13 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is sloppy reasoning and terminology. Unlike the REAL Argument from Evil
This is sloppy reasoning and terminology. Unlike the REAL Argument from Evil, which is directed at a God with omni capabilities, this form fails to define its terms, particulary "good" and "evil", making the "argument" meaningless. Nor does pantheism usually postulate some sort of Divine Puppetmaster in charge of ALL events in the universe; it merely sta ...[text shortened]... me way a Unity. A Unity can't be "good" or "evil"; this is a nonsensical proposition.
Oh, so when speaking of the varied arguments from evil, when discussing the general argument, we are now to refer to it as the REAL argument? Sorry we missed that memo.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEither actually address the points or be quiet; no one's interested in your silly, super mystical musings.
[b]This is sloppy reasoning and terminology. Unlike the REAL Argument from Evil
Oh, so when speaking of the varied arguments from evil, when discussing the general argument, we are now to refer to it as the REAL argument? Sorry we missed that memo.[/b]
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderPhysician, heal thyself. Obviously Halitose was not addressing the general (sorry, REAL) argument from evil. He was addressing the pantheistic argument from evil. You correctly noted that such a stance will eventuate in nonsense, eerily similar to the REAL argument from evil.
Either actually address the points or be quiet; no one's interested in your silly, super mystical musings.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHis "pantheistic argument from evil" echoes the REAL AFR in all respects. Obviously the word "REAL" was meant somewhat ironically. I read your contributions to the AFR thread and it was quite obvious you lack understanding of any type of logical argument. You are used to merely stating claims without support and expecting others to nod their head in agreement and joy at receiving God's wisdom. This might be the desirable form of "debate" at Divine Decree U. but falls sadly short when compared to actual human reasoning (it's a complete waste of "electricity" in fact).
Physician, heal thyself. Obviously Halitose was not addressing the general (sorry, REAL) argument from evil. He was addressing the pantheistic argument from evil. You correctly noted that such a stance will eventuate in nonsense, eerily similar to the REAL argument from evil.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are used to merely stating claims without support and expecting others to nod their head in agreement and joy at receiving God's wisdom
His "pantheistic argument from evil" echoes the REAL AFR in all respects. Obviously the word "REAL" was meant somewhat ironically. I read your contributions to the AFR thread and it was quite obvious you lack understanding of any type of logical argument. You are used to merely stating claims without support and expecting others to nod their head in agre ...[text shortened]... n compared to actual human reasoning (it's a complete waste of "electricity" in fact).
So is that your head I hear nodding, or did I put a floppy disc in upside down again?
falls sadly short when compared to actual human reasoning
Of which, to be sure, you are the king. I dunno, (I's jus' a country hick) but I thunk the whole idear behind human reasonin' an' such was to get to the meat of the matter. To a-hear you speechin', we can't even know fer sure if we's hungry.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThank you.
1) The Pantheistic Problem of Evil’s first premise has the same basic core as the theistic one in substantiating the existence of “evil” – morally objectionable actions/events.
2) The second premise is that all is God and God is all.
3) To resolve the two seemingly contradictory premises, there are 4 resolutions regarding good and evil -- all problematic:
So how does that refute Buddhism which I understand to be non-theistic?
And, if the Absurd stance is that the universe is meaningless, why is the patheistic problem of evil necessary to refute Buddhism or any other religion come to that?
Finally, is the absurd universe such that no-one has been able to discern meaning up until now, or does it reject utterly that meaning will ever be found?
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI've said this before in the other thread: This is not an "Argument from Evil" -- a disproof of some deity; but rather a "Problem of Evil": the reconciliation of central religious tenets with reality -- but in this case with certain (uncomfortable) consequences.
This is sloppy reasoning and terminology. Unlike the REAL Argument from Evil, which is directed at a God with omni capabilities, this form fails to define its terms, particulary "good" and "evil", making the "argument" meaningless. Nor does pantheism usually postulate some sort of Divine Puppetmaster in charge of ALL events in the universe; it merely sta ...[text shortened]... me way a Unity. A Unity can't be "good" or "evil"; this is a nonsensical proposition.
