*solves the problem of evil*

Do other religions have these intense grapples with the Problem of Evil? I understand that I, as a Westerner, am only really exposed to Western debates on this for obvious reasons, but I feel like this is only something Christianity really has to deal with.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#God
Also just so you know this God is not his Absolute. His Absolute is Creativity. He saw this concept of God as putting order within his system.

How is this God not omnipotent then, if he bestows all aims of all entities

>The primordial nature he described as "the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality,"[118] i.e., the unlimited possibility of the universe. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire,"[121] pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities.
Sounds like Schopenhauer

Underrated post

Overrated post

Fairly rated post

God conditions Creativity but it is beyond his control. The smallest fundamental building blocks of Whutehead's system, actual entities (drops of experience), have their own teleology and actualize the possibilities. Without them nothing is actualized and God is merely unrealized possibilities.

Also actual entities have their own individuality.

Unrated post

Yea

So god was just trying to create 3d glasses and got the three stooges instead?
Imagine falling for a religion that is literally just a long series of pseudo-empirical jury rigging.

Attached: paving stones.jpg (898x1290, 327K)

The process of an actual entity is called a concrescence that involves an initial subjective aim to create that actual entity, a prehension of other actual entities, a subjective aim that conduces a decision, and a satisfaction that completes the process. God bestows the possibilities which actual entities fulfill, God can't actualize them on its own. Also actual entities make the decision of which possibility to fulfill.

Ok, that makes sense. I'm struggling a bit with this. So which are actual entities in this list
>me and you
>the musical note F#
>a dog
>an electron
>my sleep paralysis demon

me on the right

actual entities are spatiotemporally extended events or processes.

Thanks, that clears up a lot actually.

actual entities are the fundamental buildimg block of reality in Whitehead's system so all those have underlying processes going on within them

Is Whitehead a crypto Hegelian?

No. He just took Nietzsche's thought to its furthest conclusions.

Meanwhile Christianity.
>It's our fault because we disobeyed God and he won't just transform us all into servile meat puppets that can only do what he says because he has some pride in His job.
The end.
"The problem of evil" was never a problem except from the enlightement """thinkers""" on.

Truly awful arguments. Whitehead, the most ostensibly non-Anglo of the Anglos, actually reveals himself to be even more Anglo than is required of him. Sad.

Literally none of that is anglo

All around good post.

Awful post

I never noticed the kid before. Neat

Based and oldtestamentpilled

Bump

So a the life of an atom generated in the sun that somehow made its way to earth the disintegrated would be such a process, right?

Bump

The problem of evil emerges from the nature of lack; darkness doesn't exist as such, it is the lack of light. The understanding and sensing of darkness is real, however.
Such is also the nature of evil, of lies.
The problem of evil arises from the lack of God.

Retroactively.

Bump

>wh*tehead

Attached: 1562154965737.png (820x547, 295K)

Fair but unremarkable post

KEK

بأثر رجعي

>God is not omnipotent
>God is not omniscient
>God is not omnibenevolent
God is not God. Well, neither am I evidently, though I trust God's proxy here shares all of the original's omniscience, and so deserves our awe.

His God is a concept within his system that he saw necessary to hold its order. God may be a misnomer as it is not his Absolute. His Absolute is Creativity.

Finally, a meaningful whitehead thread. Thank you, OP, for this.

As I gather, Whithead thinks that ethics is subordinate to aesthetics. How can he argue this when aesthetics are individualizing (there is no universal aesthetics) and thus cannot aim at transcendence?

It would seem that aesthetics is only meaningful as a spur for ethics, the genuinely spiritual activity.

T. Hardcore Platonizing Kantian

How does Whitehead conceive of universal, teleological Sophia, if at all?

Yes, other religions deal with theodicy.

Cringe and bluepilled

Based and redpilled

I give it a 7/10

Now that the dust has settled, what did we think of this post?

>free will
>human action not being determined by our biological nature and environment

Greek godspilled