The Problem of Evil & Free Will

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Why do we need to make God a perfected human?

I think there are some useful aspects to that. But I also believe it can give the wrong impression. But what are you going to say that does give the right impression, other than (yeah, this belongs in the “As man now is” thread) “As man now is….” I am a spark of God. So to bring it back to the problem of evil, being a spark of God, I have to believe it all isn’t a mess, and it isn’t evil. It’s all beautiful. Now don’t stone me for saying that. I spoke freely and trustingly.

[Anonymous]

God being a perfected human is just the best explanation I have for human existence. Why would a unifying creative energy force create sentient life among bi-pedal humans rather than whales or turtles? What sets us apart from the rest of the animals is our self-awareness and ability to grow our intelligence. Humans bodies are not superior to that of some of our animal brethren. We have skin that can be permeated, unlike the strong exoskeletons of insects. In fact armor mimics that better construct. We have less tolerance for variation in temperature than many species. We typically only reproduce one live offspring at a time, and our gestation period is one of the longer ones. Our life cycle isn’t the longest. We can’t breathe underwater or move from water to land the way some species can. If God doesn’t look like us and it turns out to be a happy accident that we evolved into a sentient species, I can accept that. It just seems more coincidental (to me) than the idea that God is a perfected human.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Tom, the reason it’s called the “problem of evil” is because it creates a problem for the kind of God mainstream religion believes in. It doesn’t mean their can’t be a higher power, it just means that the current most common definition of God is lacking. It doesn’t even mean their isn’t a Mormon God if faith is placed above reason, which works well for lots of people. No, it isn’t a straw man argument since it is based off of the common description of God, given by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Am I wrong there? I know I’ve heard the description–omnipotent/omniscient–from primary to gospel doctrine. Once again, it doesn’t mean there is no God, just not one like the latter religions–themselves–have described.

This is what I meant when I was saying that we create the god and then try to shoehorn him into reality. It’s like you said, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one, just that our reasoning, or definition, or whatever else is possibly lacking.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Let’s see if I can articulate this idea at all. My view of God is a little more like a neglectful parent than the helicopter parent you hear about at church. Let’s assume that God is, as I think, someone who set up a system to be self-sustaining and then walked away, to check in periodically. Here’s how that system would be designed:

– create innate feelings that draw parents and children closer together and provide a protective instinct from parents to children and a desire for approval from children to parents.

– in cases where these innate feelings fail and abuse results instead, create mechanisms that will result in those individuals being less desirable as mates

– over generations, have genetic factors passed from parents to children, continuing to reinforce that desirable behaviors (nurturing children, having good social skills/controlling temper) make someone an attractive mate and undesirable behaviors (abusiveness, hostility, etc.) cause one to become less attractive as a mate.

– allow natural selection to work, knowing that as in all genetic factors there will be anomalies (e.g. charming, attractive sociopaths). Allow your children to figure that out for themselves.

Obviously that’s an oversimplification, but it seems that God set it up, but doesn’t manage it regularly.

I like this. That’s a pretty good way to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Rix wrote:

Why do we need to make God a perfected human?

I think there are some useful aspects to that. But I also believe it can give the wrong impression. But what are you going to say that does give the right impression, other than (yeah, this belongs in the “As man now is” thread) “As man now is….” I am a spark of God. So to bring it back to the problem of evil, being a spark of God, I have to believe it all isn’t a mess, and it isn’t evil. It’s all beautiful. Now don’t stone me for saying that. I spoke freely and trustingly.

Oh you are SO STONED! LOL! This what I love about this forum…I’ve been able to speak my thoughts, and nobody’s banned me yet! I can’t say that for the Mormon Apologetics board — another discussion!

hawkgrrrl wrote:

God being a perfected human is just the best explanation I have for human existence. Why would a unifying creative energy force create sentient life among bi-pedal humans rather than whales or turtles? What sets us apart from the rest of the animals is our self-awareness and ability to grow our intelligence. Humans bodies are not superior to that of some of our animal brethren. We have skin that can be permeated, unlike the strong exoskeletons of insects. In fact armor mimics that better construct. We have less tolerance for variation in temperature than many species. We typically only reproduce one live offspring at a time, and our gestation period is one of the longer ones. Our life cycle isn’t the longest. We can’t breathe underwater or move from water to land the way some species can. If God doesn’t look like us and it turns out to be a happy accident that we evolved into a sentient species, I can accept that. It just seems more coincidental (to me) than the idea that God is a perfected human.

