If a supernatural deity doesn't exists then is evil a function of ignorance and/or mental illness? This series needs to be seen by many more people then the few who have viewed it. Thank you for taking the time to post these lectures.
The only problem I have with the addition of Omnibenevolence is it assumes that God fit within the framework of our definitions of good/evil. We could say that God only does what suits is own interests, which will make him Omnibenevolent.
Epicurious Riddle! Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
@kryoung1983 I meant Hebrew has meanings that don't show up in the English. I would say that many fundamental assumptions are contrary to the Bible. For instance the word for 'day' in Hebrew has 26 different meanings depending on the context. I am pretty religious but I feel that people read things onto the text that are due to hellenization. The Bible is read through a Hellenized lens.
A detailed study of Aristotle's formal logic reveals that no syllogistic mood is valid which does not have at least one universal affirmative premiss. The EIO mood is the only exception that one might point to. However, since the EIO mood can be considered an immediate-inference transform of the valid OAO mood, we can still affirm that logical validity (i.e. rigorous consistency) must be based on an a priori universal affirmative, which is that at least one absolute truth of some kind or another does indeed exist. For example, the laws of logic are absolutely true.
If you look at the Hebrew 'creation' means separation and division of boundaries through imposed order on chaos. This absolutist idea of creation is something that is read onto the text. Matter can not be created or destroyed, that is a basic tenet of science. Creation is simply a matter of organization of what already exists. There is no creation about it. Matter at a chaotic level is not created. Matter and scientific and moral laws have no beginning.
God is real and for those who cannot hear Him (he is not a she..he), I can hear Him and His holy angels talking to me. I have been revealed secrets that man still are trying to figure out but I'm not the only one, there are a few thousand of us out there! Watch for my book that is coming out at the end of next summer about my spiritual encounters. Gabriel is with me as we speak (Gods messenger). So get to know God and have a personal relationship with Him! He is love!
I think one assumption religious Philosophy makes is in arguing that God is the only thing that is i ndependant at an ontological level. As is he is the end of a causal chain. But the whole reason people say that is because every effect follows from an action. As you know this is where we get the unmoved mover, or the great first cause. For some reason unknown to me God is the exception to the rule that has been set up. This follows from ex nihilo creation.
@ManInRevolt First off, thanks for not being hostile. Now to answer your question, I believe a lot of the Adam and Eve story was metaphorical. For example, the "serpent" (the devil) was a fallen angel and giving him the title of snake was a symbol of his deceit. When God curses him to crawl on his belly, that's also a war insult, not just a simple idea. To quote C.S. Lewis, "those who can't read a book meant for adults should also not comment on it." (This isn't directed towards you).
I have been looking at some of the comments. Some of the problem is that people apply a platonic conception of perfection of God. God is understood in a very hellenized way that is often contrary to what is described in the biblical record. Also I don't believe moral law is due to God, it exists outside of God. God has to abide in law just as man does. I would argue that God gave law to man, but God didn't create law.
@rCUPS180 The scriptures say God gave laws, commandments, and statutes, not that they have their moral validity solely in him. Is morality dependent on God or does it have independent existence? Plus Hebrew can have many meanings that don't show up in the Hebrew. My point was that most religious philosophy in regards to God follows from ex nihilo creation, if ex nihilo is false than it changes the entire philosophical framework of how we conceptualize God.
