Evil

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, I'd be apathetic, not evil.

Apathy is just not caring what happens. Evil is wanting harm to be done.



I disagree. Evil requires an intent, a desire for harm. Apathy does not require intent.

Being apathetic does require intent. It is intending not to care. In fact, apathy is one of the worst evils. It is demonstrative of being intentionally callous and uncaring for a fellow human being.

If you were mugged by a mugger and the mugger broke your arm in the process of robbing you and left you for dead in an alley and a man also in the alley saw the whole thing and looked at you while you were lying on the ground screaming for help and writhing in pain and he just slowly walked away as if you did not even exist, I doubt you would say he had done nothing evil.

 

[FireDragon76]

Indifference to suffering and injustice is indeed an evil. Someone who is full of their own pride and the delusion of autonomy and self-sufficiency might not understand this, they think good is whatever they want to do that doesn't "harm" anyone else. The wider implications of their actions, however, are usually not considered.

Again, evil is not the opposite of good, it's the lack of goodness.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No it does not.

Evil is not something that is created at all. You incorrectly assume this.

Rust is not something that is created in the sense that it exists in and of itself like a piece of metal exists.

Rust like evil, is something that happens to something pre-existing and is due to a degrading or breaking-down of the pre-existing object. Rust comes from various degrading solutions/agents acting upon metal. Evil comes from free moral agents (the pre-existing good) who by choice have chosen to malign themselves, thus resulting in the degradation of said good (themselves).

Lucifer was created by God and was good. He was not evil when He was created for God could not create anything evil. He was good until he freely chose to malign himself by going against The One Good who made Him good. Choosing to abandon The Good was the cause of him becoming evil. Evil came into existence as the product of a choice made by a pre-existing good creature to turn away from The Good.

It is like standing in a pitch black room with a bright light shining on you and you are looking into the light. While you are looking into the light, you are illuminated and can see.

But if you choose to turn your back to the light then you are plunged in pitch black darkness and are no longer illuminated.

The light represents the good. The dark the evil. But the dark does not exist on its own or by itself, but only in the ABSENCE of light.

P.S.

If something is all iron it cannot have any rust on it. The minute something that is iron begins to rust, the amount of iron begins to decrease in proportion to the rate of rusting. You cannot have something that has no rust (all iron) and rust on it at the same time.

uh, shadows become ever more apparent with the contrast of light, but anyways an omnipotent being, which so many claim god to be, would know if its creations would one day turn bad, and were this being also to be completely benevolent, it would do something to prevent it, as a truly good being doesn't want the suffering of evil to exist, because when evil exists it doesn't just hurt the person who decides to be evil, but it hurts everyone they come into contact with as well. It might make sense to allow people to be evil should it only hurt them, but what of all the good people who suffer and die as a result, what of the free wills of those people which are violated by the evil people? And if you consider being apathetic towards evil around you to be a form of evil, then god would be the worst offender in the history of all of existence, because unlike people, god could intervene anytime it wanted without risk or effort on its part.

 

[FireDragon76]

You make a lot of assumptions about what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would have to be like.

The Christian God is not at all apathetic to evil... without the eye of faith you might have trouble seeing that though. That argument can go on for hours, it's like trying to tell a blind man about color.

 

[quatona]

You are right. The analogy does not work if you say good is something that happens to evil.

I never said that. You have taken what I have said and reversed it.


Evil is parasitic. It needs good in order to exist. Like a parasite needs a host in order to thrive.


Good is not something that happens to something evil. Rather, evil is something that happens to something Good. Like rust to metal or cancer in an organ. The metal and the organ are what is being maligned by the rust and cancer respectively.

Why, then, did you paint "Can rust exist without metal/cancer without an organ?" as the analogous question when actually "Can metal exist without rust/organs without cancer?" would have been the appropriate analogy?

But, of course, the basic mistake lies in treating "evil" and "good" as existing objects while they are but concepts.
Any action can exist without any other (people can caress each other without the option of slaughtering them). Merely the dichotomic conceptualization "good/evil" requires us to have contrasting ideas.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You make a lot of assumptions about what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would have to be like.

The Christian God is not at all apathetic to evil... without the eye of faith you might have trouble seeing that though. That argument can go on for hours, it's like trying to tell a blind man about color.

Without being told to believe that god is good despite it allowing evil to exist over and over, I am sure any logical person would view something as off.

 

[FireDragon76]

Without being told to believe that god is good despite it allowing evil to exist over and over, I am sure any logical person would view something as off.

You don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or have him as Lord so that is really the whole problem right there. If Jesus Christ were not raised from the dead, the problem of evil would be a lot more daunting for Christians.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or have him as Lord so that is really the whole problem right there. If Jesus Christ were not raised from the dead, the problem of evil would be a lot more daunting for Christians.

Nope, actually Jesus is a great support for god being good as a character in the bible (yes, I can evaluate the morality and evil issue with Jesus included even though I don't think he was the son of any god). Given the context of assuming Jesus was god, this would be one of god's "best" moments as far as being good goes.

