Why does God not stop the evil?

[Elioenai26]

How does that work? Why does me stating my opinion on the matter make it an OBJECTIVE statement?

I did not say that stating your opinion makes the statment objective. You just misunderstand how the word objective is used in moral discussions.

The word objective is a versatile word, meaning it can have several different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. For example:

1. The objective or intent of our discussion is to determine whether or not objective or mind independent moral values and duties exist. In dealing with this issue, we must be objective or not prejudiced in examining the evidence for the existence of these values and duties.

There are four different ways the dictionary tells us this word can be used as an adjective:

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.


3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).

4. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. Dictionary.com

Tiberius, when this word is used in moral discussions in philosophy, the word refers to something independent of the human mind. The object of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, and prejudices. Objective moral values are therefore discovered, not invented. This is the philosophical understanding and usage of the term.

So when you ask me, "how does stating my opinion make the statement objective" you misunderstood me to be referring to the totality of your statement or sentence. What you fail to understand is I was referring specifically to the proposition "it is wrong for Tim to rape Dave even though Tim thinks it is right" which is what is termed as the "truth bearer proposition" of your sentence. The truth-bearer component of a sentence is either true or false. The truth bearer is not a sentence or statement (as you thought it was) but it is merely a proposition or the "content" of a sentence.

For example the proposition: "Snow is white" is either true or false and its truthfulness is based on its "truth-maker". To put it simply, a truth-maker is what tells us if the proposition "Snow is white" is true. And the prop. is true just in case a specific fact (truth-maker) namely, snow's being white, actually obtains in the real world. So Tiberius, if you have the thought that snow is white, the specific state of affairs (snow actually being white) makes the propositional content of your thought true just in case the state of affairs is actually the way the proposition represents it to be. The snow's being white makes your thought true even if you are blind and canot tell whether or not it is true, and even if you do not believe that thought, it still is true. In other words, reality makes thoughts true or not true. A thought is not made true by you believing it or even by you being able to determine whether or not it is true. A thought is made true by whether or not it correlates to the actual sate of affairs.

Therefore, in your statement which contains the truth bearer proposition: "it is wrong for Tim to rape Dave even though Tim thinks it is right", the truthfulness of this statment is determined by whether or not the proposition correlates or corresponds to an actual state of affairs (fact in layman's terms) in the real world. The statement is true if it corresponds to or obtains in the real world. If a sociopathic rapist uttered the statement, then even though he does not believe rape is wrong, it is still wrong because the truthfulness of the proposition: "rape is wrong" is not dependent on his subjective opinion, but rather, DOES THE PROPOSITION CORRESPOND TO AN ACTUAL FACT IN THE REAL WORLD?

This should clear up the confusion on why a statment of one's view or opinion can contain a truth bearing proposition which is objectively true.

I will give you one more example to illustrate this fact.

A college professor tells his class that: "It is my view/opinion that the earth is round." The professor is the one speaking and thus it is his own view, but what makes the sentence true is not the fact that it is his own view, but rather that his proposition: "the earth is round", is an objective fact. You have in the same sentence, a subjective view, which includes or is composed of a truth bearing proposition which appeals to an objective fact, namely, the shape of the earth being round.

Understand now? It can be summed up by saying that the proposition within your sentence is the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ). Dictionary.com

Am I the one who decides what objective morality is? No? Then why should my opinion on the matter ever be taken as an objective statement? I am saying that it is my opinion that Dave is wrong to rape Tim. In Dave's opinion, it is right to rape Tim, which is why he is doing it in the first place.

You do not have to be the one deciding what morality is to make a true statement about moral values and duties. That would be like saying scientists have to be the ones to make or invent the laws of nature before they can make objective statments about the laws of nature! This thinking is a form of the logical fallacy termed as a non-sequitur.