things exist non contingently?what it means?what i was saying is that if god dident create the law than there is a creator to the creator,which is not possible
@philosophical mind. This is a really old comment. Six years. But I am going to argue against one assumption. That a creator to the creator is impossible. I would say that in terms of quantum mechanics things have no beginning...but in terms of God being Good that does have a beginning point. Psalms 45 states that God was made God by his God. I would say people try to argue from the stand point of the unmoved mover and ex nihilo creation, but reality is that there is no such thing as a beginning! It's turtles all the way down! The universe does not have a beginning...where was there ever a son without there being a father! I would say God became God by following in the steps of his father. And his father did the same. How far back does this chain go? Forever. It's never ending! The problem is that much of Christianity has watered down what salvation actually is! In early Christianity they would say God became man that man might become God. Theosis was the deification of man. The scriptures teach that God is our father. Literally. If that is true then we have the potential to become like him. The apostle Paul states we are the offspring of God! As we are God once was, as God is we can become! Now many find this blasphemy. Man becoming equal to God? Man becoming a God himself! Over and over again God refers to himself as our father! This isn't hyperbole! This is literal. Every child has the potential to become like it's parent. Just as the creator at some point had to become like his parent...we are mere children in our development. But most false premises lie in false assumptions about God that come from reading Greek metaphysical categories onto God. I would say the closest philosopher would be Alfred Whitehead. He came to reject traditional categories and came to believe God had both contingent and non contingent properties. I also think the big bang is false and our universe has no beginning. There is quite a bit of evidence against the big bang but for some reason it's still accepted. Not really expecting a reply. Mostly stating that the creator not being able to have a creator is an assumption people make...probably dur to having to believe in a first cause. But there is no first cause, something that is hard to wrap your head around.
We are the one who is causing all of the evil not and God will not change the condition of the people until they change themselves. You cannot just sleep all day and play game all night and expect to get a paycheck that you didn't work for it. We must put great effort to change our condition in the world and stop being greedy and God will only then change our condition for better.
@grlockett I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. If God only does what suits his own interests, then depending on his actions they could be good or bad, according to w/e version of morality used. Are you saying that God has his own moral system, where anything that suits his interests is defined as good? This still only makes God O.B. in his own system, not in humankind's. In essence, your explanation doesn't escape the problem of boxing God, it just makes a different one.
I would argue that peoples lack of belief in God or false conclusions about God come because they are coming from false premises. Though as someone that is very religious I have a hard time coming up with something that is justified in the context of epistemology. I can say I know something is true but I can't really come up with proof that will convince someone else. In terms of epistemology I don't think you can PROVE you know something to someone else. Thanks for the videos though.
Some things exist non contingently. I would also believe most things have contingent and non contingent states. For instance matter only changes form, (is not contingent.), yet each individual is contingent. Can we make the argument that humankind is absolutely contingent? This seems to be a false category. Also what is meant by 'creator'. What is meant by creation? I think Jon Levenson of Harvard has written extensively on the subject of creation in the Hebrew bible.
Thanks. Well I think there are a lot of concepts that go against the bible. Ex nihilo. False if you look at the Hebrew. God created by organizing elements that are eternal. People believe God is the source of morality but then that could make moral reprehensible behavior moral if God willed it. For God to make sense he has to be ACCOUNTABLE for his actions.
Now, the only reason that this truth table works is because HUMANS sinned. God did not will sin upon us, rather, the Adam and Eve ate the apple against his direction. Because of this sin and evil fell into the world, none of it being because of God's will. Humans now have to pay for the crime in this temporal world because of other humans. So evil exists in the world because of us, not God. He originally willed that there would be no evil, so you can't say he wants there to be evil.
WHY ARE YOU USING CAPITAL LETTERS. BY LATIN, YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE, BUT TODAY IT CAN BE TAKEN TO MEAN SUCH A THING. HE IS ALSO USING SIMPLE EXAMPLES OR DISCUSSIONS, SO DUALITY WOULD COMPLICATE THINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VIDEO.
I agree with all of this, but this argument would only work BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned (and even then the argument would be false). Human Evil did not exist before they sinned = Truth. God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent before they sinned = Truth. Therefore, in a world before sin, God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent AND there was no evil in the world. So at one time this truth table was not true. Please see my next comment.
YOU GOT THE TRANSLATION THERE WRONG BUDDY, OMNIBENEVOLENT= ALL GOOD, NOT ALL LOVING. THIS WOULD CHANGE YOUR CLAIM. YOU ARE A GREAT TEACHER BY THE WAY, BUT IN THIS CLAIM, YOU DISTORTED THINGS AND YOU DID NOT PUT INTO ACCOUNT THE DUALITY THAT THE DEVIL EXISTS ALSO.