Each worldview attempts to address the Problem of Evil, Christianity certainly not excluded. Some (as most Pantheists do) claim it illusionary; hence the uncomfortable logical ramifications.
How can I make this any clearer?
As for my definitions -- premise 1) only states that there are actions (such as the brutal killings at Auschwitz, etc, etc, etc) which are morally wrong, i.e. evil. It is up to each pantheist to either accept or reject the said premise. If the pantheist rejects premise 1), (which logically follows from option iv)) then my critique of option iv) comes into play.
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseStudent: "I have come to the realisation that all existence is an illusion!"
If you claim that your "individual existence" is merely an illusion, would you not then be unafraid of dying, since this act would also be illusionary. Would death (or even suicide) not result in a better amalgamation of objective experience?
Teacher: SLAP! giggle
Halitose:
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by Mister MeanerThere are many different beliefs that subscribe (at least in part) to pantheism.
Thank you.
So how does that refute Buddhism which I understand to be non-theistic?
And, if the Absurd stance is that the universe is meaningless, why is the patheistic problem of evil necessary to refute Buddhism or any other religion come to that?
Finally, is the absurd universe such that no-one has been able to discern meaning up until now, or does it reject utterly that meaning will ever be found?
Absolute pantheism is represented by the thought of the fifth-century B.C . Greek philosopher Parmenides and the Vedanta school of Hinduism. Absolute pantheism teaches that there is only one being in the world, God, and that all else that appears to exist actually does not.
Another type is emanational pantheism, which was set forth by the third century A.D . Philosopher, Plotinus . According to this view, everything flows from God in the same way a flower unfolds from a seed.
There is also the developmental pantheism of Hegel. Hegel viewed the events of history as the unfolding manifestations of Absolute Spirit.
The modal pantheism of Spinoza argued that there is only one absolute substance in which all finite things are merely modes or moments.
The multilevel pantheism is found in some forms of Hinduism, especially as expressed by Radhakrishnan. This view sees various levels of manifestation of God, with the highest level manifesting God as the Absolute One, and lower levels showing him in increasing multiplicity.
Permeational pantheism is the where the Unity or Force (aka Star Wars) referred to as the Tao, penetrates all things. This belief is found in Zen Buddhism.
And, if the Absurd stance is that the universe is meaningless, why is the patheistic problem of evil necessary to refute Buddhism or any other religion come to that?
Absurdism doesn't posit meaninglessness per se. The pantheistic problem of evil has direct application to certain forms of Buddhism.
Finally, is the absurd universe such that no-one has been able to discern meaning up until now, or does it reject utterly that meaning will ever be found?
I don't subscribe to the tenets of Absurdism, nor am I fully versed in them. Perhaps LJ or Bosse would care to answer.
14 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePerhaps an over-simplification if you wish.
So your representation of Buddhism ("it's all just an illusion" ) is a straw man.
The two main branches of Buddhism are Mahayana (“the greater vehicle&rdquo😉 and Hinayana (“the lesser vehicle&rdquo😉. The former claimed enlightenment is available to all and the latter to only a few of the committed. Being aware of the negative connotation of the term, Hinayana Buddhists began to call themselves Theravada (“the teaching of the elders&rdquo😉.
Both groups of Buddhist accept the “Four Noble Truths” and the “Eightfold Path” to enlightenment:
The First Noble Truth is that life consists of suffering (dukkha) which entails pain, misery, sorrow, and the lack of fulfillment.
The Second Noble Truth is that nothing is permanent or unchanging in the world (the doctrine of anicca ). And we suffer because we desire what is not permanent.
The Third Noble Truth is that the way to liberate oneself is by eliminating all desire or craving for what is temporal.
The Fourth Noble Truth is that desire can be eliminated following the Eightfold Path to reach “enlightenment” or Nirvana (the ultimate reality).
So from this one can safely assume that the life of suffering (dukkha) is less real than Nirvana. The desire which causes suffering is the illusion we should free ourselves from.