No objective grounding for evil?

[OldWiseGuy]

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Here's the contradictions that you don't say exist.

These are summaries, not contradictions (sorry to butt in, couldn't resist).

 

[Dave Ellis]

These are summaries, not contradictions (sorry to butt in, couldn't resist).

How are they not contradictions? One account says things happened a certain way, the other account says things happened differently.

They are mutually exclusive propositions as well, they can't both be true.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to define "evil" merely as synonymous with "sin", as in human sin.

I define evil more broadly. It is anything that is bad for humans, whether they do it to themselves voluntarily, whether mother nature does it to them, or whether god does it to them.

You are not going to accept my definition of evil.

I am are not going to accept your definition of evil.

OK.

We do not know what is "bad", so, according to you, we will not know what is evil either.

 

[juvenissun]

You made a claim: god did X.
I asked for evidence of said claim.

You do not recognize God, how could I give you any evidence that God creates X? X, for example, the ocean, does exist. Who created it? Not God, right?

If so, what kind of evidence you expect to see?

 

[juvenissun]

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Here's the contradictions that you don't say exist.

It is not new at all. I knew all that.

However, once we go over the details of Gen 1, then all the problems will be resolved.

 

[juvenissun]

Check it out guys. I just proved Zeus exists by defining him into existence!

1. Our understanding of Zeus is a being of which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of Zeus exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If Zeus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than Zeus.
6. Therefore, Zeus exists.

I can prove all the other mythical characters are actually real that way too.

No need for this trouble. You simply say that Zeus exists, I will tentatively accept that.

The hard one for you is: so what?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think folks ridicule what they do not understand. I think cherry taste best..to each their own I suppose.

True. Some do that. Like creationists who ridicule evolution.
Others however, ridicule what is...ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You do not recognize God, how could I give you any evidence that God creates X? X, for example, the ocean, does exist. Who created it? Not God, right?

If so, what kind of evidence you expect to see?

Why do you pretend not to understand my question?

You made a claim.
I asked evidence for said claim.
You repeat the claim.
I again ask evidence for the claim.


If you don't have any evidence and "just believe" the claim, just say so. Don't pretend as if there is something "wrong" with my question.

 

[Steeno7]

True. Some do that. Like creationists who ridicule evolution.
Others however, ridicule what is...ridiculous.

"Some" = you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How are they not contradictions? One account says things happened a certain way, the other account says things happened differently.

They are mutually exclusive propositions as well, they can't both be true.

Such summaries, or recapitulation statements occur throughout the bible. The problem is that of the tense of certain verbs. For example God brought to Adam the animals that he had made previously. The verb 'made' is presented in the present tense even though the event occurred sometime previous. The Hebrew has some idiosyncrasies.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you pretend not to understand my question?

You made a claim.
I asked evidence for said claim.
You repeat the claim.
I again ask evidence for the claim.


If you don't have any evidence and "just believe" the claim, just say so. Don't pretend as if there is something "wrong" with my question.

You can repeat it again. That won't get you anywhere.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We do not know what is "bad", so, according to you, we will not know what is evil either.

I know what is bad "to me". Just as you know what is bad "to you".

 

[JGL53]

I think folks ridicule what they do not understand. I think cherry taste best..to each their own I suppose.

Oh. So it's the cherry flavored Kool-Aid you drank. Well, anything to make the medicine go down, I suppose.

So - someone tell me again how god escapes responsibility for the "evil" free will choices of humans when 1. god created them in the first place and 2. he gave them free will in the second place and 3. being god he KNEW beforehand that would chose wrongly a lot of the time.

The logic just does not follow. As a comparison to make the point:

The father of a baby puts a loaded and cocked gun in his 18 month old baby's crib and then goes to bed. In the middle of the night the baby shoots himself.

When brought up on negligent homicide charges the man defense is "I did not shoot my son. I merely put a loaded gun in his crib. HE shoot himself. I was not even in the room at the time."

Would we accept this man's innocence? I think we would all agree "No. No, we would not."

Same with god. Only, unlike a fallible human, god is all-knowing and all-powerful. His culpability is greater in comparison since the baby's father could have been brain-damaged.

Is god brain-damaged? That would be a good defense. Otherwise no. God does not create humans - no sin or evil. God does not give humans free will - no sin or evil. God gives them free will to try anything but he steps in and stops them from evil at the last second. All works. But god went ahead and did what he KNEW would result in evil. He is thus responsible. Being removed two or three steps does not absolve him from the guilt. Just like with humans.

