Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I believe in God, and I believe there is a devil, or Satan.

Okay, but is the God all-powerful and all-knowing?

Did he intentionally create Satan knowing what Satan would do?

If he is unable to stop Satan, then he is not all-powerful?

If a world with a Satan shouldn't exist but does, then god did a bad job.

If a world without a Satan would be objectively better than the one that actually exists (or at least better in the opinion of God), then god did a bad job.

In any case, you, Juanita, must agree with the following statements since they come before the one you said is the very first sentence with which you disagree:

1. The perception of literal evil is a manifestation of discontent, meaning a lack of inner peace, a lack of reality acceptance, a lack of unconditional love.

2. Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil.

1. God is, indeed, omnipotent and omniscient. He created Lucifer, an archangel. I have been taught that Lucifer rebelled and was evicted from Heaven. Omniscience should mean that God knew beforehand what would happen. I do not understand His reasons for allowing evil to exist.

2. God is omnipotent. He can stop Satan. He will do so. That’s what the end time, Battle of Armageddon, whatever you choose to call it is all about.

3. God didn’t do a bad job. God did what He wanted to do. Humans do not understand everything God does and we aren’t expected to do so.
Isaiah 55:2, says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Hi, Juanita Phelps,

Thank you so much for your reply. I love learning about different viewpoints and I love thought-provoking philosophical conversations like this.

Based on what you have written above, I suspect you and I just use the word "evil" differently, meaning we use the equivocal word to mean two different things, meaning this is a point of mutual misunderstanding not disagreement.

In analogy, it's like if you say "the gun-owning snake is armed" and I say "the gun-owning snake is not armed". It would sound like we were disagreeing, but rather we would likely just be using the word 'armed' to refer to different things. Neither of us would be wrong about anything and neither of us would be using the word wrong; it's just the nature of equivocal human language.

Words are just symbols that, like pointing fingers, point at ideas. But it's the non-verbal ideas that matter and determine whether we agree and/or are speaking truth. And the Christian Bible wasn't even written in English.

By the English word 'evil', I simply mean 'should-not-have-ness'.

When I say "there is no evil", all I mean is that "there is no should-not-have-ness".

In your lingo, you might say the same thing by saying something like, "God didn't do anything that he shouldn't have, and God doesn't ever do anything he shouldn't do. Nothing that he creates or created should be different than how he created it. No aspect of reality should be different than how he has chosen for it to be. The world as a timeless whole is perfect. Reality is eternal and perfect. Not a single spec is out of place. Not even a single tiny thread in this perfect eternal interdependent tapestry is misweaved."

So it looks like we actually agree.

I don't know what you mean by the word 'evil' (i.e. I don't understand what non-verbal idea that finger is pointing towards when you use it) , but I can tell from what you have written it's not what I mean. In terms of what I mean, I can see we seem to agree: should-not-have-ness does not exist. Or, in other words, God (if there is such an entity) did a great job, a perfect job even. Creation as timeless whole is perfect. Not one spec is out of place. Not one tiny bit of creation as timeless eternal whole should be different than it eternally is.

What you call "evil" is a necessary crucial valuable part of the perfect tapestry that is the whole of all creation. It's good that that 'evil' exist. It is great. God, if he exists, was wise and loving to create that thing you call "evil". You wouldn't say that what you call "evil" shouldn't exist. Thus, what I call "evil" doesn't exist even though what you call "evil" does. We are actually in 100% agreement. The equivocality of words makes it falsely seem like we are disagreeing about things, such as whether the snake is "armed" or whether "evil" exists.

Some people are out there resentfully claiming they could create a world better than this one, resentfully saying they could create a better world (a.k.a. reality) than what you call God did, such as by shaking their fists at the sky and saying "it shouldn't be raining" or such, saying "unchangeable reality should be different than it unchangeably is". But you and I agree on the deep truth that those miserable reality-resenters don't even see: Both the rain and what you call "evil" is good and lovable and perfect just as it is, no different than the rainbow or colorful growing flowers. It's all part of the perfect interdependent tapestry within which not one single spec is out of place. If one tiny thread was adjusted in one place, through the butterfly effect the whole thing would fall apart. Change one little thing, and everything changes, and it's all ruined. Should-not-have-ness doesn't exist. The whole of all creation is perfect. What you would call "God's plan" is perfect. Not even the tiniest thing about it should be different. Nobody and nothing could do better. It could not be better than it unchangingly is.

