The Problem of Evil

[abacabb3]

He admitted agreeing with me on one point, but hasn't addressed it since...

What point is this? I thought I addressed and refuted every positive assertion made. I think a lot of you guys aren't noticing that you simply repeat the same positive assertion in response to my counter argument, instead of addressing the counter argument.

I almost feel like I am talking to a church of Epicurus-thumpers who can't think critically, and if you question their Holy Book, they merely repeat back to you what their prophet Epicurus says and add nothing new to the conversation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What point is this? I thought I addressed and refuted every positive assertion made. I think a lot of you guys aren't noticing that you simply repeat the same positive assertion in response to my counter argument, instead of addressing the counter argument.

I almost feel like I am talking to a church of Epicurus-thumpers who can't think critically, and if you question their Holy Book, they merely repeat back to you what their prophet Epicurus says and add nothing new to the conversation.

But you never made a counter argument with what I said, you just sort of agreed with me and moved on, so I had nothing further to debate about that other people weren't already said or had not already said.

 

[abacabb3]

But you never made a counter argument with what I said, you just sort of agreed with me and moved on, so I had nothing further to debate about that other people weren't already said or had not already said.

Do you think I am trying to avoid agreeing with anyone here? What did I agree with???

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oops, sorry, mistook this for a similar thread, my bad XD

 

[abacabb3]

Oops, sorry, mistook this for a similar thread, my bad XD

NP

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, your counter argument is simply reiterating the same argument.

Yes, the same argument you still refuse to face up to. Your counter argument is to simply ignore it, and then claim that no one can use the creation to determine things about the creator.

You are yet to address my argument to begin with, which is, that your method of determining characteristics of a creator from a creation is applicable to any other created object.

I have shown that it is applicable to our creation and the creator that christians describe. Why don't you actually address it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which argument, Epicurus'? I offered my counter argument to Epicurus,

Your counter argument is "I'm just going to ignore it."

No, but are you saying a good parent would never use any negative reinforcement whatsoever with a child?

Would a good parent use years of pain followed by death as negative reinforcement? Even more, would a parent do this to a child because of something their great-grandparents did?

This presumes a mere disciplinary reason for the existence of evil. You are yet to even address how present evil can serve future good purposes, and because you don't have perfect knowledge of the future, you cannot counter this.

An all powerful and all knowing deity could find a way to use good in order to get the same outcome.

In your opinion. I think a good deity allows there to be a controlled, degree of evil. Why are you right and I'm wrong? How can you definitively prove me wrong?

By definition, an all powerful and all knowing deity could produce a world without evil. Any evil that is in the world is there by the choice of an all powerful deity. Such a creator would be immoral.

Your definition of "good" and "moral" is not only anthropocentric, but likely Eurocentric. My cats don't have any view or morality (at least I think) but they have a much different view of what is good and what isn't. So, you are telling me that a being above us could not possibly have a different view of what is good and moral than us?

Cats are not moral agents. We are.

That to me is a very poor viewpoint and any true atheist would denounce it, because a true atheist would understand that creation does not revolve around the created, or humans in any particular way.

I am talking about the claims of christians. The deity they describe would need to be immoral in order to create the world we live in.

What kind of evidence is that? I think a good and omnipotent God should allow evil for a time. Why am I wrong and you are right?

If you can't understand why evil is immoral, then there is no need to go further.

And again, without perfect knowledge of the future nor perfect knowledge of what is "good" and "moral," you cannot be confident in such claims.

Do you know what the definition of omnipotent is?

Yay, at least we have a bad attempt here! Finger prints on a pot? What does that prove to me about the potter's nature? That he probably had fingers, I suppose. Oh yeah, he is a potter, being that he made a pot.

But what does that tell me about the potter's nature? Nothing. Does it even tell me why he made the pot? No.

It does tell you about the nature of the potter. First, they are human. You can also tell by the glaze whether it is meant for decorative or pragmatic purposes.

We could also look at land mines. We know from their design and placement that the nature of the creator and those who planted it are trying to indiscriminately kill people who move across that area. We also know that such indiscrimante killing is immoral, so we understand that they are capable of immoral actions.

Can I just look at nature and accurately tell you the nature of the creator? No.

I can, and have.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, the same argument you still refuse to face up to. Your counter argument is to simply ignore it, and then claim that no one can use the creation to determine things about the creator.

You just listed my argument and still didn't answer to it. Ironic. Anyone's heads spinning yet?

I have shown that it is applicable to our creation and the creator that christians describe. Why don't you actually address it.

Read the next post.

 

[Loudmouth]

You just listed my argument and still didn't answer to it. Ironic. Anyone's heads spinning yet?

I did answer it. My example of a creation that can be used to determine the nature of the creator is the world we live in. That is the example.

 

[abacabb3]

I did answer it. My example of a creation that can be used to determine the nature of the creator is the world we live in. That is the example.