But since a theistic god is imaginary all the above is a hypothetical based on a previous hypothetical. lol.

 

[Steeno7]

Oh. So it's the cherry flavored Kool-Aid you drank. Well, anything to make the medicine go down, I suppose.

So - someone tell me again how god escapes responsibility for the "evil" free will choices of humans when 1. god created them in the first place and 2. he gave them free will in the second place and 3. being god he KNEW beforehand that would chose wrongly a lot of the time.

The logic just does not follow. As a comparison to make the point:

The father of a baby puts a loaded and cocked gun in his 18 month old baby's crib and then goes to bed. In the middle of the night the baby shoots himself.

When brought up on negligent homicide charges the man defense is "I did not shoot my son. I merely put a loaded gun in his crib. HE shoot himself. I was not even in the room at the time."

Would we accept this man's innocence? I think we would all agree "No. No, we would not."

Same with god. Only, unlike a fallible human, god is all-knowing and all-powerful. His culpability is greater in comparison since the baby's father could have been brain-damaged.

Is god brain-damaged? That would be a good defense. Otherwise no. God does not create humans - no sin or evil. God does not give humans free will - no sin or evil. God gives them free will to try anything but he steps in and stops them from evil at the last second. All works. But god went ahead and did what he KNEW would result in evil. He is thus responsible. Being removed two or three steps does not absolve him from the guilt. Just like with humans.

But since a theistic god is imaginary all the above is a hypothetical based on a previous hypothetical. lol.

You seem to think that evil is a created "thing". Perhaps "someone" can explain to you why it isn't. Also, you seem to think that God knowing choices that will be made means He Himself is the cause of the choice that is made. Perhaps "someone" can also explain to you why He isn't.

But then, since God is only imaginary why would "someone" even bother?

 

[JGL53]

You seem to think that evil is a created "thing". Perhaps "someone" can explain to you why it isn't...?

Evil would be an adjective describing an action.

As for things, in terms of ultimate things, there is only one "thing" - which really isn't a "thing". If any of this is over your head, Google "monism".

....Also, you seem to think that God knowing choices that will be made means He Himself is the cause of the choice that is made. Perhaps "someone" can also explain to you why He isn't...?

Assuming god as omnicreator, he is not the proximal cause of a bad choice made by a human, he is the original or ultimate cause of that choice, since he created the human, thus he is ultimately responsible for the bad or evil choice. If you cannot understand this then perhaps there is a Logic 101 course you can take at some local community college that would clear things up for you. You really don't have to be a university graduate like me to understand simple logic - the community college will do.

...But then, since God is only imaginary why would "someone" even bother?

I enjoy playing the "what if" game. The more abstract the subject matte the better. What's that to you? It's like - if you enjoyed Ping-Pong you would play it - if you didn't you wouldn't.

I enjoy puzzles and such also. Other people may prefer to take their brains out and play with them like a Nerf ball. It's a choice.

 

[Steeno7]

Evil would be an adjective describing an action.

As for things, in terms of ultimate things, there is only one "thing" - which really isn't a "thing". If any of this is over your head, Google "monism".




Assuming god as omnicreator, he is not the proximal cause of a bad choice made by a human, he is the original or ultimate cause of that choice, since he created the human, thus he is ultimately responsible for the bad or evil choice. If you cannot understand this then perhaps there is a Logic 101 course you can take at some local community college that would clear things up for you. You really don't have to be a university graduate like me to understand simple logic - the community college will do.



I enjoy playing the "what if" game. The more abstract the subject matte the better. What's that to you? It's like - if you enjoyed Ping-Pong you would play it - if you didn't you wouldn't.

I enjoy puzzles and such also. Other people may prefer to take their brains out and play with them like a Nerf ball. It's a choice.

Evil is a choice.

God is the essential cause of all things (as the Creator), He is not the culpable cause of evil that is contrary to His character.

 

[JGL53]

Evil is a choice.

God is the essential cause of all things (as the Creator), He is not the culpable cause of evil that is contrary to His character.

Yes, he would be. Logic 101.

Your "beliefs" about the character of god are irrelevant and of no interest to me.

 

[Steeno7]

Yes, he would be. Logic 101.

Your "beliefs" about the character of god are irrelevant and of no interest to me.

Cya.

 

[juvenissun]

I know what is bad "to me". Just as you know what is bad "to you".

That does not work. You do not know what is bad to others.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can repeat it again. That won't get you anywhere.

I know. Because it's painfully obvious that I am asking you for things that you can't provide.