Thank you for thought-provoking discourse. I love it.
Juanita

Me too! Thank you!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

creation-as-a-timeless-eternal-whole-is-perfect.png (1.41 MiB) Viewed 25483 times

[Juanita Phelps]

I believe in God, and I believe there is a devil, or Satan.

Okay, but is the God all-powerful and all-knowing?

Did he intentionally create Satan knowing what Satan would do?

If he is unable to stop Satan, then he is not all-powerful?

If a world with a Satan shouldn't exist but does, then god did a bad job.

If a world without a Satan would be objectively better than the one that actually exists (or at least better in the opinion of God), then god did a bad job.

In any case, you, Juanita, must agree with the following statements since they come before the one you said is the very first sentence with which you disagree:

1. The perception of literal evil is a manifestation of discontent, meaning a lack of inner peace, a lack of reality acceptance, a lack of unconditional love.

2. Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil.

1. God is, indeed, omnipotent and omniscient. He created Lucifer, an archangel. I have been taught that Lucifer rebelled and was evicted from Heaven. Omniscience should mean that God knew beforehand what would happen. I do not understand His reasons for allowing evil to exist.

2. God is omnipotent. He can stop Satan. He will do so. That’s what the end time, Battle of Armageddon, whatever you choose to call it is all about.

3. God didn’t do a bad job. God did what He wanted to do. Humans do not understand everything God does and we aren’t expected to do so.
Isaiah 55:2, says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Hi, Juanita Phelps,

Thank you so much for your reply. I love learning about different viewpoints and I love thought-provoking philosophical conversations like this.

Based on what you have written above, I suspect you and I just use the word "evil" differently, meaning we use the equivocal word to mean two different things, meaning this is a point of mutual misunderstanding not disagreement.

In analogy, it's like if you say "the gun-owning snake is armed" and I say "the gun-owning snake is not armed". It would sound like we were disagreeing, but rather we would likely just be using the word 'armed' to refer to different things. Neither of us would be wrong about anything and neither of us would be using the word wrong; it's just the nature of equivocal human language.

Words are just symbols that, like pointing fingers, point at ideas. But it's the non-verbal ideas that matter and determine whether we agree and/or are speaking truth. And the Christian Bible wasn't even written in English.

By the English word 'evil', I simply mean 'should-not-have-ness'.

When I say 'there is no evil', all I mean is that 'there is no 'should-not-have-ness'.

In your lingo, you might say the same thing by saying something like, "God didn't do anything that he shouldn't have, and God doesn't ever do anything he shouldn't do. Nothing that he creates or created should be different than how he created it. No aspect of reality should be different than how he has chosen for it to be. The world as a timeless whole is perfect. Reality is eternal and perfect. Not a single spec is out of place. Not even a singly tiny thread in this perfect eternal interdependent tapestry is misweaved."

So it looks like we actually agree.

I don't know what you mean by the word 'evil' (i.e. I don't understand what non-verbal idea that finger is pointing towards when you use it) , but I can tell from what you have written it's not what I mean. In terms of what I mean, I can see we seem to agree: should-not-have-ness does not exist. Or, in other words, God (if there is such an entity) did a great job, a perfect job even. Creation as timeless whole is perfect. Not one spec is out of place. Not one tiny bit of creation as timeless eternal whole should be different than it eternally is.

What you call "evil" is a necessary crucial valuable part of the perfect tapestry that is the whole of all creation. It's good that that 'evil' exist. It is great. God, if he exists, was wise and loving to create that thing you call "evil". You wouldn't say that what you call "evil" shouldn't exist. Thus, what I call "evil" doesn't exist even though what you call "evil" does. We are actually in 100% agreement. The equivocality of words makes it falsely seem like we are disagreeing about things, such as whether the snake is "armed" or whether "evil" exists.