Your view on the matter should be taken as a true statment if and only if it actually corresponds to an actual state of affairs in the real world. It being your opinion has nothing to do at all with whether or not something is true! Tiberius, truth is NOT DETERMINED BY OUR OPINIONS! Do you understand this simple concept? Truth is. Truth is discovered, not invented. Do you understand?

it is not an objective statement. it is a subjective statement. The fact that the vast majority of people alive would claim it is wrong doesn't make it objective. Objective things are not decided by a majority vote.

Where have I said that majority vote determines what is objective? This is a strawman because I have never once said this while posting in this forum.

 

[Loudmouth]

False dichotomy. Ever heard of higher principles being involved? No, you'd have to look up to see that.

Ever heard of a double standard?

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet no matter what info is presented to you you ignore in and return to your folly.

You haven't shown that it is a folly.

Is an omnipotent God capable of stopping evil without requiring other humans to commit genocide? Yes or no?

 

[seeking Christ]

You haven't shown that it is a folly.

Of course I have, and here you are returning to it:

Is an omnipotent God capable of stopping evil without requiring other humans to commit genocide? Yes or no?

I will not deal in your falsehoods, and this is something that has been addressed numerous times already. You seem to be content to discuss make believe, but the rest of us are constrained by reality.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Of course I have, and here you are returning to it:



I will not deal in your falsehoods, and this is something that has been addressed numerous times already. You seem to be content to discuss make believe, but the rest of us are constrained by reality.

Could you answer his question?

 

[Loudmouth]

I will not deal in your falsehoods, and this is something that has been addressed numerous times already. You seem to be content to discuss make believe, but the rest of us are constrained by reality.

Is it a falsehood that God is omnipotent? What exactly is the falsehood you are speaking of?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Is it a falsehood that God is omnipotent? What exactly is the falsehood you are speaking of?

It sounds like his approach might be the "his was are higher than our ways," POV.

 

[seeking Christ]

Again, I've addressed this repeatedly with ya, LM. Omnipotence is not to be found in Scripture, its a falsehood tacked on to it, or else re-defined and qualified so much as to no longer mean what the word indicates. I think there are enough Scriptural terms / words / concepts that are difficult, without needing to lengthen that list intentionally.

The Bible speaks of a God who is "Most High," meaning more powerful than any other.

Taking that into account, your question is not one I can even address, let alone answer. It should also change your approach to our topic under discussion here. This is only one factor that requires you to do that; account for all of them and you'll probably start to see what the stories are trying to convey. Why would that be a bad thing? It won't turn you into a Christian, I promise! (Prolly not a newt, either)

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, I've addressed this repeatedly with ya, LM. Omnipotence is not to be found in Scripture, its a falsehood tacked on to it, or else re-defined and qualified so much as to no longer mean what the word indicates. I think there are enough Scriptural terms / words / concepts that are difficult, without needing to lengthen that list intentionally.

Ok, I am glad we cleared that up. So God is so powerful as to create a universe, but incapable of stopping evil except through genocide. Those things just don't match up, at least in my view.

The Bible speaks of a God who is "Most High," meaning more powerful than any other.

Taking that into account, your question is not one I can even address, let alone answer. It should also change your approach to our topic under discussion here. This is only one factor that requires you to do that; account for all of them and you'll probably start to see what the stories are trying to convey. Why would that be a bad thing? It won't turn you into a Christian, I promise! (Prolly not a newt, either)

I am sure that the Amalekites thought the same of their deity, and were following that deity's edicts thinking that they were stopping evil as well.

 

[seeking Christ]

Ok, I am glad we cleared that up. So God is so powerful as to create a universe, but incapable of stopping evil except through genocide. Those things just don't match up, at least in my view.

Only because you're obstinately not paying attention: God GAVE man dominion. That means He no longer has it, because He GAVE it away. To us. So if anything is going to get done around here (on Earth) its going to be US doing it, not Him. And yes, this is upheld in every miracle of the Bible, you've just never looked at it that way, and missed the point. And here we are.

