Due to recent discoveries about the apparent design of the human brain it is evident that in some circumstances the influence of natural agents, such as hormones, argues against traditional concepts of : Almighty God, original sin, and free will. In Louann Brizendine's excellent book "The Female Brain" P.77. this is written: "Women who have committed crimes while suffering from PMDD(pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder) have successfully used it as a defense in France and England by establishing temporary insanity."

The whole book is full of challenging revelations about the extent to which hormones influence our lives and it has moved me to ask this question: Where is free will if hormonal changes cause "temporary insanity"?" In examining this question i came across this:

‘Consider the following argument:
1. If God existed – and were omnipotent, all knowing and wholly good – God would prevent any instance of intense suffering or terrible loss unless he had a morally acceptable reason for not doing so.
2. But there are some instances of intense suffering and instances of terrible loss that an omnipotent, omniscient being would be highly unlikely to have a morally acceptable reason for preventing.
3. Therefore, it's highly likely that either: God does not exist or, is not omnipotent or, is not wholly good, or is not all knowing.’ (acknowledgements to www.colorado.edu/philosophy )

The ‘God does not exist’ option seems simple, but could one ever know for sure? What then if God is not omnipotent? Or not wholly good? Or not all-knowing? Are there any other options? What are the logical implications for what can be known about God? These questions present serious challenges to my religious inheritance, and I am hoping for intelligent responses please. :)

God works in obvious ways. God is wholly good. God is neither omnipotent nor all-knowing. God is a concept that we use to keep things uh, "on the up-and-up". If something is fishy or mysterious or shady or slinky or furtive, then it's the Devil's workings. I know the usual saying but it's the Devil that works in mysterious ways -- DON'T let them tell you otherwise!!!

If God were omnipotent God would posses Omnipotence,Omnipresence and Omniscience.

Omnibenevolence - Infinite or unlimited kindness
Omnipotence- Infinite or unlimited power
Omniscience- Infinite or unlimited knowledge

I see your dilemma lies mostly with Omnibenevolence. How can God allow suffering if he is kind, and even morose than that- infinity kind? Is it right to presume infinite kindness is unconditional? Its debatable; but in my opinion the answer is yes.

Heres the background knowledge to my conclusion (mostly a Gnostic explanation).

We are trapped in this material world, that is for sure... but where we always here?

If we follow the principle that we can or will be re-united with God in a spiritual plain after our material existence how ever long that may be it seems reasonable that at some point our-predecessors lied in this realm aswell, and we now find ourselves in this material world because we didnt want to accept Gods omnipotence, we wanted free will, we wanted to do our own thing.

That is our nature in this world.

"Just what is it that you want to do?
We wanna be free
We wanna be free to do what we wanna do
And we wanna get loaded
And we wanna have a good time
Thats what were gonna do
No way baby lets go
Were gonna have a good time
Were gonna have a party"

So the question is if God is truly kind and truly loving would he grant us our wish, would he allow us free will and to defy him; is that what constitutes love? To respect someone elses decision even if you may disagree? EVEN if you believe you may know better to the extent that you are omnipotent?

Forcing someone to love is essentially rape; love is only true in the context of a relationship so it cannot be a one way thing true love is love between people. Im not saying if we dont love God God doesnt love us (see prodical son) Being away from God is suffering but ultimately that is what many of us want, so he grants us our wish because he is so kind.

This really relies on the premise that respecting someone elses decision is virtuous and kind.

According to this understanding God interferring in this material world would be disrespecting our choice for free will.

But just like the prodigal son, the father respects his son's choice but still loves him so when he returns he shows him forgiveness because they both want to be a part of each others life- that is love.

This also lies on the premise of a personal God which im more attracted to than an impersonal God.

God is wholly good.

Ok? What does that mean, "God is wholly good"? What is goodness?

This also lies on the premise of a personal God which im more attracted to than an impersonal God.

Yes and it would be great if Santa really existed so I could get the gifts I really want this xmas, but does wishing it is so make it so? Looked at as a logical argument, your premise leads to an inference that one should be able to have a personal audience with God, face to face. Have you experienced this, or do you have some verifiable evidence where this has happened?

I find that your simple solution "God does not exist" works the best for me.

Yes and it would be great if Santa really existed so I could get the gifts I really want this xmas, but does wishing it is so make it so? Looked at as a logical argument, your premise leads to an inference that one should be able to have a personal audience with God, face to face. Have you experienced this, or do you have some verifiable evidence where this has happened?

