-->
@b9_ntt
See my post to keithprosser at 9:51am.
Kant's noumenon.
Everything is easily divided into Quanta and Qualia.
Evil exists and is therefore evidence for the existence of an all powerful and all good God.
Posts
Total:
154
-->
@b9_ntt
Thanks. How do you get the blockquote from another post imbedded in a post. Do I need to use HTML?
You just copy and paste the text you want to quote, then highlight it, then hit the " button right above the text entry field.
Right next to the "B" for bold, the "I" for italics and the "U" for underline and the "chain link" for "link".
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
You just copy and paste the text you want to quote, then highlight it, then hit the " button right above the text entry field.
Thanks again.
-->
@b9_ntt
Feser's book, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, makes a philosophical argument for the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview over and against the materialist assumptions and scientistic prejudices of contemporary atheists such as Richard Dawkins, of whom he is particularly critical. [LINK]
Ok, I can't wait to read up on this guy.
The last one of these I read was from Ravi Zacharias, "Jesus Among Secular Gods".
His whole argument was, "Atheism can't answer spiritual questions and will make you depressed and commit suicide, therefore THE JESUS IS REAL".
-->
@b9_ntt
we need an example to help clarify the terms.
Two very different shapes can both be triangles: That is they both manifest 'triangularity'. But what sort of thing is 'triangularity'?.
Plato taught they are both triangles because they are imperfect clones of 'the ideal, perfect triangle' that exists in the 'realm of forms', where 'forms' means 'perfect instances'. The 'realm of forms' contain ideal instances of triangles, circles, cats, stars... ie of everything. Our world contains cheap knock-offs of those forms, and classes or kinds are due to their members being [poor] copies of the same form.
Plato claimed the realm of forms is real, but only accessible to the intellect, not to physical senses. That is 'Platonic realism'.
Nominalists think Plato is talking nonsense and 'triangularity' is just a word or name. There are probably no actual pure nominalists these days; a more subtle form of non-realism is 'conceptualism' which holds that triangularity is a 'concept', that is 'triangularity' does not exist 'out there' but a 'concept-of-triangularity' exists within the human mind.
-->
@3RU7AL
Feser is a considerably more sophisticated philosopher than Zacharias.
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, and I am a conceptualist.
The examples I prefer to work with are the color red and numbers.
The way I see it, the color red is a purely perceptual artifact, available only to those entities (such as humans) with the ability to perceive the wavelength of light associated with the color red, and present what we call red to the perceiving entity. Thus, if no such entities exist, red ceases to exist. Of course the wavelength of light associated with red could continue to exist, but that is not the same thing.
-->
@b9_ntt
Everybody uses red as an example - i thought i'd try to be different!
-->
@keithprosser
Triangularity is a universal. It applies to many instances in the real world. In my view, triangularity as such does not exist except as a concept in a mind. It is a definition for triangles. If a shape meets the conditions of the definition, then it "has" triangularity. It really means nothing other than "this shape is a triangle because it satisfies the definitive requirements as set forth by the concept of triangularity."
-->
@keithprosser
re: everybody uses red.
okay... I'll switch to green.
-->
@b9_ntt
Triangularity is a universal. It applies to many instances in the real world. In my view, triangularity as such does not exist except as a concept in a mind. It is a definition for triangles. If a shape meets the conditions of the definition, then it "has" triangularity. It really means nothing other than "this shape is a triangle because it satisfies the definitive requirements as set forth by the concept of triangularity."
Unfortunately, I agree.
I will add that we tend to be a bit lazy in the way we use language and that can result in non-problems. For example a loose statement is 'triangles share the property of triangularity' which makes it sound as if triangularity 'exists as a concept'. So are there really different types of existence?
I dont think so. Triangularity does not exist at all. What exists is the-concept-of-triangularity. in other words, triangularity is not a thing/not real, but the-concept-of-triangularity is a thing/is real.
I think many realists don't get that they are not arguing for the reality of X but for the reality of the-concept-of-X because of imprecise language. The trick is to get them to realise it!
i found this audio very informative.
-->
@b9_ntt
I certainly hope so.Feser is a considerably more sophisticated philosopher than Zacharias.
-->
@keithprosser
Why is it unfortunate?Unfortunately, I agree.
-->
@Tradesecret
-->
@b9_ntt
So to a universe. So to gods.
-->
@disgusted
Sounds like a toast. If so, I'll raise a glass.So to a universe. So to gods.
-->
@secularmerlin
Hi this is a great question. I suppose from the title of my topic I would have to say yes. I think evil does exist. Yet, how does it exist is the question. I am not saying that evil is some thing which is like an apple, an object which we can go to or eat. I am not suggesting that evil is a gun which can cause great pain and suffering.
