-->
@EtrnlVw
By this standard, are animals "evil"?Since evil is not a thing, it can't be "created".
Evil exists and is therefore evidence for the existence of an all powerful and all good God.
Posts
Total:
154
-->
@3RU7AL
Since evil is not a thing or object, but rather a result of an action it can't be "created" like a thing or object, it is the result of someone's actions. If one wishes to argue that all actions are the result of God's doing, then that would be a proper argument although seriously misunderstood because of the dynamics involved.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Since evil is not a thing or object, but rather a result of an action it can't be "created" like a thing or object, it is the result of someone's actions. If one wishes to argue that all actions are the result of God's doing, then that would be a proper argument although seriously misunderstood because of the dynamics involved.
So, something like,
(IFF) god is omnipotent (THEN) all actions, good or evil are necessarily de facto acts of god.
And, (IFF) god is very-potent but not omnipotent (THEN) some actions (some perhaps good and some perhaps evil) are not necessarily acts of god.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Evil is not an object, obviously. But neither is love, and theists say God created love. Are you two saying that God only created physical objects but no abstract concepts? I must be misunderstanding. That would mean he is not responsible for the creation of constructs like evil, love, or morality.
It's true that biblical critics like to use that particular passage as a "gotcha" line, but the vibes I get from it are more creation, totality, balance, yin/yang. It's not a declaration of malevolence. But I do think it's saying God created evil because evil is part of everything and God created everything.
And I'm afraid I've never been able to reconcile the parts of the Bible that say God never tempts humans with the other parts that say he does. But why does not tempting man with evil mean God did not create evil?
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol try asking, that may help if you want to know my answers.
The dynamics are as follows because we are dealing with two conditions not just one, actually many conditions. God is making decisions from a full conscious state of awareness and being, whereas we as individual souls are making decisions from varying limited states of awareness whatever they are. And to make things worse, we as individuals give strength to our habits and states of awareness becoming co-creators with God in a dualistic environment. If this were not so, there would be no Karma, no sowing and reaping as it wouldn't matter if there were no distinction.
God is not omnipotent, or omniscient....God is only omnipresent.
Having said that, God has access to every channel of awareness but the individual soul is learning through their actions....
-->
@Castin
Evil is not an object, obviously. But neither is love, and theists say God created love. Are you two saying that God only created physical objects but no abstract concepts? I must be misunderstanding. That would mean he is not responsible for the creation of constructs like evil, love, or morality.
Actually, in the full conscious state of God there is no duality, as duality does not exist in a singular reality. Again, God can't create love or evil, God can only express those things through creation. Like evil, love is also not an object and I believe the correct statement in the Bible is God IS love, not created love. This is a workable saying, not God created love that makes no sense.
It's true that biblical critics like to use that particular passage as a "gotcha" line, but the vibes I get from it are more creation, totality, balance, yin/yang. It's not a declaration of malevolence. But I do think it's saying God created evil because evil is part of everything and God created everything.
I can see that, but again it's worded poorly making it mean nothing. I don't think that particular chapter is meant to interpret as literal because of the poetic illustrations. It comes across to me as the author trying to build confidence in the person it was addressed to.
And I'm afraid I've never been able to reconcile the parts of the Bible that say God never tempts humans with the other parts that say he does. But why does not tempting man with evil mean God did not create evil?
Well consider what I'm saying here firstly, that evil and love are not created they are expressions of actions, then both chapters can be reconciled. You will have to accept that the verse in Isaiah used words that are incorrect or just written poetically to make a point.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol try asking, that may help if you want to know my answers.The dynamics are as follows because we are dealing with two conditions not just one, actually many conditions. God is making decisions from a full conscious state of awareness and being, whereas we as individual souls are making decisions from varying limited states of awareness whatever they are. And to make things worse, we as individuals give strength to our habits and states of awareness becoming co-creators with God in a dualistic environment. If this were not so, there would be no Karma, no sowing and reaping as it wouldn't matter if there were no distinction.God is not omnipotent, or omniscient....God is only omnipresent.Having said that, God has access to every channel of awareness but the individual soul is learning through their actions....