I see it as more of a practical thing relating to creation; because i dont believe in abiogenesis which is the scientific equivelent of impersonal creation.

All that makes us human is our ontology; placing values on any and all possible experience ( list of all experience if you will).

I try to think through everything i do and keep an open mind and in my opinion that means not closing my mind to experience outside material evidence and logic; because i know that is not all the defines my existence its only a small part and as a conscious being its my entitlement to create my own personal ontology.

Do i take into account verifiable evidence? Yes.

But everything has a context, a certain quality of questions ( defined by their context) deserves a certain quality of answer (defined by their context) in other words- the spiritual context.

So i understand do i have natural scientifically verifiable evidence to provide material answers for questions of a spiritual quality and context?

No.

However this is the quality of my consciousness and ultimately that is all that matters for my ontology.

Is their evidence for God?

Most definitely, God is a theory like any other theory based on facts and inferences so it requires faith to believe it is always true just like it would for any theory i.e. the theory of evolution.

Important note: I am still young and i have imperfect knowledge that is why i dont follow a religion or any real denomination of thought in any facet of life ( for most things) however i believe its good to try and form well defined oppinions rather than be part of the lost generation who just "dont - know".

TL/DR; No :D

What is goodness?

Goodness is what flies, I guess -- not sure. Hey, whaddya get if you cross an elephant with a rhino?

Old joke.

Still a 'good' one.

Maybe you heard it.

Give up?

'elephino!

Get it? Ha-ha.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

A 'good' palindrome: "Niagara, o roar again"

For tl/dr version, see bottom:

How can one say suffering is bad if it stirs the compassion of all who witness it? How, also, can one say comfort is good if it leaves people apathetic and uncaring? Also, how can one say compassion is good if it interferes with the natural consequences of people's actions? And how can apathy and heartlessness be evil if it allows nature to run its course?

I only ask those questions so that I may ask these: How do you know what is good and bad? Are you even sure of your definitions? Even if you are, what makes your definitions correct? If they are based empirically, then how is your perception of life grounded with any superiority to others, considering existence originates randomly and proceeds blindly with no truth in justice, equality, love, compassion, etc? If they are based on spirituality, then what ensures your understanding of the divine even begins to approach its reality?

If one is honest, (which they won't be), they have to admit that even in their heart and mind they can be easily deceived and are constant prey to delusion. With this, what makes their beliefs and thinking sound or right? Examination by other mad men? Supported by evidence? What about the ease with which evidence can be twisted to support any conclusion? What of the propensity of humans to believe simply due to general consensus? Does the acceptance of an ideal by a few supposedly intelligent men give it support that either consciously or unconsciously makes it easier for you to swallow? If you say no, why did you first believe what you read in your school books? What makes you believe one method of examination is accurate while another is not? Is it not because the general consensus agrees that it is and that no contention as to its accuracy exists among others who are brought into that same consensus?

TL/DR: Knowledge doesn't exist.

Yeah sure, all things are relative, however pain is pain! There's no question of right or wrong when it comes to suffering, don't need any definition beyond that!

I only ask those questions so that I may ask these: How do you know what is good and bad? Are you even sure of your definitions? Even if you are, what makes your definitions correct? If they are based empirically, then how is your perception of life grounded with any superiority to others, considering existence originates randomly and proceeds blindly with no truth in justice, equality, love, compassion, etc? If they are based on spirituality, then what ensures your understanding of the divine even begins to approach its reality?
So what is your point, we should'nt try to understand?
What makes you believe one method of examination is accurate while another is not?
Gut feelings mainly!

Is it not because the general consensus agrees that it is and that no contention as to its accuracy exists among others who are brought into that same consensus?

General consensus does not ensure accuracy, after all at one time most people believed the Earth was flat and the Sun and stars revolved around us!

What the questions about is the Nature of God, and can we humans in fact make any sense of it at all? Guess you're saying no? Maybe BP's got the right idea? Too hard, fuck it, "there is no God"!?

Yeah sure, all things are relative, however pain is pain! There's no question of right or wrong when it comes to suffering, don't need any definition beyond that!

I actually don't believe anything is relative at all, just that we humans are incapable of knowing what objective reality is.

So what is your point, we should'nt try to understand?

