Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There is no theodicy problem. God is unknowable to us, and His ways are inscrutable. What is evil and what is good for Him – and whether they exist in our understanding for Him at all, we will never know. We judge only by our particular petty notions of our particular human good and our subjective human evil. Akey, flag in hand. Just do not involve God in these intra-human squabbles, He has nothing to do with it and is not even obliged, in principle, to take these terms and concepts into account.
What a word they came up with… theodicy. Just try to get through the day without lying, without being angry, without judging. And He lived like this for thirty years and three years. In general, in a good way, those who have screwed us up should be given a rag in their hands, but it is convenient for us that God should clean up.
The problem of theodicy, as far as I know, is usually solved by pointing out the freedom and non-existence of evil, especially much attention is paid to this, by the way, in Russian religious thought.
Namely, since God created man free, the latter is free to choose evil, be a God-fighter, etc. At the same time, the fact of the genesis of evil again rests on the freedom of higher minds, the categories of existence of which are unknown and irrelevant to our mind, as well as the problem of the emergence of evil, which God did not create and which is actually non-existent, not ontological, virtual, as it is now fashionable to say. Evil in the world is possible despite the Divine omnipotence and omnipotence (we can say that by giving freedom to angels and man, God limited his own. But this, of course, is only within the framework of binary logic, hence this “contrary”), as the free expression of the will of created minds.
Omniscience of God we (like everyone else in general) think temporally and this causes many problems. In particular, Adam for God exists before, during, and after the fall in hell, as well as redeemed, since God is eternal. This means that the problem of foresight rests on the question of time, which for us is experienced as a single moment, and therefore we project this onto God, who, as it seems to us, sees all this already at the finish line from the very start, which, of course, is fundamentally wrong. God knows that we will sin because it has already taken place for Him in time, just as we know that we have sinned, but this is not to say that we did not have the freedom to choose something else.
You can also ask the question: why did de God create the world, if he knew that there would be evil and hell, and comments on Russian YouTube, and all this wild revelry in general? This is a question that does not contradict all the initial data, but only requires a solution, which, as it seems, has yet to come at the end of time, like the Hegelian removal.
It's already been solved a long time ago
The most elegant way, in my opinion, is to write the following four premises:
God exists.
God is all-good.
God is all-powerful.
Evil exists.
Obviously, all four cannot be true. But I refute any of them, you can build a beautiful doctrine that does not contradict anything.
So the phrase “The ways of the Lord are inscrutable”, in fact, refutes the fourth premise. True, this contradicts the story of sins, servants of the devil, etc.but this is a completely different story.
Evil exists, because the world is tabrendous and cannot be identical with the creator, a person cannot reach the divine ideal, but can strive for it. Just as man has his own will, God does not direct him as a puppet, which means that evil can grow. Just my reasoning based on a rather superficial knowledge in this area. It would be interesting to hear your version.
As for me, the problem is far-fetched. Until good and evil are digitized, there is basically nothing to talk about. For one good, and for the neighbor evil. And how to measure who is right and who is wrong? We don't argue about a meter or a kilogram, do we? When there is a unit of good and evil recognized by academic science all over the world and this unit is connected with other physical units by the laws of nature and society, then the absurdity of this problem will become clear.
Leave everyone to their own devices on the roads (in traffic situations) – this means that everyone will have their own vision of what to do, and others will have to act at their own risk — whether the rules and actions of other road users will be guessed or not (we didn't agree on the rules); in a word, chaos and unpredictability. – Evgeny Vitalievich Antonyuk
http://citaty.info/search/site/угадают%20или%20нет%20%28о%20правилах-то%20не%20договорились%29%20правила%20и%20действия%20других
In the same place: Clutter on the road or in the room makes us slaves, because it takes away our time to find solutions or things, and even our health. On the contrary, order – that is, following the rules of who should do what and where to put things – is liberating, because we don't spend extra time searching for things or solutions. (end of quote)
In the same author: Between two freedoms lies leniency. Between the two non-liberties lies a problem, including a problem for others.