What created thing would that be?

 

[Loudmouth]

What created thing would that be?

The universe around you.

 

[abacabb3]

Would a good parent use years of pain followed by death as negative reinforcement?

Well, being that you are fond of such an extreme example, let me try one. A kid steals a cookie, so would it be right for the parent to make the child sit in the corner for ten minutes? Sure, you say. So, the same child then punches his sister in the face. Would it be right to spank him? Sure, you say. The same child keeps punching his sister in the face, would it be right to send him to reform school? Sure, you say. The same child leaves reformed school and he becomes a mugger, hitting old ladies over the head to steal their pocket books, would it be right to disown him and call the cops on him? Sure, you say. The same child becomes a serial killer and you know who he's going to kill next, and the only way to stop him in time is to call the cops. You know your kid, he's going to go out in a blaze of glory. Is it right to calls the cops though he will probably get killed as a result?

Again, an extreme example. Further, the "fairness" of God's punishments would be a separate debate. Bu it shows that you rhetorical question can be answered in the affirmative.

Further, you question presupposes that evil is always retributive in nature. That is not my position, because I believe that presupposes an anthropocentric view of the universe. None of us are crying if a plague breaks out and kills all the poisonous snakes in the world. Why? Because we don't live in a serpent-centric universe. So, if evil befalls humans, how do we know if that is even technically "bad" unless we have an anthropocentric universe. I would think an atheist is at essence a materialist, just like Epicurus, and if that is the case that discounts an anthropocentric view of the universe anyway which makes the issue of evil non-existent.

Even more, would a parent do this to a child because of something their great-grandparents did?

I don't know what religion teaches that,

An all powerful and all knowing deity could find a way to use good in order to get the same outcome.

Actually, that's not true. Forgiveness is a good thing, correct? If nothing ever occurred that required forgiveness, then forgiveness would never exist, and that would be bad.

This isn't pie in the sky stuff. Anyone who has kids or is married sees this on a daily basis. I think only a fool wishes away all his difficulties, though I am inclined to agree with you, no evil feels good when it is happening.

However, then you would need to demonstrate the existence of arbitrary evil, which you cannot, because you don't have perfect knowledge of the future. Can you disprove this point?

By definition, an all powerful and all knowing deity could produce a world without evil.

Not true. If good to exists in its maximum extent, a measure of evil is necessary, then the deity would have to allow for evil or it would not be living up to its billing. So, your argument here is incorrect.

Any evil that is in the world is there by the choice of an all powerful deity. Such a creator would be immoral.

Why is your opinion right? Can you prove it? My opinion is that we need some evil for there to be true good in the eyes of the One that knows what true goodness is in its fullness.

Does man even have the capacity to truly know what is best? How do you know what you think to be good is even good at all?

Cats are not moral agents. We are.

Why are we moral agents? Can you prove that? Because we know right and wrong?

I am talking about the claims of christians. The deity they describe would need to be immoral in order to create the world we live in.

Christians don't believe the universe is centered around man, but Epicureans do, because their whole argument does not make sense apart from an anthropocentric universe.

If you can't understand why evil is immoral, then there is no need to go further.

Why are you getting frustrated? Unless you can logically prove the absence of evil at all times for all time is preferable to its partial existence, I don't think you are expounding an intellectually defensible position.

Do you know what the definition of omnipotent is?

Do you know what omniscience is? I presume you do and that you are not omniscient. That means, you don't have perfect knowledge of the future. So, you are trying to make a truth statement based upon the totality of history (evil in the present is bad and amounts to nothing good) without knowledge of the future. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

It does tell you about the nature of the potter. First, they are human.

Or, someone chopped someone's hands off and put their finger prints on it. Or that we are misinterpreting something as finger prints and it is actually something else. Your conclusion is not 100% provable.

Heck, if all life ever has evolved out of much, with all of its intricacies, why can't I postulate the possibility that the pot arbitrarily came together with finger print marks on it, but it is actually a result of chaos.

So, you actually cannot definitively reach the conclusion you just reached there, if you are to be consistent.

You can also tell by the glaze whether it is meant for decorative or pragmatic purposes.

No, not really. The glaze might prevent weathering and aesthetics are not its purpose. So again, as I said before, created objects don't lend us the ability to determine with confidence the nature and intentions of their respective creators.

We could also look at land mines. We know from their design and placement that the nature of the creator and those who planted it are trying to indiscriminately kill people who move across that area.

Again, being that biological organisms are much more complicated than land mines, and you believe that they evolved arbitrarily, how can I possible reach that conclusion with 100% confidence? Maybe the land mine was made for fun?

Look at a m80. One guy might think it was built for useful demolition purposes. In reality, it is made for stupid kids to make loud noises.

So, you are making a positive assertion about God's nature, but in reality, you may think you are probably right but you don't have any discernible degree of certainty.

I can, and have.