Some people are out there resentfully claiming they could create a world better than this one, resentfully saying they could create a better world (a.k.a. reality) than what you call God did, such as by shaking their fists at the sky and saying "it shouldn't be raining" or such, saying "unchangeable reality should be different than it unchangeably is". But you and I agree on the deep truth that those miserable reality-resenters don't even see: Both the rain and what you call "evil" is good and lovable and perfect just as it is, no different than the rainbow or colorful growing flowers. It's all part of the perfect interdependent tapestry within which not one single spec is out of place. If one tiny thread was adjusted in one place, through the butterfly effect the whole thing would fall apart. Change one little thing, and everything changes, and it's all ruined. Should-not-have-ness doesn't exist. The whole of all creation is perfect. What you would call "God's plan" is perfect. Not even the tiniest thing about it should be different. Nobody and nothing could do better. It could not be better than it unchangingly is.

Thank you for thought-provoking discourse. I love it.
Juanita

Me too! Thank you!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott


creation-as-a-timeless-eternal-whole-is-perfect.png

When concluding his contribution to a discussion, my dad would raise his eyebows, grin, and say, "What about THAT Tom Whicker?"

With a grin,
Juanita

[Samantha Barnes 3]

Although, I agreed with most of this book, I did encounter one statement that I believed to be untrue (as I understood it).
"There is no problem of evil because there is no evil." (page 128)
I found myself taking this statement very literally, and disagreeing very strongly because there is evil. Just as people can be good, they can be evil. I believe any decision that is conciously made with no purpose other than malicious intent is evil.

[Meghan Sica]

The first sentence I disagree with from the book, "In It Together" is at the top of page 128 where it says, “There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I don't believe this to be the case with our world today. I think there is a lot of evil. Somethings can't be explained by any other means. Even from a nonreligious standpoint, there is still good and evil in the world. Right and wrong.

[Surabhi Rani]

I love the words, 'Not one spec in this creation is out of place. God's plan is perfect. What we call evil is a necessary crucial valuable part of the perfect tapestry that is the whole of creation. I could not agree more with each and every word in your book. I agree with your entire philosophy. It is similar to the ones I have read earlier and have been familiar with.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Although, I agreed with most of this book, I did encounter one statement that I believed to be untrue (as I understood it).
"There is no problem of evil because there is no evil." (page 128)
I found myself taking this statement very literally, and disagreeing very strongly because there is evil. Just as people can be good, they can be evil. I believe any decision that is conciously made with no purpose other than malicious intent is evil.

Hi, Samantha Barnes 3,

Thank you for your reply.

If that is the very first sentence with which you disagree, then that logically means you must either (1) believe there is no god, or (2) believe that god is not all-loving and/or not all-good (i.e. that god if he/she exists is evil and bad)?

That's because it's earlier said in the book that, if there is a god, that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful if that god creates a world that 'should' not be the way it is. And you must agree with that premise since it's stated earlier in the book before the sentence you say is the very first sentence with which you disagree.

So that I can better understand your later disagreement, let me ask; which is it: (1) do you not believe in God, or (2) do you believe there is a God but that god is bad, evil, and/or unloving?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely asking so I can better understand your point of view and perspective. I love learning about different perspectives.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

creation-as-a-timeless-eternal-whole-is-perfect.png (1.41 MiB) Viewed 25144 times

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The first sentence I disagree with from the book, "In It Together" is at the top of page 128 where it says, “There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I don't believe this to be the case with our world today. I think there is a lot of evil. Somethings can't be explained by any other means. Even from a nonreligious standpoint, there is still good and evil in the world. Right and wrong.

Hi, Meghan Sica,

Thank you for your reply.

If that is the very first sentence with which you disagree, then that logically means you must either (1) believe there is no god, or (2) believe that god is not all-loving and/or not all-good (i.e. that god if he/she exists is evil and bad)?

That's because it's earlier said in the book that, if there is a god, that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful if that god creates a world that 'should' not be the way it is. And you must agree with that premise since it's stated earlier in the book before the sentence you say is the very first sentence with which you disagree.

So that I can better understand your later disagreement, let me ask; which is it: (1) do you not believe in God, or (2) do you believe there is a God but that god is bad, evil, and/or unloving?


That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely asking so I can better understand your point of view and perspective. I love learning about different perspectives.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

creation-as-a-timeless-eternal-whole-is-perfect.png (1.41 MiB) Viewed 25142 times

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I love the words, 'Not one spec in this creation is out of place. God's plan is perfect. What we call evil is a necessary crucial valuable part of the perfect tapestry that is the whole of creation. I could not agree more with each and every word in your book. I agree with your entire philosophy. It is similar to the ones I have read earlier and have been familiar with.

