"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[bhsmte]

Credit is better than blame. Gratitude is better than resentment. That should give you a guide to why Christians think the way they do.

I fully understand the motivation behind being more than willing to attribute good things directly to God and then claiming; "who could possibly know the will of God" when bad things happen.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.

Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.

Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.

I was merely pointing to consensus as evidence of an objective standard since you're unable to provide your own evidence of an objective standard. I'm not trying to pick on you here...no one (to my knowledge) has ever provided evidence of an objective moral standard. I was basically throwing you a bone on something that could be considered "evidence" for it...not proof mind you...just evidence.

You would need some sort of evidence, some sort of method for showing it exists....otherwise the whole "I believe an objective moral standard exists" argument is a bunch of hot air. Now, I know you claim you can provide some sort of evidence, or explain what the standard is, or something of that nature...you just can't do it right now. You'll have to forgive the atheists in the room if we're a little skeptical of that claim lol....you're far from the first to make it and if you try, you'll be far from the first to fail.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.

Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.

Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.

I think the problem is you make the assumption that morality is objective/absolute rather than subjective. There is no absolute objective moral standard; it is all subjective. The reason your argument about the speed limit fails is because the speed limit is based upon the law, and the law is objective. That's why you can't compare morality to the law.

Ken

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, and actually, I did point out the problem with it. Would you like to go over that again?

If you're referring to when you said this...

"Morality is conformance with a standard (either relative or absolute). It is necessary that an absolute standard exists, or there is no way to objectively determine "Good" and "Evil". Try it."

That's not a problem. You're saying morality either has a relative or absolute standard. I gave you a relative standard (one's own). I used examples of how this describes how we see morality applied in reality. So what's the problem?

If you're trying to insist that morality is necessarily objective, then why frame your OP to presuppose all responses from non-objective viewpoints?

It would be as if I asked all christians who believe there is no direct evidence of god's existence to give me some evidence of god's existence. Then when they give me some indirect evidence of god's existence... I complain that it "doesn't work" because it's not direct evidence lol. Maybe you'd like to reword your OP?

 

[Ken-1122]

Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?

Boyle's law can be demonstrated; thus it is objective, morality can't; thus it is subjective. That's why your argument fails.

Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.

No, but consensus should at least be a hint of weather or not the claim is objective or subjective.

Ken

 

[selfinflikted]

If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.

I think the point was people can disagree about morality because aside from what a society or culture generally agrees upon, there is no objective standard .

Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.

No, but in the case of morality, it goes a long way. Aside from consensus, can you point to any other source for a moral standard?

Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.

Bad analogy. Speed limits are posted. That's an objective source based on laws. We could argue until the cows come home about a speed limit, but all one needs to do to resolve the argument is point to the speed limit sign.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I think the point was people can disagree about morality because aside from what a society or culture generally agrees upon, there is no objective standard .

Aside from consensus, can you point to any other source for a moral standard?

What if a Christian were to point out the 10 Commandments as an objective moral standard?

 

[selfinflikted]

What if a Christian were to point out the 10 Commandments as an objective moral standard?

Sure, that would work - for Christians. But those are not universal. No morals are. They change from religion to religion, society to society, culture to culture, and from individual to individual.

ETA: The 10 commandments are "objective" in that they are there for all to see, and are not particularly subject to personal interpretation, feelings or emotions, etc.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Sure, that would work - for Christians. But those are not universal. No morals are. They change from religion to religion, society to society, culture to culture, and from individual to individual.

ETA: The 10 commandments are "objective" in that they are there for all to see, and are not particularly subject to personal interpretation, feelings or emotions, etc.

Okay, I see. Objective, but not universal, I suppose. Do you think that if there were some list of objective moral standards that the entire world agreed on - every person would obey it all the time?

 

[bhsmte]

Okay, I see. Objective, but not universal, I suppose. Do you think that if there were some list of objective moral standards that the entire world agreed on - every person would obey it all the time?

Nope, because each person comes up with their own interpretation of the same, based on their life's experiences and their personal psyche.

And of course, even with the 10 commandments, those don't appear to be completely objective either, as there is wiggle room with a commandment such as; thou shall not kill.

 

[selfinflikted]

Okay, I see. Objective, but not universal, I suppose. Do you think that if there were some list of objective moral standards that the entire world agreed on - every person would obey it all the time?

Right. Certainly not absolute, and certainly not universal. If there were a list that everyone agreed on, not every person would obey it all the time. Like I've said previously, we can all pretty much agree that murder is wrong (notice I said "murder" here and not "killing"). But, there are people who still murder. So I don't think it'd ever be possible to get everyone all on the same page all of the time.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Right. Certainly not absolute, and certainly not universal. If there were a list that everyone agreed on, not every person would obey it all the time. Like I've said previously, we can all pretty much agree that murder is wrong (notice I said "murder" here and not "killing"). But, there are people who still murder. So I don't think it'd ever be possible to get everyone all on the same page all of the time.

Yeah...I don't think so either. I find it interesting that you are able to differentiate between "killing" and "murder". Many people don't understand that there is a difference.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah...I don't think so either. I find it interesting that you are able to differentiate between "killing" and "murder". Many people don't understand that there is a difference.

Well, I differentiate because of my experiences in this very forum.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Well, I differentiate because of my experiences in this very forum.

That's awesome. You've been on a journey...so many of us have as well. I really believe this is a great forum for so many reasons. It's like Facebook for intellectuals...LOL

 

[FireDragon76]

Further, the underlying construct to not murder, for example, is simply: humans are a social species. It's how we survive. In groups. Helping and relying on one another. If we went around murdering, stealing, raping, and pillaging, well... we would not have made it thus far.

That's not a satisfying basis for the grounding of individual rights. "For the greater good".

 

[bhsmte]

That's not a satisfying basis for the grounding of individual rights. "For the greater good".

Why not?

 

[selfinflikted]

That's awesome. You've been on a journey...so many of us have as well. I really believe this is a great forum for so many reasons. It's like Facebook for intellectuals...LOL

You're relatively new here. So after you've been here a while, I'll give you a chance to amend that statement!

 

[selfinflikted]

That's not a satisfying basis for the grounding of individual rights. "For the greater good".

Why not?

Yea, why not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What if a Christian were to point out the 10 Commandments as an objective moral standard?

I would think they fall a little short of an "objective standard" by which one can establish that a particular action is evil or good. For example...rape...where does that fall according to the ten commandments?

This one example illustrates the larger problem of trying to claim an objective standard exists...in order to encompass infinite numbers of actions/behaviors, the standard itself must be infinitely long.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

You're relatively new here. So after you've been here a while, I'll give you a chance to amend that statement!

UGH!! Yes, there are some exceptions...

But I think there are some truly brilliant minds on here as well; both believer and non.