Purpose Of Evolution

[LucyL]

Darwin was a socially stunted numnut.

That said, if there is a God, why on his green Earth did he make it so that beautiful, radiant, innocent little children can suffer and die from cancer, or suffer abuse at the hands of monsters, scarring them forever? Seems like a sick, pathetic, disgusting cosmic joke.

Why did he make you capable of bad-mouthing Him?

 

[Dave Clark]

Taoism is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[TheSir]

I don't see why anything omnipotent would need to bother with doing things. Anything omnipotent would just do nothing.

>bother
>omnipotent

Pick one. Moreover, you are projecting your human qualities on God: it would be very humane to feel bored with omnipotence. But is it godlike?

If something is being done, it makes more sense that the thing doing it is doing so because they are not omnipotent, and there is something to be gained by doing something rather than doing nothing.

Could this something that is being done not simply be God's omnipotent way of doing something?

A thing that thinks courage, for example, is so great that it needs other things to experience it seems sort of insecure, almost like a petulant child wanting everyone to see things from their point of view. Kind of like someone forcing their friends to watch a movie they really like, even though the friends know the whole time that it's something they're not into.

Consider this: if a parent wants to teach his child independence, does the parent then seem to you like an insecure, petulant child for wanting everyone to do things as he says? God would want us to grow, not because it benefits him, but because it benefits us.

I can't really see where the environment ends, and where I begin. It seems like there's a separation if I'm not thinking too hard about it, but usually, you can trace any part of "you", your thoughts, actions, feelings, to environmental factors if you look at "yourself" closely enough.

This is true. All conceptual divides are artificial. However, it's not a valid justification for succumbing to the influences of your environment rather than exercising your will over it.

 

[Noodlz2]

Perhaps if process theology is closer to a correct interpretation of God than traditional theology, it may be that God isn't completely omnipotent, and so cannot prevent every tragedy. Also, as Lampofred suggested above, if a purpose of life is to "maximize depth of experience", there has to be contrast, which means that we must have both good and bad experiences. Which puts earthly suffering in a new light.

Is process theology a satisfying answer for "Is there a God?". Seems like it doesn't get us anywhere. Now there's an extra layer between us and "real God", and the being in the middle is just another bumbling sap who is more powerful than us, but definitely not omnipotent.

 

[Noodlz2]

>bother
>omnipotent

Pick one. Moreover, you are projecting your human qualities on God: it would be very humane to feel bored with omnipotence. But is it godlike?

Could this something that is being done not simply be God's omnipotent way of doing something?

As far as I can tell, if you're doing something, you're doing it for a reason. And if there is a reason for doing something that is currently unrealized, then I wouldn't consider that omnipotence, since the being is lacking something, or is not satisfied with the current state. Omnipotence means "in exposed static equilibrium" to me, since any "action" implies not everything is known about the system.

I think you're saying that we can't reason about the disposition of the being since we can only see things through our perspective. So we would be unsuccessful trying to understand the being, since we're so limited. If that's the case, we could, for example, go to heaven or whatever after we die, and see that God is a three headed fish that says "Lo Lo Lo Lo..." to us into infinity, and we would have no idea what's going on, simply because God doesn't make sense to us from the only perspective we have access to. If so, how absurd.

Consider this: if a parent wants to teach his child independence, does the parent then seem to you like an insecure, petulant child for wanting everyone to do things as he says? God would want us to grow, not because it benefits him, but because it benefits us.

But the only reason something like courage or hope is valuable to learn is because our environment requires it for successful living. Imagine the environment was so accommodating that we didn't need to be courageous or hopeful. Then the value of courage and hope, in the abstract, goes away. Why can't God just make the environment the best, instead of forcing us to fit in an unideal environment? To learn? But learning is only useful if the environment is unideal, and so you need to know those values that will get you through in good shape. If the environment is ideal, then the value of learning goes away.

It's like when Ray says exercise is not intrinsically valuable. Something physical with purpose can be valuable, like chopping wood, or trying to run to a new destination. Similarly, learning is good when it helps us cope with our environment. But if you make the environment ideal, then learning loses it's value. An omnipotent being would be able to do that.

This is true. All conceptual divides are artificial. However, it's not a valid justification for succumbing to the influences of your environment rather than exercising your will over it.

I'm not sure I understand what "the will" is. Is it not just a confluence of the environment? Of course, I feel like I am exercising my will whenever I do anything. And I'm damn proud of it too. But the only reason I feel like I have a controllable will is because I'm not looking at the environmental factors that are feeding into my actions at a granular enough level. So I use the label "will" to describe the stuff that I can't see. But if I could look at things in enough detail, I don't think there would be any room for will.


Thanks for the discussion by the way. At the very least, this is fun to think about.

 

[Thybo]

Is process theology a satisfying answer for "Is there a God?". Seems like it doesn't get us anywhere. Now there's an extra layer between us and "real God", and the being in the middle is just another bumbling sap who is more powerful than us, but definitely not omnipotent.

I think the answers to the question, "Is there a God?" are almost the same whether you agree with process theology or not. If you look at Existence of God - Wikipedia, the arguments are compatible with process theology, and process theology is compatible with religious pluralism.

However, process theology has the advantage to also deal with some common counter-arguments, such as the problem of evil and the problem of free will. It does so by denying God's omnipotence. So the question is why do we necessarily need something omnipotent in this world?

 

[RWilly]

Maybe we're simply an experience in a dimension.