I notice you have a lecture on critical thinking and hence suggest you apply just a tiny morsel of a miniscule scintilla of critical thinking to the credibility of the existence the traditional anthropomorphic god you use in your lecture and then appropriately qualify the concept as 'the mythological god' thereby acknowledging the concept is the antiquated cultural relic of an invention by ancient anthropocentric minds who lived in eras dominated by ignorance and superstition.
This is late, and you may have addressed it at some time after this lecture. Did you define what we mean by the word evil as generally accepted by most dictionaries? Many goofy evangelical Christians love to redefine many words in the dictionaries that cause great grief among their psychotic fantasies. I define evil as the intentional causing of suffering by sentient beings. It's hard to redefine the word suffering in terms of something 'imaginary' as they repeatedly attempt to do with the word evil. Killer whales cause great suffering to seals when their teeth crunch down through the seals' bones, which is very evident with underwater microphones. That's not evil. The whales didn't "intentionally" cause the suffering. The seals' suffering was a by-product of the suffering of the whales' hunger. And, of course, the only sentient beings that can intentionally cause suffering on this planet are humans. And, of course, there is only one other sentient being OFF this planet that could be the cause of ALL suffering on this planet from ALL sources, sentient or otherwise And that would be the being that created the planet, and knowing trillions of years before Adam & Eve of all things to come from his/her/it's thinking. Just curious. Thanks. PS I'm aware that there's no such thing as 'trillions of years' to the being that created time in man's thinking only. Also, by sentient I mean, "Cogito, ergo sum".
If a supernatural deity doesn't exists then is evil a function of ignorance and/or mental illness?
This series needs to be seen by many more people then the few who have viewed it. Thank you for taking the time to post these lectures.
The only problem I have with the addition of Omnibenevolence is it assumes that God fit within the framework of our definitions of good/evil. We could say that God only does what suits is own interests, which will make him Omnibenevolent.
Epicurious Riddle!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
@kryoung1983 I meant Hebrew has meanings that don't show up in the English. I would say that many fundamental assumptions are contrary to the Bible. For instance the word for 'day' in Hebrew has 26 different meanings depending on the context. I am pretty religious but I feel that people read things onto the text that are due to hellenization. The Bible is read through a Hellenized lens.
@kryoung1983 ...very interesting comment...
A detailed study of Aristotle's formal logic reveals that no syllogistic mood is valid which does not have at least one universal affirmative premiss. The EIO mood is the only exception that one might point to. However, since the EIO mood can be considered an immediate-inference transform of the valid OAO mood, we can still affirm that logical validity (i.e. rigorous consistency) must be based on an a priori universal affirmative, which is that at least one absolute truth of some kind or another does indeed exist. For example, the laws of logic are absolutely true.
If you look at the Hebrew 'creation' means separation and division of boundaries through imposed order on chaos. This absolutist idea of creation is something that is read onto the text. Matter can not be created or destroyed, that is a basic tenet of science. Creation is simply a matter of organization of what already exists. There is no creation about it. Matter at a chaotic level is not created. Matter and scientific and moral laws have no beginning.
God is real and for those who cannot hear Him (he is not a she..he), I can hear Him and His holy angels talking to me. I have been revealed secrets that man still are trying to figure out but I'm not the only one, there are a few thousand of us out there! Watch for my book that is coming out at the end of next summer about my spiritual encounters. Gabriel is with me as we speak (Gods messenger). So get to know God and have a personal relationship with Him! He is love!
That's your brain moron.
I think one assumption religious Philosophy makes is in arguing that God is the only thing that is i ndependant at an ontological level. As is he is the end of a causal chain. But the whole reason people say that is because every effect follows from an action. As you know this is where we get the unmoved mover, or the great first cause. For some reason unknown to me God is the exception to the rule that has been set up. This follows from ex nihilo creation.