Not that we shouldn't try to understand, but that we can't no matter how hard we try. Understanding anything is beyond human ability. Our capacity for knowledge is zero; the best we can do is formulate a subjective concept and accept or reject it.

Gut feelings mainly!

Fair enough.

General consensus does not ensure accuracy, after all at one time most people believed the Earth was flat and the Sun and stars revolved around us!

My point is that there is nothing to ensure accuracy whatsoever. Everything is by faith and faith alone; interpretations of perceptions are the closest we can come to knowledge and are all accepted by faith or rejected by doubt.

What the questions about is the Nature of God, and can we humans in fact make any sense of it at all? Guess you're saying no? Maybe BP's got the right idea? Too hard, fuck it, "there is no God"!?

I grasped the question, and I'm not saying no. We can make perfect sense out of it if we please, but that doesn't make it true. Sensibility doesn't ensure truth; nothing does. That is what I'm saying. No understanding we come to is truth, be it evidenced or not. There is always room to doubt and always room to believe; if there wasn't, language would be useless as everyone would intuitively have a complete understanding of reality and no discussion would ever be required of anyone: we would simply know because truth and non-truth would be completely and absolutely self-evident.

To understand something is to be obedient. Obey reality, accept it for what it is (battle), and you'll understand it.

Disobey reality, reject what it is (through optimism, or pessimism), and you will not understand it.

To understand something is to be obedient. Obey reality, accept it for what it is (battle), and you'll understand it.

Disobey reality, reject what it is (through optimism, or pessimism), and you will not understand it.

Since when was reality a battle? What am I supposed to be fighting? What victory am I supposed to be obtaining in this battle? Am I struggling to survive? It certainly doesn't seem like it. Am I struggling to experience God? Love? Anything else? It sure doesn't seem like a struggle, or a fight that is spiritual, mental, or emotional. I don't see how it's a battle.

That's great on-point rhetoric, Hexa-d. The goal of each successive human generation was to make a good life for the children. Finally, around 1948, they succeeded. But, uh, it's too pat, too contrived, and though quite rich with diversity, it lacks focus. It boils down to the final success of the proverbial military-industrial complex. We are entrapped. There's tons of advice flowing from the seated/landed gentry, yuppies all, but don't pay them any mind: for they're only caddish air-heads looking to make merry at the expense of you and your future.

Fortunately the End is just a few short years off, and the Earth will then revert back to Its Original Owner.

[QUOTE=redzed;10832636]

‘Consider the following argument:
1. If God existed – and were omnipotent, all knowing and wholly good – God would prevent any instance of intense suffering or terrible loss unless he had a morally acceptable reason for not doing so.
2. But there are some instances of intense suffering and instances of terrible loss that an omnipotent, omniscient being would be highly unlikely to have a morally acceptable reason for preventing.
3. Therefore, it's highly likely that either: God does not exist or, is not omnipotent or, is not wholly good, or is not all knowing.’ (acknowledgements to www.colorado.edu/philosophy )

QUOTE]

Oint 1 is invalid, since we have free will. It is the purpose of each soul to experience fully all that the earth plane has to offer--hence, we all--in at leats one lifetime--go through experiences that some might label as "terrible." Since we are, at the Highest Reality, eternal, nothing that happens in any given lifetime is really all that big a deal. And since we are eternal, we can never, in any meaningful sense "lose" anything.

Perceived losses are matters of the ego, not the soul.

Since when was reality a battle?

If reality has a beginning, since then.

What am I supposed to be fighting?

Limitations, obstacles, stagnation, the infinite.

But you're not supposed to do anything. You can allow yourself to be beat down.

What victory am I supposed to be obtaining in this battle?

I never said it would end.

Am I struggling to survive? It certainly doesn't seem like it.

You battle well.

Am I struggling to experience God? Love? Anything else? It sure doesn't seem like a struggle, or a fight that is spiritual, mental, or emotional. I don't see how it's a battle.

Again, maybe you don't see it as a battle because you battle well. You certainly can't say that there are no people who struggle to experience God, love, or anything we might think of. These people are caught up in optimism or pessimism, just lying to themselves. You on the other hand take action. You battle well.

TL/DR: Knowledge doesn't exist.

I'm guessing this statement is knowledge...?

I'm guessing this statement is knowledge...?

^ He's got you there, Hex. ;)

Unless we're all just pretending it is knowledge.