Are you trying to say that god always does what is ultimately good in the long-run-bigger-picture sense, but in the short-term-small-picture sense it might appear to be "evil" to human block-heads?
A little like this old story,
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trying to say that god always does what is ultimately good in the long-run-bigger-picture sense, but in the short-term-small-picture sense it might appear to be "evil" to human block-heads?
Not really.
-->
@Castin
But why does not tempting man with evil mean God did not create evil?
Because evil is the result of actions, it's not a thing. First, man has to be enticed through the mind and emotions to commit an evil act. If God did not cause that enticement, then God did not "create" it. God does not create that enticement, man is enticed through what he wishes to entertain through his personal state of awareness, then comes actions, which either produces evil or good, love or hate and everything in between.
-->
@Tradesecret
Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.
That's a false premise, EtrnlVw had the correct answer....
EtrnlVw : it is the result of someone's actions
Evil is the perceived label we have given the actions of a person. It is perceived because what someone may consider an evil act, someone else may not, the same applies to what are perceived as good actions.
Since evil is based on someone's action, it cannot be the absence of good, hence the absence of either good or evil is nothing simply because there are no actions.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
There isn't a perfect standard. One could easily create any number of paradoxes to refute it.
Back to the drawing board.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are you suggesting that god did not create humans with instincts that drive (motivate, animate, inspire) these desires (aka, wishies)?...man is enticed through what [t]he[y] wish to entertain through [their] personal state of awareness, then comes actions, which either produces evil or good, love or hate and everything in between.
Are you suggesting that god did not place these enticements to "evil" within human grasp?
Are you suggesting that god is powerless to remove dangerous ("evil") enticements from reach in order to protect the human?
-->
@ludofl3x
How would you argue against this? [accidentally deleted the part where you say evil is something but not a thing, sorry]
First I'd start by pointing out that this is obviously self contradictory and seems to violate the idea that A can only be A, it cannot be both A and B at the same time, so I'd say this starts off on very poor footing. It doesn't take long to get to this, either:
I said evil was not a thing. Rather I acknowledged its apparent existence because people recognise it. Yet, it does not exist in the sense like an object does. This is why I said it was the absence of good. Like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. If you cant understand the difference I am not sure you ever will. but darkness is not a thing - it is not created. Coldness is not created either. The hole in the donut comes into being - because of the donut not because it is some thing.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
It is either a thing or not a thing. Do you have another example of something that's both a thing and not a thing, one, and two, this intimates that god didn't create everything in the known universe, which is what you would go on to argue. Futher:
See above. You obviously don't get it - I suppose there is not much point discussing this with you further. But for the record - God did not create darkness. Nor evil.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil
The standard of morality I presume you're using is the god of the bible. This character commits or sanctions a lot of acts we'd call evil, but you excuse with special pleading and divine command theory (which is again it's moral if god does it, like killing all the babies in the global flood or turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt: these are moral actions because if they weren't god wouldn't do them). That seems an extremely precarious standard of morality. Or maybe it's the ten commandments, of which four pertain to how you talk to god, but zero pertain to rape or slavery or the internet or weapons of mass destruction.
Your presumption. I never mentioned the bible. I am not excusing anything. You are one driving the discussion along those lines. I am talking about evil. Does evil exist or not? If so, how do we measure it? Whether or not the God of the bible is the perfect measure is a completely different question. but for evil to exist - a perfect and all powerful God must exist, whatever and whoever that might be is a different question. but it only raises the question - so what? So if a perfect and all powerful God does exist - then why and how could he allow evil to continue? It changes the question - from if to why. It is a question for grownups - not children.
-->
@3RU7AL
funny link.
