Zone1 The War In Heaven

[Slade3200]

Maimonides - who I like a lot - touches on this. He said men overstate the evil and understate the good. And the evil they overstate is done by men and attributed to God.

Many times I see people blame God and religion for the flaws of men. Men are at the root cause. Not religion, not God. God merely creates existence and all existence is good. Religion is a tool. And like all tools it can be used for good or evil.

Well if they believe that God created everything then he would own some responsibility, right?

 

[Slade3200]

God merely creates existence and all existence is good.

Why is all existence good?

 

[ding]

I perceive God as a higher power / the unknown. I can believe that with confidence. The other portrayals I hear seem man made to me. But I do enjoy learning what other people believe.

Can you expound upon higher power other than unknown? I agree that God’s nature is unknown but some perception of God is needed to conceptualize God.

The risk I see with a limited concept of God is it’s easy to default to fairytale and skew everything to fairytale. It’s not objective.

For instance… you could start with God must be eternal and unchanging. Therefore, God must not be a thing. God must be beyond energy. Some “thing” totally foreign to our material world.

Do those sound like reasonable assumptions to make or does saying fairytales seem like a more objective approach?

 

[ding]

Those are good philosophies. But what of my question about God being good and pure. Why? Why can’t he also be bad and flawed?

Because bad or evil is the absence of good. Evil isn’t extant. It’s like cold and darkness. They only exist as the negation of the thing that exists. Heat, light and goodness exist. Cold, darkness and evil don’t exist. They are the absence of the thing that exists.

Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong. In other words goodness is so deeply embedded in man that he can’t get rid of it. Every argument ever made is a moral argument because good exists.

 

[Slade3200]

Can you expound upon higher power other than unknown? I agree that God’s nature is unknown but some perception of God is needed to conceptualize God.

I can’t really. I can give hopes and ideas that sound good but if we are taking about what I actually believe I can only say with confidence that there is a higher power and many unknowns. That’s what I relate to when I refer to God. The higher power meaning elements beyond my understanding that explains the principles behind the physical world, the reality we experience, where we come from, and what happens when we die.

 

[ding]

Why is all existence good?

To be or not to be. That is the question. Are you telling me you would have rather never existed at all?

I don’t know how existence can be seen any other way than good. Maybe you are confusing the word utopia for good. Or maybe you can’t see how bad comes from good.

 

[Slade3200]

For instance… you could start with God must be eternal and unchanging. Therefore, God must not be a thing. God must be beyond energy. Some “thing” totally foreign to our material world.

Do those sound like reasonable assumptions to make or does saying fairytales seem like a more objective approach?

Fairytales are what I think of when I hear Bible stories. I enjoy our discussion because you are not turning to the “Bible said so” excuse to substantiate your points. That’s a rarity and I appreciate that.

As for the description of God that you made I can agree with eternal but not unchanging. I can agree that God is a thing and beyond energy as there needs to be design and order. As for that thing being foreign to this material world… no I’d say that the material is part of god and vid is pet of the material world. Us as humans have different understandings and experiences but they are all part of God

 

[ding]

Well if they believe that God created everything then he would own some responsibility, right?

I’ll go one further, God is accountable for it all.

But whereas you see bad, I see good coming from bad.

But regardless of that, if you are going to blame God for the bad actions of man, it would only be fair to credit God for the good actions of man which far outweigh the bad.

 

[Slade3200]

To be or not to be. That is the question. Are you telling me you would have rather never existed at all?

Depends on the existence. Take a baby born with serious issues that leaves its only experience pain and suffering until it dies. I don’t see good in that existence. Do you?

 

[ding]

Depends on the existence. Take a baby born with serious issues that leaves its only experience pain and suffering until it dies. I don’t see good in that existence. Do you?

Maybe you didn’t look far enough. What did her parents say about it?

Did they love her? Did they mourn her? All good things.

But putting that aside is that really representative of existence? Does that outweigh all the good? Or is it trying to define the rule through exception?

 

[Slade3200]

I’ll go one further, God is accountable for it all.

But whereas you see bad, I see good coming from bad.

But regardless of that, if you are going to blame God for the bad actions of man, it would only be fair to credit God for the good actions of man which far outweigh the bad.

Good may far outweight bad for some but maybe not for others. Take the baby example I just gave, not much good in that babies life experience is there?

 

[Slade3200]

Did they love her? Did they mourn her? All good things.

Why are those good things for the baby? The baby never experienced them

 

[Slade3200]

But putting that aside is that really representative of existence? Does that outweigh all the good? Or is it trying to define the rule through exception?

The best way to define rules and truth is by looking at the extreme examples and seeing if logic holds

 

[ding]

Good may far outweight bad for some but maybe not for others. Take the baby example I just gave, not much good in that babies life experience is there?

You don’t have perfect knowledge at that resolution. You are assuming no good came from that. I’m not. I’m assuming her parents loved her greatly and mourned for her. It seems illogical to argue existence must be perfect or there can be no God when there is so much good in the word. It makes much more logical sense that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t know how existence can be seen any other way than good. Maybe you are confusing the word utopia for good. Or maybe you can’t see how bad comes from good.

Well let me ask you this is existence good if it is spent in hell for an eternity?

 

[ding]

Why are those good things for the baby? The baby never experienced them

Often times the good that comes from bad benefits others. You are trying to paint tragedy as nothing but bad. That’s not reality. I hope you are never put into that position to learn this lesson. Your view of a complex world is too simple.

Again… God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them.

 

[ding]

The best way to define rules and truth is by looking at the extreme examples and seeing if logic holds

No. That’s incorrect. Yes, always define envelope or boundary conditions. But not to define the rule. To define the limit. Extremes limit. They don’t describe the distribution or the rule.

Using your logic you would define existence which you admitted the good as far outweighing the bad as bad.

 

[Slade3200]

Often times the good that comes from bad benefits others. You are trying to paint tragedy as nothing but bad. That’s not reality. I hope you are never put into that position to learn this lesson. Your view of a complex world is too simple.

Again… God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them.

Agains I appreciate the perspective but I just don’t see it as reality. For those who interpret it like you then yes good can come from bad. For others it doesn’t t work that way. They may suffer a loss, go into deep depression and then decide to end their own life bacise it hurts so bad. They may then blame and reject god which under your theory would land that person in hell for the rest of time… for that individual person…. I don’t see how existence can be a good thing. If that person were me I think I’d opt to not exist wouldnt you?

 

[Slade3200]

No. That’s incorrect. Yes, always define envelope or boundary conditions. But not to define the rule. To define the limit. Extremes limit. They don’t describe the distribution or the rule.

Using your logic you would define existence which you admitted the good as far outweighing the bad as bad.

Within your described reality I would define existence good for some bad for others. Those in heaven it’s good, those in hell bad. Would you not agree?

 

[ding]

Well let me ask you this is existence good if it is spent in hell for an eternity?

I’m scratching my head at you arguing existence isn’t good when you already admitted the good far outweighs the bad.

But to answer your question, it would suck if that happened to me, but I’m sure I would have earned it.

And I don’t see how that makes existence as anything other than good.