Disproving theism

[jacknky]

"Have we concluded then that the reality of suffering does not disprove theism?"

To me it disproves the "loving God" that Christians thank when things go well. Personally I think the Universe is pretty indifferent to whether we suffer or not. The whole system of life consuming life is set up so that all creatures suffer.

Indifferent...

[VLinvictus]

A answer to that might be that either God is not omnibenevolent (that is, He doesn't love everyone) or is not "loving" at all or His idea of "love" is not the same as ours.

I don't think that "the universe" is indifferent to our suffering because we are part of the universe. it's not like you could take away the universe and we'd still be there. We're a function of the universe, and so everything we experienced is integral to the universe. Each part contributes to the whole.

[Thorolf]

Jack,

FWIW, Christians tend to thank God when things AREN'T going well, too.


As for "love," I think it's safe to say that His idea of love is a bit different than our own.

[jacknky]

VL,
"I don't think that "the universe" is indifferent to our suffering because we are part of the universe. it's not like you could take away the universe and we'd still be there. We're a function of the universe, and so everything we experienced is integral to the universe. Each part contributes to the whole."

I think you missed the point. An indifferent Universe does not imply that we are not a part of it, merely that there isn't a Big Daddy in the sky looking out for us.

[VLinvictus]

I think you missed the point. An indifferent Universe does not imply that we are not a part of it, merely that there isn't a Big Daddy in the sky looking out for us.

Perhaps you missed the point

Your assertion that "the universe is indifferent to us" implies that the universe is somehow distinct from "us" (presumable the human species), that it necessarily confronts us as an "other" that could be benevolent, hostile, or indifferent. My point is that such dualistic thinking is probably not grounded in reality. There is no "us" -- we are parts of the system. As for the Big Daddy in Sky, that Being could be identical with the universe (or, moreso, identical with the source of being from which the universe proceeds). In which case, the Big Daddy (and Mommy) is out there but also in here -- I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. The Big Daddy is "looking out for us" when we look out for each other.

[Acumen]

Why is it assumed that everyone would want this "everlasting life"?  From what I've heard of descriptions of it, it doesn't sound all that hot.  All singing praises and servitude, etc.  Why would somebody want an eternity with a deity that couldn't even bother to show up in a way that said it was something he wanted from you?

all

I don't understand the last sentence.

I'm sorry if I was unclear.  I never met your god.  I've only heard second hand accounts of him.  Why would I desire to spend an eternity with him? 

I find Natalie Portman to be attractive.  I like some of the work she has done.  I wouldn't (even if asked) sign up to marry her (even if I were single) based on the knowledge I have now. 

A lifetime is a lot shorter than eternity. 

all

I wouldn't expect you to.  In terms of understanding, there are levels of enlightenment.  And no, I don't mean it in the Buddhist sense.  :-)

Some of us who have experienced God at different stages in our life desire to be with Him in a greater sense than we are now.  Unfortunately, my experience with the divine is rather limited -- more limited than the experience of others.  So my understanding of what it would be like in His presence for an eternity is somewhat finite in breadth, as it is expected to be.  However, there are those who have had some rather impressive experiences with the divine -- and it shows in their demeanor and approach to life.  They have the spirit of a new convert; they see the world wide-eyed and bushy-tailed.  I've known people like this for years, and their desire to please God has not wavered, and their testimonies are impressive, if true.  They, in my opinion, are more inclined to anticipate an eternity of happiness "serving" God.

   

[metis]

In terms of understanding, there are levels of enlightenment.  And no, I don't mean it in the Buddhist sense. 

Darn.  And here I had my hopes up for you. 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Some of us who have experienced God at different stages in our life desire to be with Him in a greater sense than we are now.  Unfortunately, my experience with the divine is rather limited -- more limited than the experience of others.  So my understanding of what it would be like in His presence for an eternity is somewhat finite in breadth, as it is expected to be.  However, there are those who have had some rather impressive experiences with the divine -- and it shows in their demeanor and approach to life.  They have the spirit of a new convert; they see the world wide-eyed and bushy-tailed.  I've known people like this for years, and their desire to please God has not wavered, and their testimonies are impressive, if true.  They, in my opinion, are more inclined to anticipate an eternity of happiness "serving" God.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you have misunderstood me. 

As I'm sure you can see, a few of my basic ideas have changed as of late.  I have recently experienced "the divine" and too have the spirit of a new convert.  I've just experienced a different divine.  It's not that I have a problem with the existence of "the divine", just that I haven't experienced your version. 

all

[jacknky]

"Your assertion that "the universe is indifferent to us" implies that the universe is somehow distinct from "us" (presumable the human species), that it necessarily confronts us as an "other" that could be benevolent, hostile, or indifferent."

No, my assertion does not imply duality but rather is a response to the duality implicit in a "Big Daddy" looking out for us. If we are indeed a part of the Universe, and I don't see how we're not, than the Universe would indeed appear neutral toward us.

Don't we just love semantics?

"It depends on what the definition of "is" is."

[VLinvictus]

No, my assertion does not imply duality but rather is a response to the duality implicit in a "Big Daddy" looking out for us. If we are indeed a part of the Universe, and I don't see how we're not, than the Universe would indeed appear neutral toward us.

If the universe - if the totality of existence -- is a single internally interrelated totality, an organic system, and if we are, like all things, integral parts of that system, and if we are concerned with our suffering then, since we parts of the whoie, the whole is concerned with our suffering.

It's not a question of defining "is"; it's a question of defining "we" and "us" and "our."

[metis]

Lots of "ifs".

[VLinvictus]

Lots of "ifs".

In theology, we can't really go much beyond "if" and the subjunctive mood.

[jacknky]

"It's not a question of defining "is"; it's a question of defining "we" and "us" and "our.""

It was a joke.

[VLinvictus]

"It's not a question of defining "is"; it's a question of defining "we" and "us" and "our.""

It was a joke.

Aw, poop. That's what happens when I get into serious debate mode.

[jacknky]

"Aw, poop. That's what happens when I get into serious debate mode."

Not to worry. I been there and done that too.

That's the challenge with posts. You can't see the gleam in my eye when I say something stupid.