In my OP I suggested that evil was something but not some thing. In other words, evil things happen in our world so that we can observe when these things happen and say that is evil. Or perhaps evil happened. Was Hitler evil? I would say yes. But is he evil personified I would say no. I think paedophilia is evil. I think the act or even the thought behind it is evil. Are pedophiles evil? I would surmise - yes and no. At times they being evil - in thought or in deed but at other times they are not engaged in evilness and therefore are not being evil. Most paedophiles I know, are nice people and decent law abiding, generous people 90% of the time.
I also suggested in my OP that evil is defined not so much by what it is as to what it is not. I used the sense of the absence of goodness. I don't find this altogether satisfactory but it is helpful. Where people stop being good evil will flourish. Neutrality is in one sense the dear friend of evil. I take the view that if people are loving - i.e. demonstrating love by serving others ahead of themselves and in accord with the principles of love - that evil will less likely be something that flows from them. Hence, if a paedophile demonstrates love - for the child ahead of their own interests and desires - then the evil will less likely occur.
Another poster indicated that evil is the actions of people in situations. I am not against this notion altogether. It is not opposed to what I have said and I think interweaves with it quite well. Love and goodness are not necessarily concrete objects - although they can certainly be observed - in may ways in our lives. I do think it is more than an action though - it can be philosophy, it can be thoughts, it can be neglect or omission or recklessness.
I might say that World War 1 and 2 were evil - or perhaps all wars are evil, but I suppose that is overstepping. Sometimes war is necessary. but it is generally not two good sides fighting each other. Good in the sense of considering the other sides interests ahead of their own. Most wars are fought because at least one side wants something out of their own self interest, whether that be wealth, power, revenge, or lust. None of those wars are instituted out of love for the other side.
So to answer your question, I think evil does exist - we just need to be careful how we define it and label it. Keith's views were helpful too.
I think it would be naïve - (at least in my naïve mind) to suggest that evil things do not occur in this world. I think some things are absolutely evil - I know some talk of subjective morality - yet, in what universe could it ever be acceptable for rape to be considered morally good, or in what universe would there ever be a morally justifiable reason for an adult to rape a 6 month old baby? I really don't think it is a relative or subjective situation - it really is just wrong. and yet we know it happens. And that would be the argument - that sometimes, some people think it is justifiable. Yet, I don't see that is as argument at all. I think it just shows how evil and desperate they are.
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok and do you believe that god.wants evil things to happen?
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tradesecret
Hold on! You two are sometimes using 'evil' as a noun and sometimes as an adjective. It's a quirk of English the noun and adjective look the same - for most other cases they are different. For example 'Mary is pretty' doesn't mean 'pretty' exists - 'pretty' is a description of something(adjective), not a thing itself(noun). Prettiness is the noun but saying 'Mary is prettiness' is very different from saying she is pretty!
I suggest using 'evilness' for the noun and evil for the adjective to avoid ambiguity.
-->
@keithprosser
Has trade secret not made it clear that he does not believe in evil as a noun. Though of course if I am incorrect about that he is more than welcome to set the record straight. I dont think either of us is reffering to evil as a noun at all at this point.
-->
@secularmerlin
Has trade secret not made it clear that he does not believe in evil as a noun?
I would say the ambiguity is why he wrote "Are pedophiles evil? I would surmise - yes and no". In 'are pedophiles evil' 'evil' is used adjectivally; it's grammatically 'are pedophiles pretty' not 'are pedophiles prettiness'.
I admit i'm being fussy, but I don't think we will get far in understanding 'evil' if we don't now if we are talking about a noun or an adjective. if it is an adjective then we can look for what feature evil things have in common; If its a noun then evil is a thing-in-its-self.
I think that 'evil things' share features but 'evil' doesn't have independent existence; ie evil is an adjective, not a noun. Evil as a thing is ok in poetry or fiction but not in analytic pholiosophy. IMO!
-->
@Tradesecret
If you insist that "morality is not subjective", then please simply present your purely objective universal moral principle.I think it would be naïve - (at least in my naïve mind) to suggest that evil things do not occur in this world. I think some things are absolutely evil - I know some talk of subjective morality - yet, in what universe could it ever be acceptable for rape to be considered morally good, or in what universe would there ever be a morally justifiable reason for an adult to rape a 6 month old baby? I really don't think it is a relative or subjective situation - it really is just wrong. and yet we know it happens. And that would be the argument - that sometimes, some people think it is justifiable. Yet, I don't see that is as argument at all. I think it just shows how evil and desperate they are.
It should really be that easy.
Claiming that "atrocities are atrocious" is, strictly speaking, (even if everyone agrees with you) a subjective value judgement.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure how a blank slate can "create" anything without some set of basic tools and some material to sculpt.