God is so powerful as to be able to do that. That matches up perfectly, whether you happen to like it or not. In fact a great many people, Christians included, DON'T like the scenario nor its ramifications. Its till what the Bible tells us, and it still jibes with reality as we find ourselves in it. And it is very much at the root of theodicy.

I am sure that the Amalekites thought the same of their deity, and were following that deity's edicts thinking that they were stopping evil as well.

There is no way you can assign any such thing to them. Firstly, there is no record of any such people, so all your fussing over this supposed genocide is a flight of your fancy to begin with. Second, you can't possibly look at their actions as described in the story, and conclude they were up to any good.

So you're just covered in fail here.

 

[Elioenai26]

Okay, I'm glad that we are in agreement on this, but I don't know what sort of self-evidency you are referring to if you don't mean an emotional reaction -- a feeling of wrongness -- in response to some atrocity.

Philosophers do not consider moral intuition, cognitive reasoning processes and assimilation of information via the five senses to be reducible to, or ultimately emotional reactions. Emotions may influence the above, but they are not those things I listed above. A person should have a feeling of sympathy for a woman who has been raped of course, but I do not appeal to emotion, and never have, as an argument for objective moral values and duties being self evident.

Okay, but you may find that the intuitions, beliefs, thoughts, and views of others aren't necessarily like yours. You are having serious problems with the moral subjectivists because they see things so very differently than you.

That may be true Mark, but guess what?

Mark, if I present the moral argument to anyone, and when discussing premise (2), I ask them:

"Was it wrong for Jeffrey Dahmer to murder little boys and eat them, even though he enjoyed how they tasted?"

And they respond by saying: "Well uhh...well...uhh, I uhh.. well, I cannot say he was objectively wrong because he liked doing it.

Do you know what I am going to say to that person? Do you get my point? If a person, when asked a question like this, is unable to say yes, yes it is wrong, and yes he was wrong even if he liked doing it, then this person is no different than Jeffrey Dahmer. This person has lost that which makes him human. He has lost his conscience. He has no concept of the sanctity and value of life. This person is at the very least, nihilistic and sociopathic. And if a person would rather be seen as sociopathic instead of affirming the premise in an argument for the existence of God, then I will not try to convince such a person of anything. They are beyond reason and rationality.

They are, however, as Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky saw, the products of a godless view of reality. For after all, as Dawkins put it, when people act this way, they are simply dancing to their DNA!

This is why the moral argument is the best single piece of philosophical evidence that I know of for the existence of God.

I agree that all of those things are self-evident. However, that doesn't mean that it is self-evident that morality has an objective basis.

See above.

Example: it is self-evident to one person that homosexual activity is morally wrong. It is just as self-evident to another person that homosexual activity is morally acceptable, at least for homosexuals.

And this example fails because it assumes that in order for objective moral values and duties to be self-evident, there must be a unanimous consensus regarding certain sexual practices. This is a non-sequitur. A divergence in sexual practice does nothing to diminish the warrant for maintaining that both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike hold that it is right and good to express their love to those whom they love. The divergence is in how this objective moral value is practiced or applied. And I am sure you know, divergence in applied ethical practices can not be used as an argument against the self-evident wrongness certain acts such as child molestation, or the kidnapping of young boys to murder them and eat their body parts.

I would agree that in your list of self-evidencies above, if someone were to find it self-evident that the external world is not real, I would doubt that person's sanity. I would not do so for the individual on either side of the homosexuality issue.

If homosexuality were the only ethical issue we had to deal with, then you would have a stronger case. But there are numerous evils that are self-evidently objectively wrong Mark, why maximize focus on one issue at the expense of all the numerous other one's which are so clear?

And if there are moral issues like that, I don't see how you will find any that have the sort of guaranteed self-evidency that you need to clinch your case.

This is a non-sequitur.

You are saying that because issues like homosexuality are difficult ethical issues, that therefore NO objective moral values and duties are self-evident. This is clearly fallacious. Does the nature of homosexuality in moral discussion preclude the rape of children from being self-evidently wrong? Of course not!