Bad theology but funny link. Redheads have souls. Wow! who would thought?
so evil is not just the absence of good but it has to have the presence of "evil" as well.
I am sure you can explain that - for it does not make sense to me. but thanks for the link. Quite funny.
-->
@keithprosser
And although sometimes people might suggest it is a set of bad things - which in many ways is the same thing - we need to define or at least measure good or bad or right and wrong or evil and bad.Evil = the 'set of bad things' works very well in the context of the OP syllogism.1 An all good God would want to eliminate all bad things2 An all powerful God could eliminate all bad things3 Some bad things exists4 therefore an all good, all powerful God does not exist.For us to recognise evil - we must have a measure, otherwise it is simply an opinion. An opinions might be incorrect, but otherwise like someone mentioned in a different place - it is also subjective - to the point that "rape" may not be evil but just that we have an opinion that it is evil.If we accept evolution, our behaviour is the product of evolution. To survive we have to be encourged somehow to do what is good for survival and avoid what is bad for survival. it appears the 'somehow' is that we have evolved a sense for what is good [for survival] and bad [for survival].But subjectively the way we perceive things is as [morally] good and [morally] bad. It is important to note that what we perceive as [morally] good is only an approximation to what is good [for survival]. The match is not perfect because the mapping ws produced by the hit-and-miss process of mutation and natural selection. The relationship between good[for survival] and [morally] good is (after millions of years of refinement) not too bad, but it's not perfect.So when we judge rape as bad it isn't 'just' an arbitrary random opinion with no basis - it reflects evolutions 'best guess' what is good for survival the species, expressed as a moral judgement.As every brain is unique,differnt brains may make different judgements of what is good and bad, and good and how bad. For most humans the 'badness' we feel towards rape is more than enough to block that behaviour, but obviously that does not apply to everyone.
HI Keith,
My topic flowed out of our discussion recently talking about subjective morality. This is why I have discussed "recognising evil" as opposed to knowing evil. As I said then, your words say - you believe in subjective morality - but intuitively you know rape is evil. The problem I see for you - is how to get to what you know intuitively when your believe system contradicts it. Adults having sex with 1 month old children in my view is evil. And you hopefully would subjectively agree, but if someone else says - well it is time humans evolved past this point and concluded that paedophilia is not wrong, but just the next stage in human sexual evolution - what are the measures in place to prevent it from happening? And should we prevent it from happening? Many people in our society think paedophilia is not evil. some very prominent scholars promote it as ok. But it does say that evil is not objectively evil.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that god did not create humans with instincts that drive (motivate, animate, inspire) these desires (aka, wishies)?
God does not upload a soul with content, the soul creates its own content however God does create the soul. But more like an empty cup sent into the worlds of duality where it gains whatever content it wishes through experience and perceptions.
Are you suggesting that god did not place these enticements to "evil" within human grasp?
Correct. Enticements are developed not created.
Are you suggesting that god is powerless to remove dangerous ("evil") enticements from reach in order to protect the human?
Not powerless, the soul learns through its own experiences and desires, that's why it is not classified as a robot but a sentient being capable of choosing. The only way a soul can learn is to experience it, if God were to take away that aspect there would be no reason for the soul to be here.
-->
@Tradesecret
Let's assume a pedophile's brain is wired-up 'wrongly' so it doesn't judge sex with infants as bad. Let's also assume that such a brain can't be rewired to be normal.
So pedophile P wants sex with kids, I want P not to. I can't stop P wanting sex with kids, but I (and people like me) can make it harder for him to do it,by having laws and punishing such pedophile behviour. P can of course lobby for very diffrent laws.
Which laws we end up with will not depend on who is 'morally right' because morality does not exist. The laws we get will be the result of a battle of wills between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. Good and evil are competing factions; which side you are depends on accidents of birth and how experience shapes the way your brain is connected.