I almost can't believe you wrote this, did you come out of your momma's womb who you are now or is who you are now the results of development? this should be common sense. Since the soul was created at a point in time it leaves the Godhead as a seed or like a baby, where it then develops who it is through experience in the world. Pretty simple no? like a new born baby, a newly created soul has no real experience and has not had the chance to develop, hence was not created with "content". Maybe the word content here is not suitable for you? what I mean, is that the soul hasn't had the chance to become what it is without that experience and knowledge.
Do you believe everyone has a "fair shot" at living an ideal life?
Sure, but remember that karma and reincarnation play a huge role in what the soul experiences or has to learn from so within reincarnation lifetimes are virtually endless. But my answer is yes, of course but I have no control over that and not sure what that question has to do with what I'm saying.
How exactly does an "empty cup" "choose" what it experiences? Does an infant decide to have abusive or neglectful or loving parents? Does a family choose to be born into a war zone?
I fail to see what this has to do with the soul leaving the Godhead as an empty vessel or seed.....I never said it chooses what it experiences, I said it develops who it is THROUGH experience just as you did no? Although a souls desires play some role in where it ends up, mostly in this world what we experience is entangled with Karma so naturally there will be many unfortunate events that are out of our control. But if you want to discuss Karma that's a whole separate discussion and has many dynamics involved and as well I'm not going to judge anyone's circumstances other than my own. What I'm talking about, is the very beginning state of the soul as it leaves the Creator. This could be the souls first experience in the world, or it could be an old soul and returning to this world...either way it is not created already developed.
I see, so do you imagine that "human life" is some sort of absurd obstacle course or quality control sorting booth?
Funny, but if you knew that the soul does in fact exist then it shouldn't be to hard to comprehend that this life is a testing grounds....and you see that everywhere you look, as well as cyclical activity. You can label it absurd of course, but it is the very nature of the soul to learn and experience through life.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say 'atrocious' means 'pertaining to atrocities' so it's actually a tautology!Claiming that "atrocities are atrocious" is, strictly speaking, (even if everyone agrees with you) a subjective value judgement.
If you insist that "morality is not subjective", then please simply present your purely objective universal moral principle.It should really be that easy.
I'd say tradey doesn't insist morality is objective - he's saying it's his hunch that morality is objective. The motivation for that hunch is that it is not easy to imagine how rape or murder could be anything but evil, even if rigorous proof is not immediately obvious. Sam Harris was a famous propenent of developing the tools required to create such proofs, thus turning morality into a quantitative science.
12 or 24 months ago that was my position too - there'll be loads of posts by me arguing it on DDO. But I've changed my mind and I now prefer 'moral nihilism'. That doesn't mean i've changed my mind about murder being bad! It's only my view of what morality is 'in abstract theory' that has changed. My view now is morality does not exist (ie morality is no-thing hence 'moral nihilism'); what does exist is 'moral judgement'.
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say 'atrocious' means 'pertaining to atrocities' so it's actually a tautology!
Yes, good point, however, without a rigorous Quantifiable definition of "atrocity" the statement is fundamentally subjective.
I'd say tradey doesn't insist morality is objective - he's saying it's his hunch that morality is objective. The motivation for that hunch is that it is not easy to imagine how rape or murder could be anything but evil, even if rigorous proof is not immediately obvious. Sam Harris was a famous propenent of developing the tools required to create such proofs, thus turning morality into a quantitative science.
Here's the problem. We all have similar "moral intuitions" because we are similar humans living in similar cultures in a similar historical setting.
What we need to highlight is that CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVE.
The fundamental flaw in Sam Harris' reasoning is that he compares morality to medical science. He falsely claims that there is always an objectively "good" or "better" medical treatment and there is always an objectively "bad" or "worse" medical treatment. This is insanely naive. Medical treatment is very often a crap-shoot because what works reasonably well for one patient will not always work reasonably well for another.
12 or 24 months ago that was my position too - there'll be loads of posts by me arguing it on DDO. But I've changed my mind and I now prefer 'moral nihilism'. That doesn't mean i've changed my mind about murder being bad! It's only my view of what morality is 'in abstract theory' that has changed. My view now is morality does not exist (ie morality is no-thing hence 'moral nihilism'); what does exist is 'moral judgement'.
Yes, I remember your "moral mathematics" quite well. And I am still intrigued by the concept. [LINK]
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not sure how a blank slate can "create" anything without some set of basic tools and some material to sculpt.I almost can't believe you wrote this, did you come out of your momma's womb who you are now or is who you are now the results of development?
I was born with certain instincts and certain physical and mental capabilities. I did not choose these instincts and capabilities. These instincts and capabilities absorbed my primary experiences from the environment which I quite accidentally found myself, which I also did not choose.