@NetLurker03 It's an old philosophical method of assessing the complications in God's characteristics and the existence of evil.
@drjasonjcampbell I think it's the spelling that he's asking
@ManInRevolt First off, thanks for not being hostile. Now to answer your question, I believe a lot of the Adam and Eve story was metaphorical. For example, the "serpent" (the devil) was a fallen angel and giving him the title of snake was a symbol of his deceit. When God curses him to crawl on his belly, that's also a war insult, not just a simple idea. To quote C.S. Lewis, "those who can't read a book meant for adults should also not comment on it." (This isn't directed towards you).
I have been looking at some of the comments. Some of the problem is that people apply a platonic conception of perfection of God. God is understood in a very hellenized way that is often contrary to what is described in the biblical record. Also I don't believe moral law is due to God, it exists outside of God. God has to abide in law just as man does. I would argue that God gave law to man, but God didn't create law.
The CHARISTICS of God and it's use in a Truth Table??
Absolutely
@rCUPS180
The scriptures say God gave laws, commandments, and statutes, not that they have their moral validity solely in him. Is morality dependent on God or does it have independent existence? Plus Hebrew can have many meanings that don't show up in the Hebrew. My point was that most religious philosophy in regards to God follows from ex nihilo creation, if ex nihilo is false than it changes the entire philosophical framework of how we conceptualize God.
things exist non contingently?what it means?what i was saying is that if god dident create the law than there is a creator to the creator,which is not possible
@philosophical mind. This is a really old comment. Six years. But I am going to argue against one assumption. That a creator to the creator is impossible. I would say that in terms of quantum mechanics things have no beginning...but in terms of God being Good that does have a beginning point. Psalms 45 states that God was made God by his God. I would say people try to argue from the stand point of the unmoved mover and ex nihilo creation, but reality is that there is no such thing as a beginning! It's turtles all the way down! The universe does not have a beginning...where was there ever a son without there being a father! I would say God became God by following in the steps of his father. And his father did the same. How far back does this chain go? Forever. It's never ending! The problem is that much of Christianity has watered down what salvation actually is! In early Christianity they would say God became man that man might become God. Theosis was the deification of man. The scriptures teach that God is our father. Literally. If that is true then we have the potential to become like him. The apostle Paul states we are the offspring of God! As we are God once was, as God is we can become! Now many find this blasphemy. Man becoming equal to God? Man becoming a God himself! Over and over again God refers to himself as our father! This isn't hyperbole! This is literal. Every child has the potential to become like it's parent. Just as the creator at some point had to become like his parent...we are mere children in our development. But most false premises lie in false assumptions about God that come from reading Greek metaphysical categories onto God. I would say the closest philosopher would be Alfred Whitehead. He came to reject traditional categories and came to believe God had both contingent and non contingent properties. I also think the big bang is false and our universe has no beginning. There is quite a bit of evidence against the big bang but for some reason it's still accepted. Not really expecting a reply. Mostly stating that the creator not being able to have a creator is an assumption people make...probably dur to having to believe in a first cause. But there is no first cause, something that is hard to wrap your head around.
We are the one who is causing all of the evil not and God will not change the condition of the people until they change themselves. You cannot just sleep all day and play game all night and expect to get a paycheck that you didn't work for it. We must put great effort to change our condition in the world and stop being greedy and God will only then change our condition for better.
@grlockett I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. If God only does what suits his own interests, then depending on his actions they could be good or bad, according to w/e version of morality used. Are you saying that God has his own moral system, where anything that suits his interests is defined as good? This still only makes God O.B. in his own system, not in humankind's. In essence, your explanation doesn't escape the problem of boxing God, it just makes a different one.
so do you believe in God?
*characteristics
isn't it written omnibenevelant?
I would argue that peoples lack of belief in God or false conclusions about God come because they are coming from false premises. Though as someone that is very religious I have a hard time coming up with something that is justified in the context of epistemology. I can say I know something is true but I can't really come up with proof that will convince someone else. In terms of epistemology I don't think you can PROVE you know something to someone else. Thanks for the videos though.
there is another creator?