Thank you so much for your continued support and thoughtful replies, Surabhi Rani!

[Alissa Nesson]

To conjure shoulds and oughts is yet another way to needlessly fight unchanging reality, to needlessly fight the truth, to resent with discontent rather than accept with loving inner peace.

I think it’s necessary to fight to change things that we believe should not be. We should fight to change racism, sexism, violence, sexual assault, starvation, etc. Saying that something should be different is the first step to changing it.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To conjure shoulds and oughts is yet another way to needlessly fight unchanging reality, to needlessly fight the truth, to resent with discontent rather than accept with loving inner peace. [Page 151]

I think it’s necessary to fight to change things that we believe should not be. We should fight to change racism, sexism, violence, sexual assault, starvation, etc. Saying that something should be different is the first step to changing it.

Hi, Alissa Nesson,

Thank you for your reply.

In your reply, you seem to have contradicted yourself.

Before the sentence you have quoted as the very first sentence with which you disagree, it's written in the book, "In reality, there are no shoulds and oughts." And you must agree with that since it appears before the sentence you have provided as the very first sentence with which you disagree.

Yet, in explaining why you disagree, you talk about 'shoulds' as if they exist, despite having already agreed that they don't exist, which means you have contradicted yourself, which makes your post and message incoherent.

Please do re-post an explanation about why you disagree with the sentence you have quoted but without contradicting the previously agreed premise that shoulds and oughts don't exist.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Shirley Labzentis]

I disagree with the sentence on Page 122, Paragraph 3. "If heaven exists only in the future, then it does not exist because the future does not exist."

[Juanita Phelps]

Having just engaged in a discussion on this topic, I am unsure why I was asked to take the survey and answer the question again. However, I lost my copy of the book when my trial of Kindle Unlimited ended and I chose not to continue the subscription. Amazon wiped out my library. I purchased the book this week so now I own it.

Anyway, I originally said that I disagreed with the line “ There is no problem of evil because there is no evil.” (p. 139). You countered by reminding me that the page before included a statement that I should have disagreed with before this one. It says, “Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil. So those who believe in such a god, but then also see evil in the world, find a paradox that they call the problem of evil.”

Having thought some more about this, I see no problem with believing in an all-loving God and also believing in evil. I see no paradox. However, we discussed at great length our definitions of words and concluded that perhaps we do agree in philosphy if not in semantics.

All of this said, I enjoyed the book,
Juanita Phelps

[Alida Spies]

I enjoyed your and Scott's discussion, you said so many things that I couldn't find the right words for. Thank you!

[Juanita Phelps]

Having just engaged in a discussion on this topic, I am unsure why I was asked to take the survey and answer the question again. However, I lost my copy of the book when my trial of Kindle Unlimited ended and I chose not to continue the subscription. Amazon wiped out my library. I purchased the book this week so now I own it.

Anyway, I originally said that I disagreed with the line “ There is no problem of evil because there is no evil.” (p. 128). You countered by reminding me that the page before included a statement that I should have disagreed with before this one. It says, “Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil. So those who believe in such a god, but then also see evil in the world, find a paradox that they call the problem of evil.”

Having thought some more about this, I see no problem with believing in an all-loving God and also believing in evil. I see no paradox. However, we discussed at great length our definitions of words and concluded that perhaps we do agree in philosphy if not in semantics.

All of this said, I enjoyed the book,
Juanita Phelps

I am, alas, confusing myself. My quote comes from p. 139, but it is also the heading of the chapter.

On to something else...
I heard someone say, "I am not a human being having a spiritual experience; I am a spiritual being having a human experience."

Assuming evil IS a problem:
In this human state, if an act of evil is committed, is the spiritual self also guilty?

[diana lowery]

Like many others here who have been asked to post, I am not a philosopher. Also, even though I have been asked to post a sentence, I am posting something less than a sentence, and there is no page number for the thing that I disagree with; it is on the cover. I do not agree with Scott using a pen name. In the chapter titled "A World of Problems," he states, "Truth is something that can be revealed, not something that can be done." I do not understand how using a fake name can align with that statement.