Split from the thread, What are Dreams Made of? ...

But if there was no evil (or, the propensity thereof) to stand in contrast to God, how would we know God is good? How could we align ourselves to God or, more importantly derive the notion of free will by which to do so? Without the space between the form, how would we know the form exists?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

And already shown in error by Gooze.Again, you merely assert this. And I'm afraid you are once again being circular.Hmm....ok, so which of the assumptions is wrong? Is it that god is not omnipotent? Or is it that god does not hate evil? Or both?

No.

No.

If God is in fact omnipotent, I would suggest that He could also provide things on a provisional basis. Maybe to God evil is not evil because He has complete control over it? Maybe it merely arises out of our unwillingness to choose God or, that which is most beneficial to us? Maybe evil can only come about as a manifestation of free will? ... in conjunction with ignorance of course.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Your failure to understand this does not make it go away. Hey, did you ever read that link about circular definitions?So, that which we call evil is not evil to god? Are you saying we cannot know at all what god finds good or evil? How is it, then, that we can say that god is good? How can we possibly know, if we cannot know what he thinks is good or evil? Maybe Hitler was doing god's work, and Mother Teresa really pissed him off!

Or maybe he is not omnipotent, as you say.

God does not hate anything nor anyone. However, it may in fact appear this way (provisionally that is), through our own thoughts and deeds.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Look at what you are saying here. You admit the imperfection of our own perceptions of god, but then claim to know that god "does not hate anything or anyone". If we cannot be certain of our perceptions of god, how can we be certain about anything related to god? Perhaps it only appears that god loves, and we only see this through our own thoughts and deeds.

Sweet deal, to get credit for the good stuff, but the bad stuff comes through misperception by us imperfect humans...

Very good Iacchy. Remember when I said...You have just admitted that God does not hate evil. That is resolving the circularity of the two hypothetical statements I made earlier.

Of course, it also means that evil comes from God (since he is the source of everything). Or perhaps it means that there is no such thing as evil. Or perhaps it means that there is no such thing as God. Though you've resolved one issue about God, there are lots more that are still circular, as is every definition of God that I've ever seen.

And exactly how do you know that God doesn't hate anything? Do you claim to know the mind of God? You see, such statements as "God doesn't hate anything" are not stated as hypothetical,although you may have meant their hypothetical nature to be implied. Is that the case, or are you really that sure of what God likes/wants/hates?

Man is nothing but evil. How so? There is none good but God. Meaning, we can't be good in and of our own accord. It's not possible.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

How do you know this? I am serious. You are claiming some pretty heavy-duty stuff here, with (thus far) no evidence or even chain of logic. So, very seriously, How Do You Know This?

LOL. See what I mean about the internal contradictions in your definitions? Just earlier you were telling us how Man was just a part of God. Now you are telling us Man is wholly evil, but that God is all good?

Face it Iacchy. Your view of how things work is just cobbled together phrases that sound cool to you. They have no consistancy or meaning. You cannot even decide for yourself what exactly it is you believe, so it is unlikely you will be able to convince anyone that this junk-drawer philosophy of yours is tenable.

What is good? Something arbitrary, which we fashion to suit our own fancy? Our vanity in other words? If so, then perhaps we should call it something else. Certainly not good, since good is not self-serving. Not like evil anyway. So, we must acknowledge we are not the good, and learn to set aside our selfish pride (our egos), otherwise we can do no good.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Do you really think good is nothing but vanity? And you call me cynical? Do people donate a kidney anonymously to get their name in a paper? Do firefighters rush into burning buildings so they can pick up chicks? Yeah, perhaps we should call it something else. But...the thing is...how is it, with your imperfect human perception, that you dare to say what is or is not good? You have not explained that at all.How do you know, through the limits of your imperfect human perception? Please tell me.You have completely failed to address the question of how you know these things! Logically, by your own argument, you cannot!

Well, perhaps you might recognize this? ...

While does this sound like an entreaty to give up our (self-centered) ego lives below? ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

It is also said that the devil can quote scripture to suit himself. How do you know that this demonstrably flawed 2000-year-old book of myths is telling you a truth which is beyond our ability to perceive?

You are not addressing the problem with your argument, Iacchus. You are merely re-asserting it.

We've already had some discussion on the origins of morality, but let me briefly remind you that while "good" and "evil" aren't arbitrary, they lines are certainly not clear and distinct. Churches cannot agree on whether certain things, like homosexuality, are evil.

Here's a really clear example. Would it be wrong to shoot down a plane full of innocent passengers? Yes of course. What if some of those passengers were terrorists who were about to kill thousands more people by crashing the plane into a building? Then would it be wrong to shoot it down?

We aren't God, Iacchy. We have to judge for ourselves what is right, and that judgment varies from person to person. I don't believe you have the right or the ability to tell me what is good and what is evil. I don't think you know.

As I suggested in the other thread, God is good by virtue of the fact that He's consistent. Whereas good is good, so long as it remains in context with the truth. And there's nothing about the Universe I believe, which can be taken out of context, not without destroying it anyway. Meaning it would no longer be true to its nature, and that's not good.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I think fairness and consistency are a sign of goodness, and that quite often means we have to get ourselves out of the way.

Quite often the only choice we have is between the lessor of two evils. For example, if you went to the doctor because you had gangrene in your hand, and you had the option between cutting off your little finger or your whole arm, which would you choose?

Yes, how do we judge for ourselves, without passing that judgment onto others?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Once again you dodge the question! How is it that you (or I, or anyone with a human--and thus imperfect--perceptual system) are qualified to judge god's goodness? Or consistency? It is quite simply beyond your (or my, or anyone's) ability!

God is consistent, yet wars are fought over differences in god's word. Either god is not consistent (but people can accurately judge god's wishes) or god may or may not be consistent, but people are unable to accurately judge god's wishes.

Your last two sentences are interesting...let me guess...you will define "taking out of context" as "destroying it" by rendering it "untrue to its nature"...making the whole thing meaningless. Can you give separate, independent definitions for each of the quoted phrases here?

I admit that I am not perfect but, in contrast to what? What is it that tells me that I'm not perfect? That which is less perfect? Indeed, it's much easier to look down on someone you feel is less perfect -- in a condescending way -- and feel that much more perfect about yourself. And yet condescension is not a sign of perfection.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

None of us are--perfection, like Gooze has said about absolute zero, cannot be reached.

Now...given that we are imperfect...how is it even possible for us to claim to know the will of a perfect god? Surely we must realize that we could always be mistaken!