Why did god create evil?

[Epimethean]

'Ware the greasy bean of Pythagoras, indeed.

[dtango]

'Ware the greasy bean of Pythagoras, indeed.

.
ΟΚ, you are right! It was beans (actually broad beans [κουκιά]) if that’s what you mean.

Diogenes Laertious wrote that Pythagoras’s advice was:

To abstain from beans because they are flatulent and partake most of the breath of life ; and besides, it is better for the stomach if they are not taken, and this again will make our dreams in sleep smooth and untroubled. (VIII,24)

The translation is from “Perseus” site and it obviously is biased in favor of Pythagoras (trying to cover Pythagoras nonsense).

The Greek text has “μετέχειν του ψυχικού” meaning that the beans for being flatulent take part in the spiritual!! The sentence “They partake most of the breath of life” has no meaning. Ψυχή (soul) is just the breath of life for the ancient Greeks but not for Pythagoras and his dualistic dogma.

I hope you understand what I mean, that you agree and that you will explain it in the correct way for the sake of those reading.

[Epimethean]

There is actually a great debate over those beans. Here is one of my favorite overviews. I had a fantastic cosmology professor from Harvard who made a case for the bean having "psyche" as well. Lots of thoughts on these little buggers.

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=15

[dtango]

There is actually a great debate over those beans. Here is one of my favorite overviews. I had a fantastic cosmology professor from Harvard who made a case for the bean having "psyche" as well. Lots of thoughts on these little buggers.

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=15

Very interesting site!
The commentators, however, seem to think highly of Pythagoras.
For Pythagoras there is the “σωματικόν» (of the body) part and the “ψυχικόν» (of the soul) part. What he allegedly said, therefore, is that intestinal gas has not to do only with the bodily part but the spiritual one as well, which is plain nonsense.

Why did god create philosophers?

[AthiestAtheist]

Why did god create the 'talking snake'? Did he not know what would happen?

How did the 'talking snake' get into the garden? Was god not watching?

This god must have known the 'talking snake' was more powerful than Eve and that Eve had no chance. So this must have been a setup from the get go.

4 teh lulz.

[Epimethean]

There is actually a great debate over those beans. Here is one of my favorite overviews. I had a fantastic cosmology professor from Harvard who made a case for the bean having "psyche" as well. Lots of thoughts on these little buggers.

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=15

Very interesting site!
The commentators, however, seem to think highly of Pythagoras.
For Pythagoras there is the “σωματικόν» (of the body) part and the “ψυχικόν» (of the soul) part. What he allegedly said, therefore, is that intestinal gas has not to do only with the bodily part but the spiritual one as well, which is plain nonsense.

Why did god create philosophers?

I don't think so, or not necessarily. The idea of the transmigration of the soul might have been perceived to be just what happened as the gas continued to erupt from the mouth and ass. We are talking 6th C. B.C.E. here, and even the Pre-Socratics didn't really get too into biological processes beyond attempting to establish some loose elemental/atomic theories. Really, given Democritus' notion on the soul (the energetic fire atom), the idea of gas continually escaping from the body might call the inanimate nature of the bean into question.

God created philosophers because philosophers created god (in order to to maintain job security).

[dtango]

I don't think so, or not necessarily. The idea of the transmigration of the soul might have been perceived to be just what happened as the gas continued to erupt from the mouth and ass. We are talking 6th C. B.C.E. here, and even the Pre-Socratics didn't really get too into biological processes beyond attempting to establish some loose elemental/atomic theories. Really, given Democritus' notion on the soul (the energetic fire atom), the idea of gas continually escaping from the body might call the inanimate nature of the bean into question.

God created philosophers because philosophers created god (in order to to maintain job security).

.
I believe that there is no creature smarter than the man on this planet, but I also believe that there is no animal on the planet that can be as stupid as man can be.

Lending money on a promissory note for repayment in the next world seems to be the end limit of stupidity but it is not because, although I am not aware of it, I am certain that there should be some philosophical explanation attempting to dress with reason the absurdity of the post mortem payable note.

So, are you right in saying that philosophers created a god whom they present as having fashioned wise philosophers destined to explore what wisdom is there hidden deep into stupidity, in order that job security can be maintained, or is it that the god created low quality philosophers who are unable to discern the stupidity of their alleged wisdom?

If god and religion had been rejected by philosophers the soul concept would have been the equal of the Santa Claus concept long ago.

Can you imagine your cosmology professor teaching his Harvard class that the Egyptians were right about the promissory note because for them the note was to be repaid after judgment and not after death?

The bean problem is not so much different from the note problem.