 

[Loudmouth]

Only because you're obstinately not paying attention: God GAVE man dominion. That means He no longer has it, because He GAVE it away.

Why does this result in God commanding genocide?

There is no way you can assign any such thing to them. Firstly, there is no record of any such people, so all your fussing over this supposed genocide is a flight of your fancy to begin with. Second, you can't possibly look at their actions as described in the story, and conclude they were up to any good.

So you're just covered in fail here.

So would they have been a moral people if their god had commanded them to perform human sacrifices in the name of preventing evil?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Again, I've addressed this repeatedly with ya, LM. Omnipotence is not to be found in Scripture, its a falsehood tacked on to it, or else re-defined and qualified so much as to no longer mean what the word indicates. I think there are enough Scriptural terms / words / concepts that are difficult, without needing to lengthen that list intentionally.

The Bible speaks of a God who is "Most High," meaning more powerful than any other.

Taking that into account, your question is not one I can even address, let alone answer. It should also change your approach to our topic under discussion here. This is only one factor that requires you to do that; account for all of them and you'll probably start to see what the stories are trying to convey. Why would that be a bad thing? It won't turn you into a Christian, I promise! (Prolly not a newt, either)

So your god is not omnipotent, he's (male, yes?) just the best god to have created himself?

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure what position he's taking, but the difference between possible and permissable can be seen here:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:12) All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

Rephrase that as all things are possible for me, but not all things are permissable, and you have the basic gist. Aren't you one of the people telling me you know all this stuff because you used to experience God just like we do?

No. I don't know where you got that from.

So, in what way is genocide and child rape not permissible, if those that commit such acts can still enter this theoretical heaven?

 

[seeking Christ]

Why does this result in God commanding genocide?

Ok now you're back on a productive tack. Difficult issue, is it not? How many more factors do we need to identify and straighten out before you can understand this?

Lets address this one: genocide is an anachronism. The connotations and even dictionary definition we have today, was not the intent then.

So far we have God intentionally limiting His power by giving His dominion away, to us (heckuva responsibility, eh?) God Himself personally finding reproach for any possible solution, and -

several other compounding factors we haven't even begun to address yet.

You opened this can of worms, are you sure you really want to chew your way through it? There's a LOT to consider here, but the basic point is to immerse an ancient people in very classic moral dilemma. One thing you can't ignore is there is NO physical evidence to confirm any of this ever happened, and all evidence we do have suggests nothing like this ever happened. You also can't ignore that regardless how many different ways a Christian may look at this, these are Jewish stories and they teach that God never commanded any of it. I don't find that to be a final answer for me, but
you might be content with it?

So would they have been a moral people if their god had commanded them to perform human sacrifices in the name of preventing evil?

There's a catch phrase, "in the name of." What does it really mean, or is it just meaningless? I posit that in this case, it would be meaningless. The actual substance would have to change, and if it had, there wouldn't be the dilemma you're asking about.

By the way, why didn't you address the post where I compared these unholy Priests to Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook? I think that's really the answer for this particular gory story.

 

[seeking Christ]

So your god is not omnipotent, he's (male, yes?) just the best god to have created himself?

Actually the male representations aren't the oldest; those are uni-plural and omni-sexual. I think patriarchy developed out of that, and any need for a patriarchal society is long obsolete.

Now, "created Himself;" there's a brain twister!

The self-sufficiency of God is a defining characteristic, and there's LOTS written on that topic. I will say that He intentionally chose what things to be, and this is also a defining nature of God, and I think it also clues us into that phrase "made in His image, and in His likeness." Some would disagree, and that's fine.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sorry but an attitude like that is simply not civil. What do you think would happen if you went around speaking to people like that IRL? Then why do that here?