Thanks for the comments! Yes, when we look at other species from “our” perspective, we certainly seem like the “alpha species!” It’s easy to see why one would consider the “creator” as being the ultimate alpha male!

But I just have to wonder if the reason we see “God” as human is because that’s how our parents saw “Him,” and theirs too — all the way back to the myth of Zeuss on his throne, with all his anger and jealousy, and when we didn’t understand that lightning, earthquakes, etc, were natural events, not God expressing his passions on us. From what we understand about evolution, it seems science is quite content with “no God,” but I think many of our experiences keep us believing in some sort of guiding force.

But maybe I’ve just watched Star Wars too many times?! 😆 😮 😯

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

God being a perfected human is just the best explanation I have for human existence. Why would a unifying creative energy force create sentient life among bi-pedal humans rather than whales or turtles? What sets us apart from the rest of the animals is our self-awareness and ability to grow our intelligence. Humans bodies are not superior to that of some of our animal brethren. We have skin that can be permeated, unlike the strong exoskeletons of insects. In fact armor mimics that better construct. We have less tolerance for variation in temperature than many species. We typically only reproduce one live offspring at a time, and our gestation period is one of the longer ones. Our life cycle isn’t the longest. We can’t breathe underwater or move from water to land the way some species can. If God doesn’t look like us and it turns out to be a happy accident that we evolved into a sentient species, I can accept that. It just seems more coincidental (to me) than the idea that God is a perfected human.

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this. In my eyes, man created God, not the other way around, and that is why we have logical contradictions with a definition of God. I’m reading a book right now called “The Evolution of God” that shows the gradual changes from primeval religion, up to today, and how God has evolved in the process. If we didn’t create God, then the God that exists resembles nothing like any religion describes him today. So Tom, you’re right that if I accept this view, there is no problem of evil.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

But I just have to wonder if the reason we see “God” as human is because that’s how our parents saw “Him,” and theirs too — all the way back to the myth of Zeuss on his throne, with all his anger and jealousy, and when we didn’t understand that lightning, earthquakes, etc, were natural events, not God expressing his passions on us. From what we understand about evolution, it seems science is quite content with “no God,” but I think many of our experiences keep us believing in some sort of guiding force.

Well, I’m not so sure that it’s that science it content with “no God,” but rather that instead of chalking up unexplained phenomena to a god, we seek for explanations. Most scientists I’m around believe in a supreme force or being of some kind, they are just very slow to assign mysteries to him/her/it.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this.

That’s an interesting viewpoint ws. Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? It’s a technique used in solving non-linear systems that is patterned after evolution. I have implemented a couple of them and I think they’re quite beautiful, and brilliant (albeit very slow computationally). They solve problems that our limited mathematical systems can’t solve. They are closely related to stochastic methods of solving such problems such as simulated annealing, and they share a lot in common.

Often in engineering, when mathematics don’t work, we resort to more methods based on nature. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, monte carlo methods all are patterned after nature and are much better at solving real world problems that can’t be solved with mathematics.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this.

That’s an interesting viewpoint ws. Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? It’s a technique used in solving non-linear systems that is patterned after evolution. I have implemented a couple of them and I think they’re quite beautiful, and brilliant (albeit very slow computationally). They solve problems that our limited mathematical systems can’t solve. They are closely related to stochastic methods of solving such problems such as simulated annealing, and they share a lot in common.

Often in engineering, when mathematics don’t work, we resort to more methods based on nature. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, monte carlo methods all are patterned after nature and are much better at solving real world problems that can’t be solved with mathematics.

I’ve heard of Genetic algorithms, but math isn’t my best subject Anyway, I should have added effective after messy and brutal. jmb, have you read “The Selfish Gene” or “Did Man Create God?”; they both describe evolution as brutal, like viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc. So yes, evolution is brutal, messy, and effective. By the way, that is pretty cool that you implemented some genetic algorithms.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Rix wrote:

But I just have to wonder if the reason we see “God” as human is because that’s how our parents saw “Him,” and theirs too — all the way back to the myth of Zeuss on his throne, with all his anger and jealousy, and when we didn’t understand that lightning, earthquakes, etc, were natural events, not God expressing his passions on us. From what we understand about evolution, it seems science is quite content with “no God,” but I think many of our experiences keep us believing in some sort of guiding force.

Well, I’m not so sure that it’s that science it content with “no God,” but rather that instead of chalking up unexplained phenomena to a god, we seek for explanations. Most scientists I’m around believe in a supreme force or being of some kind, they are just very slow to assign mysteries to him/her/it.