It may seem pedophilia is objectively bad, but if we examine why it seems it's objectively bad we might start with 'it causes pain and suffering'. But that means having to say why pain and suffering are objectively bad. If you try the exercise - going down the levels - you will pretty soon give up and say 'X is just bad,OK?', ie a subjective judgement. There is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
Jesus did a fucking atheist compare raping a child to exercise.
-->
@keithprosser
Let's assume a pedophile's brain is wired-up 'wrongly' so it doesn't judge sex with infants as bad. Let's also assume that such a brain can't be rewired to be normal.So pedophile P wants sex with kids, I want P not to. I can't stop P wanting sex with kids, but I (and people like me) can make it harder for him to do it,by having laws and punishing such pedophile behviour. P can of course lobby for very diffrent laws.Which laws we end up with will not depend on who is 'morally right' because morality does not exist. The laws we get will be the result of a battle of wills between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. Good and evil are competing factions; which side you are depends on accidents of birth and how experience shapes the way your brain is connected.It may seem pedophilia is objectively bad, but if we examine why it seems it's objectively bad we might start with 'it causes pain and suffering'. But that means having to say why pain and suffering are objectively bad. If you try the exercise - going down the levels - you will pretty soon give up and say 'X is just bad,OK?', ie a subjective judgement. There is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?
Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?
It is wrong not only because of pain and suffering but also because of lack of consent and a whole lot of other matters. I think mostly people talk about subjective morals until it happens to them. It is like the communist who believes everything belongs to everyone - until you steal the money from his wallet. I also think you - mean there is no such thing as objective morality - not morality per se.
Thanks for your thoughts Keith. I don't agree with you. I think there is wrong and there is right. I think P is wrong and I think Rape is wrong. I think murder is wrong. Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong. Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not. After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
-->
@Tradesecret
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?
Really? I mean really? You are incapable of determining whether child rape is right or wrong, what a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's a good thing you have no balls and can't procreate.
Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?
You and your friends will never have your sexual proclivities legalized because humans outnumber you.
It is wrong not only because of pain and suffering but also because of lack of consent and a whole lot of other matters. I think mostly people talk about subjective morals until it happens to them. It is like the communist who believes everything belongs to everyone - until you steal the money from his wallet. I also think you - mean there is no such thing as objective morality - not morality per se.
Well you've proven by this post that you have no morality but rely on the morality of the IPSS who promoted child rape. Read your book.
Thanks for your thoughts Keith. I don't agree with you. I think there is wrong and there is right. I think P is wrong and I think Rape is wrong. I think murder is wrong. Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong. Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not. After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
Creating billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity is the epitome of evil, a big shout out to your god.
-->
@secularmerlin
I haven't been much on the boards lately and mostl6 just reading when I do but this caught my eye.
Nice.
You seem to be misunderstanding or perhaps just miscategorizing this argument. This argument does not bring us to the conclusion that no god(s) can exist but merely that certain proposed deities are logically inconsistent and that therefore these particular proposed deities are unlikely to exist.
Yes, Keith brought that to my attention previously. He said the atheist conclusion should be "no all powerful and all good god" would exist - not any god at all. I don't think I misunderstood the argument presented. I don't have an issue with Keith's re-categorising of it either. But even so, I am of the view that such atheist premises (I am using atheist because I did in my OP ; accepting it may well apply to other views) are not helpful because as I go on to argue - the definition of evil itself presumes that these particular deities must exist. Hence there are logical inconsistencies with the original premises which cannot be relied upon for the conclusion.
I personally do mot generally like the wprds.good and evil since they would seem to presuppose an objective moral standard that I do not believe exists but this particular chestnut is actually meant to illustrate how some theistic beliefs are logically inconsistent and has little to do with atheists as they do not propose any omniscient omnibenevolent being.
Yes, as stated above, I think that is why this particular chestnut is flawed. What it proposes to illustrate in the end actually provides evidence for the opposite conclusion. This is why it would be better for atheists to stay away from the chestnut. It is nice to see your comments.