[Epimethean]

That professor was great about such things. Investigating Parmenides and Zeno with him was a particular blast. He was not teleological in his lessons, but was, rather, about letting us explore concepts to which there was not always an easy answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

You bury your dogs with a carpet and and collar and tools, and food, and changes of clothing, and expensive jewelry, and ritual objects, and effigies of loved ones, and half finished projects from their lives, in an ornately decorated hole?

See how sometimes things can be similar, but not exactly alike? How a behavior can come from more than one source? You haven't overturned the entirety of paleolithic archaeology by throwing collars and carpets in your dog's grave.

You're making it too easy to assualt your hypothesis by over-reaching with it's conclusions. First, you go full on euhemerism (ignoring the possibility of fiction for which we have fantastic examples), and then, without any mention of exactly how you propose that this singular narrative was carried across the entirety of the world where cultures believed in souls and the afterlife (in all cases your egyptian philosophers would have needed a time machine). You do this in an attempt to salvage a kernel of truth from myth which is probably there sometimes, but probably isn't all the time. Dracula has many kernels of truth, and remains fiction. Even if we allow for some event to have formed the basis of any given myth, whatever that event was is completely gone. Crushed under the weight of the myth. The event becomes the vehicle by which the myth is communicated, not the other way round. People seem to like good stories just a little bit more than history.

Ah, I see, I see, "immortal" souls. A re-incarnative soul is immortal. In fact anyone who proposes a soul whatsoever is likely to end up with the idea of immortality. Even if they propose that a soul can die in the spirit world, perhaps it simply goes on to another spirit world (that's how they got to the spirit world in the first place). Again, big eyes small stomach. Limit your conclusions to the egyptian myths, and egyptian culture. I understand the drive to explain religion and myth in a way that makes it untenable for us to continue believing in them. However, offering such unsupported explanations will only strengthen some peoples convictions, as they knock down a poorly constructed argument against faith.

(I'm not sure what you were asking about Native American beliefs. If they believed in souls, spirits, afterlives and gods? Long story short, they did. Many still do.)

[dtango]

He was not teleological in his lessons, but was, rather, about letting us explore concepts to which there was not always an easy answer.

I guess he never suggested to the students to explore the origin of the concept of god or soul.
He most probably was expecting students to react in the normal but sterile way of thinking that Rhythm demonstrates above.

You bury your dogs with a carpet and and collar and tools, and food, and changes of clothing, and expensive jewelry, and ritual objects, and effigies of loved ones, and half finished projects from their lives, in an ornately decorated hole?
See how sometimes things can be similar, but not exactly alike? How a behavior can come from more than one source? You haven't overturned the entirety of paleolithic archaeology by throwing collars and carpets in your dog's grave.

.
You describe the burial of an Egyptian king and make it appear like it was a Neanderthalian one. Do not forget that you yourself wrote: In all cases we have their burials, their art, and their artifacts. All of which seem to point to a belief in an afterlife, souls, etc.
You would not think that they all seem to point to a belief in an afterlife if you had not been taught that an afterlife exists. Your conclusions are too heavily biased.

First, you go full on euhemerism (ignoring the possibility of fiction for which we have fantastic examples), and then, without any mention of exactly how you propose that this singular narrative was carried across the entirety of the world where cultures believed in souls and the afterlife (in all cases your egyptian philosophers would have needed a time machine).

.
Full on ehemerism. Correct!
The only “fiction” that counts is the one that comes in more than two copies.
This singular narrative was carried across the entire world by the people who left the Near East forty thousand years ago to end their voyage by arriving at Easter Island just a few hundred years ago. That’s the “ divine ethnic cleansing” that Dawkins detected in the OT (The proper term I know only in Greek «O Καθαρμός της χώρας». Epimethean could help here.)

You do this in an attempt to salvage a kernel of truth from myth which is probably there sometimes, but probably isn't all the time.

.
Without “probably” I assure you I can connect one kernel after the other, like pieces of a puzzle, and present to you the entire story from the beginning in the Near East to the end in Easter Island, if you dare give me only one kernel.

You dare not! No one dares because apparently there would be no pause once we start.

Do you think Harvard and Oxford Universities are unaware of the fact that in the funerary texts a judgment of men alive in described? Do you think that they believe the ancient Egyptians were stupid to the point to believe that they could have good sex only after their death?
They know very well what is written on the texts but if they admit the judgment of the living they would then have to answer questions.

No kernel should be given away! Total refusal is the safest way out: Myth is fairy tale!

(I'm not sure what you were asking about Native American beliefs. If they believed in souls, spirits, afterlives and gods? Long story short, they did. Many still do.)

.
Oh, yes! How original!! Heavenly beings marrying Indian girls!

P.S. I did not see any comment on the Celts’ prommisory note.