states of mind.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
To tell you the truth, I think it's much more COMMENDABLE to be an EVOLVING ENTITY -- than One Who is "perfect" from the git-go, and never changing!

I completely agree.

 

[Canute]

Gaspar

Just to be clear - Nibbana is not a religious belief.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Canute
Gaspar

Just to be clear - Nibbana is not a religious belief.

Hey canute,
I think you meant that to be directed at me.
Sure, Buddhism isn't really a religion.
No Buddhist would ever refer to it as a religion.
However, I included it just because it is a philosophical system of beliefs regarding metaphysics and such topics as the samsra, anatta, God and physical dualism.
In that respect, it could be loosely grouped with world religions.
Don't you think?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by one_raven
Hey canute,
I think you meant that to be directed at me.

No, it was Gaspar who called it a religious belief. I missed it if you said the same earlier.

However, I included it just because it is a philosophical system of beliefs regarding metaphysics and such topics as the samsra, anatta, God and physical dualism.

Hmm. It gives rise to a metaphysical system, but a metaphysical system of beliefs is not what it is.

In that respect, it could be loosely grouped with world religions. Don't you think? [/B]

In a way I agree, but it can be very misleading. (It misled me for a very long time).