Maybe I should have said, science doesn’t take the leap to needing a “God” to explain things. But that might not be the best way to describe it either….but I’m afraid my exposure in science is quite opposite yours (my medical training was at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco) — very few believe in a “perfected human-type” deity. Supreme force or energy? Maybe some. But mostly atheists/naturalists in medicine.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this.

That’s an interesting viewpoint ws. Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? It’s a technique used in solving non-linear systems that is patterned after evolution. I have implemented a couple of them and I think they’re quite beautiful, and brilliant (albeit very slow computationally). They solve problems that our limited mathematical systems can’t solve. They are closely related to stochastic methods of solving such problems such as simulated annealing, and they share a lot in common.

Often in engineering, when mathematics don’t work, we resort to more methods based on nature. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, monte carlo methods all are patterned after nature and are much better at solving real world problems that can’t be solved with mathematics.

I’ve heard of Genetic algorithms, but math isn’t my best subject Anyway, I should have added effective after messy and brutal. jmb, have you read “The Selfish Gene” or “Did Man Create God?”; they both describe evolution as brutal, like viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc. So yes, evolution is brutal, messy, and effective. By the way, that is pretty cool that you implemented some genetic algorithms.

Yeah, I suppose it is all perspective. I have never thought about it from the perspective of bacteria, parasites, etc. I see a lot of beauty in it. But you know how I like probability. If you ever saw a genetic algorithm in practice you’d be in amazement that such a mechanism can work at all. But you’re right, such algorithms don’t really have parasites or bacteria. Nevertheless, I still see a lot of beauty in the mechanism of evolution. Nature is amazing!!

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Nevertheless, I still see a lot of beauty in the mechanism of evolution. Nature is amazing!!

I agree completely, jmb.

@ws:

I’m guessing when you say that evolution is messy, brutal and effective you’re using those terms from a politically correct standpoint, i.e. animals killing other animals, genetic advantage from mutation, etc.

Imo, that process isn’t necessarily brutal or messy, it just seems that way to those of us who have a pet dog. Interestingly, I think you’ve circled to the exact idea of evil and free will. The evolutionary process includes a sort of “creative destruction” (usually a term used in defending capitalism), wherein oppositional forces “push” each other to adapt or die. I now this is a simplified version but it does contain the key to biological diversity, genetic mutation, etc.

This inevitable oppositional force exists in every living organism, from single cell on up because we’re all sharing the same oxygen (whether in the air, or water), fighting over life giving “energy” (via light, food, etc), and all the craziness of life ensues.

The oppositional force demands evolution but by so doing creates “evil” or “enmity” in the battle for resources. Yet, it is the very system that creates the biological diversity we enjoy after millions/billions of years. So, on the one hand, diversity is inevitable and on the other, opposition is necessary to create this diversity.

In fact, if there was a guiding hand in this process it couldn’t happen as most, if not all, advantageous genetic mutations are random and/or “deformities”. Species are trying and trying millions of different mutations/variations 99.99% of which we’ll never see because they didn’t work for that species in the long term. In this way, free will is also unavoidable, necessary, and inevitable.

And through all of this process, the human species was created, or maybe “divined”. No doubt “God” is man-made, especially since we’re naming him/her/them/it.

But what made man make God?

I know, back to crazy philosophy, but, really, if man can make “God”, have the intellectual, emotional, empathetic, conscious, abstract conceptualizing capacity which is so far beyond any and all other species, as to almost transcend the idea of a common biological ancestor, could “God” be the difference?

Maybe the missing link is “God”?

If this sounds anything like intelligent design, please shoot me. I hate that concept, imho, iow, otoh, etc. 😳 😳

[Anonymous]

Of course intelligent design is the mask evangelicalism wears in the lab without providing any actual scientific theory, but truth be told, while evolution is demonstrably proven, the spark of life remains elusive.

As to my point about human beings, I actually meant that human bodies are so NOT ideal that it seems to be not designed by someone perfect but rather by someone who simply used him/herself as the best design. All meaningless speculative “pass the bong” theorizing of course.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

This inevitable oppositional force exists in every living organism.

I think Nephi would agree.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

As to my point about human beings, I actually meant that human bodies are so NOT ideal that it seems to be not designed by someone perfect but rather by someone who simply used him/herself as the best design. All meaningless speculative “pass the bong” theorizing of course.

That’s an interesting take. Viewing human bodies as not ideal, and then believing that a less than perfect being created us is a big leap. How did this less than perfect being create everything? What powers/character traits does this flawed God have?

[Author]

Posts