Uncivil? What's uncivil about it. If I am engaged in a debate with someone in real life who is disingenuously dodging questions that are asked of them, I would call them out on it as I am doing to you.... Especially if they start asserting fallacies where no fallacy is present, or attacking me to try to deflect the question.

You are thoroughly capable of using your noggin to see what I objected to. There is only one way your comment could have been a strawman, and if you're not willing to apply yourself, conversation is pointless.

Will you cut the melodramatic crap and answer a question for once?

A strawman fallacy would include me making a misrepresentation of your argument, and then attacking the misrepresentation. You stated that god ordered the genocides to stop evil, and I asked you some direct questions on this matter that seemingly conflict with the idea of a moral loving god. I'm asking you how do you justify those discrepancies.

I don't know if you simply don't understand what a strawman is, and you are misapplying the term as a result, or if you know what a strawman is and you are purposefully misusing the term, however the fact remains there is no strawman fallacy present in my post.

If there is, feel free to point out my misrepresentation and clarify how it is a misrepresentation, and I will be happy to alter, concede or withdraw my argument and apologize.

Keep in mind, if you are not able to point out the strawman, I do expect an apology for the ad hominem.

This is not a violation of our free will. I have told you that already. If you wish to posit intelligence, you're going to have to do a better job of listening; thinking, too. It goes with the turf.

The reasoning you gave me I rejected and pointed out why your reasoning does not logically follow.

If man has dominion over the earth up until the time he dies, then it is clearly a violation of his dominion and therefore free will to kill him due to his actions. In fact, an argument could also be made that god has no right to judge the actions of someone doing something in his own dominion even upon death. He would only be justified in judging people for actions committed after death when they are in gods dominion.

Anytime you wish to cease creating strawmen and start having an honest conversation, go right ahead.

So says the guy who refuses to answer questions asked of him... Unfortunately sir, you have absolutely no right to lecture on honest conversation. You clearly have no interest in discussing things that challenge your beliefs honestly. If you did, you would answer questions rather than deflect them and attack the person asking the question instead.

Since you obviously need even the most basic things spelled out for you, you are creating concepts that don't exist: morality is a human construct, God plainly says He is not all powerful, and all loving is obviously false. What next, the "omni-benevolence" tripe?

When did I state that the god character is not described as all powerful or all loving? I'm not arguing that's how the vast majority of Christians view him, and in fact my argument heavily uses that very definition of god.

That is why the actions attributed to him in the bible make no sense. What kind of all powerful, all loving being orders a genocide? I've asked you to justify that, and so far you have refused to answer.

As for morality, all evidence shows it is a human construct... Do you have evidence that demonstrates there's something more to it?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No it does not. That god's purpose was creating evil, sacrificing their infants in the fire. Can you even imagine? Baby BBQ.

This was one of the main distinctions between the God of the Israelites and the gods of the surrounding tribes, btw.

Ah, I see.... so the undoubtedly immoral act of human sacrifice was made right by the righteous, holy and moral act of genocide.

Also, if you have a problem with Human Sacrifice, then why do you follow a religion built around one? It may have gone over your head, but you may notice that Jesus himself was a human sacrifice designed to pay for your sins.

In short, I don't see much difference between your God and theirs...

 

[Dave Ellis]

You base your decision upon paper thin non-arguments, and not having information. Don't let me stop you, but it is not a recommended way of arriving at good decisions.

Just out of curiosity... Do you use the same dismissive response for everyone that raises a point that you can't refute?

Just so you know, until you can refute the point, then the point stands. Your refusal to address the point doesn't mean it goes away, it just makes your argument look weaker.

 

[seeking Christ]

No. I don't know where you got that from.

Ok glad I asked it as a question. So you have never been a Christian then?

So, in what way is genocide and child rape not permissible, if those that commit such acts can still enter this theoretical heaven?

Now there is a tough question! Not sure I can address that one without just making it even more confusing than it already is. Can I ask if anyone here would ever do either one, and if not that the question isn't applicable?