Some things exist non contingently. I would also believe most things have contingent and non contingent states. For instance matter only changes form, (is not contingent.), yet each individual is contingent. Can we make the argument that humankind is absolutely contingent? This seems to be a false category. Also what is meant by 'creator'. What is meant by creation? I think Jon Levenson of Harvard has written extensively on the subject of creation in the Hebrew bible.
@davethedrummer1 Do you actually believe in a literal forbidden magical apple or is this a metaphor of some sort? Just curious.
isn't this Boolean logic?
Yes
Thanks. Well I think there are a lot of concepts that go against the bible. Ex nihilo. False if you look at the Hebrew. God created by organizing elements that are eternal. People believe God is the source of morality but then that could make moral reprehensible behavior moral if God willed it. For God to make sense he has to be ACCOUNTABLE for his actions.
hey preacher, with all your logic , do you believe in god?
Now, the only reason that this truth table works is because HUMANS sinned. God did not will sin upon us, rather, the Adam and Eve ate the apple against his direction. Because of this sin and evil fell into the world, none of it being because of God's will. Humans now have to pay for the crime in this temporal world because of other humans. So evil exists in the world because of us, not God. He originally willed that there would be no evil, so you can't say he wants there to be evil.
WHY ARE YOU USING CAPITAL LETTERS. BY LATIN, YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE, BUT TODAY IT CAN BE TAKEN TO MEAN SUCH A THING. HE IS ALSO USING SIMPLE EXAMPLES OR DISCUSSIONS, SO DUALITY WOULD COMPLICATE THINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VIDEO.
I agree with all of this, but this argument would only work BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned (and even then the argument would be false). Human Evil did not exist before they sinned = Truth. God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent before they sinned = Truth. Therefore, in a world before sin, God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent AND there was no evil in the world. So at one time this truth table was not true. Please see my next comment.
YOU GOT THE TRANSLATION THERE WRONG BUDDY, OMNIBENEVOLENT= ALL GOOD, NOT ALL LOVING. THIS WOULD CHANGE YOUR CLAIM. YOU ARE A GREAT TEACHER BY THE WAY, BUT IN THIS CLAIM, YOU DISTORTED THINGS AND YOU DID NOT PUT INTO ACCOUNT THE DUALITY THAT THE DEVIL EXISTS ALSO.
I notice you have a lecture on critical thinking and hence suggest you apply just a tiny morsel of a miniscule scintilla of critical thinking to the credibility of the existence the traditional anthropomorphic god you use in your lecture and then appropriately qualify the concept as 'the mythological god' thereby acknowledging the concept is the antiquated cultural relic of an invention by ancient anthropocentric minds who lived in eras dominated by ignorance and superstition.
This is late, and you may have addressed it at some time after this lecture. Did you define what we mean by the word evil as generally accepted by most dictionaries? Many goofy evangelical Christians love to redefine many words in the dictionaries that cause great grief among their psychotic fantasies. I define evil as the intentional causing of suffering by sentient beings. It's hard to redefine the word suffering in terms of something 'imaginary' as they repeatedly attempt to do with the word evil. Killer whales cause great suffering to seals when their teeth crunch down through the seals' bones, which is very evident with underwater microphones. That's not evil. The whales didn't "intentionally" cause the suffering. The seals' suffering was a by-product of the suffering of the whales' hunger.
And, of course, the only sentient beings that can intentionally cause suffering on this planet are humans. And, of course, there is only one other sentient being OFF this planet that could be the cause of ALL suffering on this planet from ALL sources, sentient or otherwise And that would be the being that created the planet, and knowing trillions of years before Adam & Eve of all things to come from his/her/it's thinking.
Just curious. Thanks.
PS I'm aware that there's no such thing as 'trillions of years' to the being that created time in man's thinking only. Also, by sentient I mean, "Cogito, ergo sum".