It also has little or nothingvto do with theist, like polytheist witch, who do not propose that the gods they believe in are omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Agreed.
-->
@Tradesecret
The argument is actually best presented as a series of questions because what I believe is unimportant to the premise if we are discussing what you believe. The argument is designed to see if there are any logical flaws in your reasoning.
Do you believe that evil exists?
-->
@Castin
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)?Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.I don't really understand. Evil's not a thing? Are concepts not things? I'm pretty sure I've referred to abstract concepts as things before.
I would take the view that evil is not a thing. Is it a concept? Perhaps, but is it a thing? Is love a thing? Is hate a thing? Hate might be defined as the absence of love. But what is love? Is love an action - and hate simply not doing the loving action? Hate can lead us to kill someone - but is hate the action or the fact that you have stopped loving someone and treating them in love? Some might say that love can lead us to kill someone by euthanasia.
What is darkness? Is it a concept? Or is it the absence of light? And what about coldness? We all know what it is - but how do we define it?
I think the verse you described needs to be understood in its context - of the entire chapter. Indeed within the entire book of Isaiah.
-->
@Tradesecret
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?
You will note I put 'wrongly' in scare quotes for the reason you allude to. The question of who decides is what the rest ofthe post dealt with.
Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?
I give no other reason than it is how my brain is wired up - ie 'normally'! Of course we should see them as competing factions and be ready to fight over it - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Of course it applies to all moral matters, not just pedophilia. We will live in a world defined by those who fight hardest to shape it. That's not how it should be - but it's how things always have been, are now and always will be.
After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
Many atheists are too busy kicking down theistic moral philosophy to have the time for constructing an atheist one!
-->
@disgusted
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?Really? I mean really? You are incapable of determining whether child rape is right or wrong, what a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's a good thing you have no balls and can't procreate.Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?You and your friends will never have your sexual proclivities legalized because humans outnumber you.It is wrong not only because of pain and suffering but also because of lack of consent and a whole lot of other matters. I think mostly people talk about subjective morals until it happens to them. It is like the communist who believes everything belongs to everyone - until you steal the money from his wallet. I also think you - mean there is no such thing as objective morality - not morality per se.Well you've proven by this post that you have no morality but rely on the morality of the IPSS who promoted child rape. Read your book.Thanks for your thoughts Keith. I don't agree with you. I think there is wrong and there is right. I think P is wrong and I think Rape is wrong. I think murder is wrong. Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong. Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not. After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.Creating billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity is the epitome of evil, a big shout out to your god.
Ok.
-->
@keithprosser
Admitting you think fucking kids is ok is not showing you are moral in any way. Sick fuck.
-->
@Tradesecret
You have no problem calling your god a liar when he disagrees with you, is that permitted in your religion, whatever that is?
-->
@Tradesecret
Finally you agree with me.
Ima make a post topic. Half arsed theists......
-->
@disgusted
ok.
-->
@keithprosser
I think the argument simplifies toEvil does not exist, but good does. Evil is only the absence of good. (a parallel is light and dark).Evil appears to exist therefore good does exist.God is required for good to exist.Therefore god exists.is that a fair summary?
I will need to think about that Keith but interesting summary.
Initial thoughts - I am not sure that evil does not exist. I said evil is defined by what it is not. That may mean the same thing but I will need to think about it. Certainly evil does appear to exist - we recognise it when we see it. Or we think we do at least. It seems to make sense that if we recognise evil - and if the definition that it is the absence of good is correct, then good must exist.
To measure whether something is good or evil objectively, implies a measure that is able to do so. Hence it must be more than human. It might be a law of conscience I suppose - though how this might be useful I could not tell. Unless there is a plausible alternative - then a divine person might be the only objective measure. But not just any divine - remembering that the Greek and Roman gods were quite flawed and not much better than humans. It must be a perfect divine figure or principle.