 

[TheSir]

As far as I can tell, if you're doing something, you're doing it for a reason. And if there is a reason for doing something that is currently unrealized, then I wouldn't consider that omnipotence, since the being is lacking something, or is not satisfied with the current state. Omnipotence means "in exposed static equilibrium" to me, since any "action" implies not everything is known about the system.

Ah, well, defined like that, it is easy to understand your conclusion. You assert that an action must be preceded by a need. So when there is no need, there can be no action. To give a Peatarian analogy, this conclusion represents the modus operandi of weak and stressed out metabolism. Imagine this: if you were at peak health, would you simply sit on the couch because there was no needs left to be fulfilled? Or would you go out there to live your life to the fullest? Could we not, then, conclude that an omnipotent being would do something precisely because it is not lacking anything? Purely out of the joy of infinite abundance?

Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The higher steps like creativity and self-expression can only be achieved once the lower steps of safety and security have been fulfilled. Considering how an omnipresent being would naturally have all his needs met, how free and motivated would he be to joyfully express himself? Very free! Very motivated!

I think you're saying that we can't reason about the disposition of the being since we can only see things through our perspective. So we would be unsuccessful trying to understand the being, since we're so limited.

I think these are two different things. We could never comprehend God, but we certainly can reason about his qualities. I am just pointing out that using your own negative traits (such as tendency to boredom) as a foundation for such reasoning can be inconvenient when you are examining a divine being.

But the only reason something like courage or hope is valuable to learn is because our environment requires it for successful living.

Our environment does require us to have these traits, but what commands the environment to impose these requirements on us? Are you intentionally dismissing the possibility that practicing courage and hope in face of evil and adversity teaches us something far more permanent than competence in our given environment?

What if the reason for our exposure to evil is for us to learn to recognize goodness? Being raised by goodness from the beginning does not teach you as much as being deprived of goodness altogether, and then being re-exposed to it. In order to truly appreciate something, you first have to to lose it.

It's like when Ray says exercise is not intrinsically valuable. Something physical with purpose can be valuable, like chopping wood, or trying to run to a new destination. Similarly, learning is good when it helps us cope with our environment. But if you make the environment ideal, then learning loses it's value. An omnipotent being would be able to do that.

Well nothing is intrinsically anything. It is the context, as Ray says, that determines everything. An omnipotent being could create beings whose lives were infinite bliss. But you'd also have to explain: why would he? Clearly our Creator has something else in mind. What is this 'else'? In my opinion it points towards growth and experiencing for the sake of itself.

If the environment is ideal, then the value of learning goes away.

Yes. I would call that death. Death is an ideal environment in accordance to your framework: no needs, no actions.

I'm not sure I understand what "the will" is.

But if I could look at things in enough detail, I don't think there would be any room for will.

Will is the difference between indulging in an urge the moment it appears and withstanding it until it disappears. Environment can only compel you. It does not impel.

It would be a sorry thing if there was no room for will. It would mean that your executive consciousness emerges purely from matter, rather than a place outside the physical plane. I opt for the latter, because it is most congruent with how I experience my cognition to work. I'm viscerally experience myself as being tuned into the body, rather than being the product of the body itself.

 

[LUH 3417]

Ah, well, defined like that, it is easy to understand your conclusion. You assert that an action must be preceded by a need. So when there is no need, there can be no action. To give a Peatarian analogy, this conclusion represents the modus operandi of weak and stressed out metabolism. Imagine this: if you were at peak health, would you simply sit on the couch because there was no needs left to be fulfilled? Or would you go out there to live your life to the fullest? Could we not, then, conclude that an omnipotent being would do something precisely because it is not lacking anything? Purely out of the joy of infinite abundance?

Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The higher steps like creativity and self-expression can only be achieved once the lower steps of safety and security have been fulfilled. Considering how an omnipresent being would naturally have all his needs met, how free and motivated would he be to joyfully express himself? Very free! Very motivated!

I think these are two different things. We could never comprehend God, but we certainly can reason about his qualities. I am just pointing out that using your own negative traits (such as tendency to boredom) as a foundation for such reasoning can be inconvenient when you are examining a divine being.

Our environment does require us to have these traits, but what commands the environment to impose these requirements on us? Are you intentionally dismissing the possibility that practicing courage and hope in face of evil and adversity teaches us something far more permanent than competence in our given environment?

What if the reason for our exposure to evil is for us to learn to recognize goodness? Being raised by goodness from the beginning does not teach you as much as being deprived of goodness altogether, and then being re-exposed to it. In order to truly appreciate something, you first have to to lose it.


Well nothing is intrinsically anything. It is the context, as Ray says, that determines everything. An omnipotent being could create beings whose lives were infinite bliss. But you'd also have to explain: why would he? Clearly our Creator has something else in mind. What is this 'else'? In my opinion it points towards growth and experiencing for the sake of itself.

Yes. I would call that death. Death is an ideal environment in accordance to your framework: no needs, no actions.

Will is the difference between indulging in an urge the moment it appears and withstanding it until it disappears. Environment can only compel you. It does not impel.

It would be a sorry thing if there was no room for will. It would mean that your executive consciousness emerges purely from matter, rather than a place outside the physical plane. I opt for the latter, because it is most congruent with how I experience my cognition to work. I'm viscerally experience myself as being tuned into the body, rather than being the product of the body itself.

This fits into the idea that the fittest, most moral, closest to god will adapt and thrive and grow in the harshest of environments. It is the justification for why some people have better lives than others. It fits with the idea that god is the creditor and humans are in an eternal debt to him and his creation, the debt being our sinfulness and inability to comprehend him fully. Jesus came to alleviate that debt, but only by staying close to Jesus and god are we free of our sins. We are always one small loan payment away from hell.