Children react to their environment and experiences based on their primary instincts and capabilities. These primary experiences lay the groundwork for young adulthood when we begin to "choose" our experiences from a very limited set of options that are directly correlated to our geographic and temporal placement. As we get older we become aware of more "choices" but every decision draws on our primary experiences and each and every one of our previous life choices. For example, [LINK]
this should be common sense. Since the soul was created at a point in time it leaves the Godhead as a seed or like a baby, where it then develops who it is through experience in the world. Pretty simple no? like a new born baby, a newly created soul has no real experience and has not had the chance to develop, hence was not created with "content".
A "new soul" may not have "experience" but it does have instincts and capabilities. It is not a "tabula rasa". [LINK]
Maybe the word content here is not suitable for you? what I mean, is that the soul hasn't had the chance to become what it is without that experience and knowledge.
My point is that we don't choose our instincts and capabilities and we also do not choose our primary experiences on which all of our future "choices" are predicated.
Do you believe everyone has a "fair shot" at living an ideal life?Sure, but remember that karma and reincarnation play a huge role in what the soul experiences or has to learn from so within reincarnation lifetimes are virtually endless. But my answer is yes, of course but I have no control over that and not sure what that question has to do with what I'm saying.
Ok, if you want to throw "karma" into it. I guess that means that you believe we did choose our instincts and capabilities by our actions in our previous life. However, those decisions are based on the previous life and those are based on the previous life and those are based on the previous life all the way back to the first life. So while "karma" seems to muddy the waters and sort of moves the goalposts, it doesn't really "solve" the "problem".
How exactly does an "empty cup" "choose" what it experiences? Does an infant decide to have abusive or neglectful or loving parents? Does a family choose to be born into a war zone?I fail to see what this has to do with the soul leaving the Godhead as an empty vessel or seed.....I never said it chooses what it experiences, I said it develops who it is THROUGH experience just as you did no?
It develops who it is THROUGH experience - that is not chosen.
Although a souls desires play some role in where it ends up, mostly in this world what we experience is entangled with Karma so naturally there will be many unfortunate events that are out of our control. But if you want to discuss Karma that's a whole separate discussion and has many dynamics involved and as well I'm not going to judge anyone's circumstances other than my own. What I'm talking about, is the very beginning state of the soul as it leaves the Creator. This could be the souls first experience in the world, or it could be an old soul and returning to this world...either way it is not created already developed.
It might not be "created already developed", but it is created with certain instincts and capabilities and introduced to an environment that has a limited number of variables. In the same way that an oak seed may grow into a larger or smaller oak, and based on its location and environment and historical context it may be more likely or less likely to be struck by lightning or cut down for firewood, but it certainly won't grow into a maple or a cabbage.
I see, so do you imagine that "human life" is some sort of absurd obstacle course or quality control sorting booth?Funny, but if you knew that the soul does in fact exist then it shouldn't be to hard to comprehend that this life is a testing grounds....and you see that everywhere you look, as well as cyclical activity. You can label it absurd of course, but it is the very nature of the soul to learn and experience through life.
I'm not challenging your presupposition that "the soul does in fact exist". The same rules of cause and effect apply equally to physics and metaphysics.
Do you believe it would be fair to say that, "it is the very nature of a tree to learn and experience through life"?
Souls have never been shown to exist, nor is there any reason to believe souls exist considering there is no evidence. We learn and experience through the use of our brains, which evidently, you have lost the ability to use.Funny, but if you knew that the soul does in fact exist then it shouldn't be to hard to comprehend that this life is a testing grounds....and you see that everywhere you look, as well as cyclical activity. You can label it absurd of course, but it is the very nature of the soul to learn and experience through life.
This life is not a testing ground, it's the only one you have, which you are wasting by embracing the insane belief life is a testing ground.
-->
@Tradesecret
The absence of love is just indifference, I think.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
I'm gunna skip through all of the responses thus far and just respond to your OP:
An all powerful God could eliminate evil
By definition, yes.
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
By definition, yes.
Evil exists
It does indeed.
therefore God probably does not exist.
Incorrect. This would be correct: "Therefore an all good god probably doesn't exist." Omnibenevolence is a word that is used to attribute an utter lack of evil in a being. A being that utterly lacks evil cannot create evil. Therefore, if a being creates evil, then it is not omnibenevolent.
But the question is - what is evil?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.
Are we speaking of the Christian god? I ask because the Christian god outright claims to be the creator of evil. Observe the following passage:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
So what is evil?
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.
Wrong.
The definition of evil is as follows:
morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED
Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.
The above is defeated by the above definition.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
Nothing you have said thus far supports this claim. Provide a reasonable argument for linking any standard of morality to any god. If anything, the very fact that the Christian god created evil proves that it is below the moral standard. Far below it, in fact.