However, if god were so obviously good, it shouldn't have to be repeated over and over in the bible, because its actions should be reflective of that good nature. But they aren't.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

but anyways an omnipotent being, which so many claim god to be, would know if its creations would one day turn bad,

You mean omniscient. But yes He would know this before creating them.

and were this being also to be completely benevolent, it would do something to prevent it, as a truly good being doesn't want the suffering of evil to exist, because when evil exists it doesn't just hurt the person who decides to be evil, but it hurts everyone they come into contact with as well. It might make sense to allow people to be evil should it only hurt them, but what of all the good people who suffer and die as a result, what of the free wills of those people which are violated by the evil people? And if you consider being apathetic towards evil around you to be a form of evil, then god would be the worst offender in the history of all of existence, because unlike people, god could intervene anytime it wanted without risk or effort on its part.

you argue that if God is omnibenevolent then He would not create free creatures who He knew beforehand would eventually decide to do evil things.

Now, there are two trains of thought pertinent here. First is the intellectual problem of evil and it concerns how to give a rational explanation of how God and evil can co-exist. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people’s emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering.

I think your objection is more along the lines of the latter. But if it is not, I will address the former to cover all bases.

Now let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem.

First, the logical problem of evil.
Second, the probabilistic problem of evil.

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

The problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. Maybe you object and say that there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil.

Ok, well, what premises do you use to bring out this implicit contradiction? No philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

Actually it is easy to prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You are arguing that the problem of evil presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. In virtue of this it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.


This is why the logical problem of evil is not defended by any prominent non-theists.

Now, if you have all that down, we can move to the probabilistic problem of evil.

 

[FireDragon76]

However, if god were so obviously good, it shouldn't have to be repeated over and over in the bible, because its actions should be reflective of that good nature. But they aren't.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but I'll take a guess... you aware the Bible is a compilation of different kinds of literature spanning thousands of years? I don't pretend the Bible speaks with a univocal voice on all matters, or even most matters. There are very different cultures being addressed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Nope, actually Jesus is a great support for god being good as a character in the bible (yes, I can evaluate the morality and evil issue with Jesus included even though I don't think he was the son of any god). Given the context of assuming Jesus was god, this would be one of god's "best" moments as far as being good goes.

However, if god were so obviously good, it shouldn't have to be repeated over and over in the bible, because its actions should be reflective of that good nature. But they aren't.

How would the Jesus resurrection myth be a point in god's favour? I personalty view it as one of the most immoral sections of the bible, old testament included.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would the Jesus resurrection myth be a point in god's favour? I personalty view it as one of the most immoral sections of the bible, old testament included.

God making an effort to forgive people rather than just destroy them for once.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but I'll take a guess... you aware the Bible is a compilation of different kinds of literature spanning thousands of years? I don't pretend the Bible speaks with a univocal voice on all matters, or even most matters. There are very different cultures being addressed.

There are definitely moments of stealing from other cultures, much of the Old Testament definitely is. However, were god to be obviously good, then what it does should also be obviously good. But flooding the world, having cities destroyed, so many killed for frivolous reasons, such a being doesn't come off as being good by its actions. So, one has to be told that in spite of all the murder, suffering, and loss god commits through its own power, it is still good, because it is god, and for no other reason really other than that.

 

[FireDragon76]

How would the Jesus resurrection myth be a point in god's favour? I personalty view it as one of the most immoral sections of the bible, old testament included.

Christians believe Jesus resurrection destroyed the power of death in our lives for those who believe. It's also part of an eschatological hope: Jesus is the "first-fruits" of a larger resurrection of the dead, renewal of creation, and banishment of evil that will happen in the future consummation of the ages.

 

[Kylie]

Being apathetic does require intent. It is intending not to care. In fact, apathy is one of the worst evils. It is demonstrative of being intentionally callous and uncaring for a fellow human being.

If you were mugged by a mugger and the mugger broke your arm in the process of robbing you and left you for dead in an alley and a man also in the alley saw the whole thing and looked at you while you were lying on the ground screaming for help and writhing in pain and he just slowly walked away as if you did not even exist, I doubt you would say he had done nothing evil.

Well, I'd say that he'd done something far worse if he'd come over to me and started kicking me. I honestly can't understand how not caring is a worse thing that actively trying to make someone's life hard.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, I'd say that he'd done something far worse if he'd come over to me and started kicking me. I honestly can't understand how not caring is a worse thing that actively trying to make someone's life hard.

I don't think he was suggesting it would be worse, only that it would also be an evil act. However, in many situations attempting to intervene can make things worse.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think he was suggesting it would be worse, only that it would also be an evil act. However, in many situations attempting to intervene can make things worse.

If I pass a person begging for money and don't give any, am I evil?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indifference to suffering and injustice is indeed an evil. Someone who is full of their own pride and the delusion of autonomy and self-sufficiency might not understand this, they think good is whatever they want to do that doesn't "harm" anyone else. The wider implications of their actions, however, are usually not considered.

Again, evil is not the opposite of good, it's the lack of goodness.

That's just silly.

The planet Jupiter contains no goodness. Does that make it an evil planet?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I pass a person begging for money and don't give any, am I evil?

No, because actually it is advised that you give people food rather than money, as people might use that money for booze or drugs.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If I pass a person begging for money and don't give any, am I evil?

Depends on why you choose not to give them any.

There is a thought process that dictates whether you give or not.

If you act out of love for the man and do what you do thinking that it will be in his best interest then you have done what is right.