Now let's imagine that the time has come for a transition period (a period of change), when it is no longer possible to live according to the old agreements-the rules of the social contract, the rules are outdated and do not correspond to reality.
If good is not to break the rules, not to waste time looking for another, to use what is at hand, then no one would ever look for good from good.
But they don't look for good from the good. And if by trial and error someone is looking for good, then they have already evaluated and considered something unkind.
But how can we look at all these attempts and inconstancy of social contracts in different epochs and societies from the position of God, when people will call one rule a game for good, and another rule a game for good?�
A mistake is not knowing the best. God is the single information center of the universe. For God, it is to observe the lives of people as if they were chess games that make up a single chess game of the universe.
To somehow imagine this, imagine a chess game in which there is not one chessboard and not one set of black and white pieces, but, for example, a chessboard, to the sides of which from four sides are adjacent halves of chessboards by the number of sides of the central board, i.e. in the number of four halves of boards + the whole board in the center.
Roerich: “he who is tormented by earthly questions will not receive an answer about heavenly things.”
Several solutions have already been proposed here, and I'll offer you one more. It consists in the fact that God is all-good in the sense that he includes all good, but he also includes all evil. Hermann Hesse writes about this, for example, in Demian:”…our god is called Abraxas, and he is both God and Satan, and he includes both the light and dark world.” Here we can also recall an episode from the Bhagavad-gita, when Lord Krsna appears before Arjuna in his true form, as God, and Arjuna is horrified by what he sees. That is, God includes all the terrible things in the world, too. In this context, the Shaivite Aghori sect (which translates as “not terrified”) is also interesting, whose adherents strive precisely to see God even in the most terrible and disgusting manifestations of the universe. They use human corpses, bones, feces, and menstrual secretions in their religious practices, precisely to realize that God is also present in this. Thus, the epithet “all-inclusive” is more applicable to God than”all-good”.
This task is based on taking several conditions out of context, while ignoring everything else. For example, there is no mention here that people, according to religious beliefs, have free will. The latter circumstance directly contradicts the most popular interpretation of God's omnipotence – the ability to perform any actions at all, including those whose meaning ignores the logic of his previous actions. Thus, by giving people freedom of choice, God's omnipotence became limited to the freedom of people (even if people's freedom is vanishingly small compared to God's freedom).
Thus, all the evil that happens among people is very easily explained by the wrong actions of people themselves. If you insist that God is evil, then don't say that people have free will. Either one or the other. The claim that God allows people to do evil is particularly illogical in this sense.�
Understand that if there were no evil , we would be no different from robots. If people were not allowed to perform the actions that we choose for ourselves, then there would be no question of free will.
But the fun begins later. If we change the concept of “evil” to the concept of “good”, then our perception of life will remain the same(!) Just imagine-evil deeds have ceased to be committed on Earth, and only good ones are being committed. One person has done a good deed for you, the second and third have done good deeds for you. If these cases are even slightly different from each other, then your perception of the good will also differ:�
The first person did the smallest of things for you.
The second person has done you a little more good.
The third person has done you the most good.
Our psychology is such that we feel every feeling in comparison with all other feelings. The less good, the more evil. Therefore, we will inevitably feel that a third person has done us good, a second person has treated us in an ordinary way, and the first person has done us evil.
It turns out that if there were no evil in the world, but only good, then we would separate the lesser good from the greater and call it evil. What about Occam's razor?
There is a classic scheme, if I am not mistaken, it was used by everyone trying to overcome the dualism of the Gnostics, from the church fathers themselves to Leibniz.
The trick is that evil doesn't exist. Evil is privatio boni, the absence or lack of good. Evil is not substantial.
Of course, petitio principii is used here — anticipating the foundation.
Otherwise, welcome to Manichaeum!