Actually, I disproved your conjecture.

 

[abacabb3]

The universe around you.

You didn't prove that example. There is nothing created within that universe that can accurately reflect to us the nature of their respective creators.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You didn't prove that example. There is nothing created within that universe that can accurately reflect to us the nature of their respective creators.

So basically, admitting that having any knowledge of god is impossible.

 

[abacabb3]

So basically, admitting that having any knowledge of god is impossible.

By conventional means, yes. I don't disagree with that. Has anyone met the guy where we can say anything about Him that would be actually true?

 

[PsychoSarah]

By conventional means, yes. I don't disagree with that. Has anyone met the guy where we can say anything about Him that would be actually true?

I'd say no. For all we know god is genderless too.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is nothing created within that universe that can accurately reflect to us the nature of their respective creators.

Do you have something in addition to just flat denial? You know, something approaching an argument?

Well, being that you are fond of such an extreme example, let me try one. A kid steals a cookie, so would it be right for the parent to make the child sit in the corner for ten minutes? Sure, you say. So, the same child then punches his sister in the face. Would it be right to spank him? Sure, you say. The same child keeps punching his sister in the face, would it be right to send him to reform school? Sure, you say. The same child leaves reformed school and he becomes a mugger, hitting old ladies over the head to steal their pocket books, would it be right to disown him and call the cops on him? Sure, you say. The same child becomes a serial killer and you know who he's going to kill next, and the only way to stop him in time is to call the cops. You know your kid, he's going to go out in a blaze of glory. Is it right to calls the cops though he will probably get killed as a result?

Are you telling me that as an all powerful and all knowing deity that you can't come up with a better solution that does not involve killing a child, and that prevents them from becoming a serial killer?

Are you saying that God is as helpless to stop evil as humans are?

I don't know what religion teaches that,

You are unaware that christian theology teaches that pain and death entered the world because of what Adam and Eve did? According to many christians, children suffer and die from painful diseases because of what their ancestors did.

Actually, that's not true. Forgiveness is a good thing, correct? If nothing ever occurred that required forgiveness, then forgiveness would never exist, and that would be bad.

Good is a good thing. Bad is a bad thing. I don't understand why this is such a tough concept.

Not true. If good to exists in its maximum extent, a measure of evil is necessary, then the deity would have to allow for evil or it would not be living up to its billing. So, your argument here is incorrect.

Sorry, but this is completely made up to make it appear as if you have an answer.

Will Heaven have evil in it?

Why are we moral agents? Can you prove that? Because we know right and wrong?

It would be pretty bad if we weren't moral agents since we are sending people to jail because they supposedly should know the difference between right and wrong.

Christians don't believe the universe is centered around man, . . .

Baloney. That doesn't even pass the smell test.

but Epicureans do, because their whole argument does not make sense apart from an anthropocentric universe.

The whole point of the Epicurean argument is that we aren't the center of the universe.

Again, being that biological organisms are much more complicated than land mines, and you believe that they evolved arbitrarily, how can I possible reach that conclusion with 100% confidence? Maybe the land mine was made for fun?

Notice how you completely avoid the argument.

 

[abacabb3]

I'd say no.

So, then, you agree we really don't know by any evidence or logic if He is good or evil.

 

[abacabb3]

Do you have something in addition to just flat denial? You know, something approaching an argument?

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. I have disproved each of your examples. So, that's not denial. You're the one in denial if you persist making a positive claim, but finding all your reasons easily disproved, continue making it anyway.

Are you telling me that as an all powerful and all knowing deity that you can't come up with a better solution that does not involve killing a child, and that prevents them from becoming a serial killer?

You missed the whole point. You claimed there was absolutely no circumstance where killing a child can be justified. That's an outrageous claim, to compare God to such an example. But it's okay if you did, because I can make an equally outrageous example and show you to be wrong.

Are you saying that God is as helpless to stop evil as humans are?

What are you even arguing at this point? My whole position is that evil exists, and God does not want to stop it, but that does not make Him evil. Now, you would have to demonstrate that this somehow makes God evil. Problem is, you haven't done so in a logically consistent matter.

You are unaware that christian theology teaches that pain and death entered the world because of what Adam and Eve did?

Yes, sin entered the world then, but evil preceded them. Satan was evil and he preceded Adam and Eve. However, this is going beyond the parameters of Epicurean discussion. I cannot demonstrate to you that the Adam and Eve story is true anymore than you can demonstrate that evil being a part of creation means that we with in an anthropocentric universe in which this means that God has failed mankind in some significant way making him stupid, weak, or evil.

According to many christians, children suffer and die from painful diseases because of what their ancestors did.

Again, this is a different argument, which we can have, but it is outside of the parameters in which we can logically argue based upon observable phenomena.

Good is a good thing. Bad is a bad thing. I don't understand why this is such a tough concept.

And forgiveness is a good thing. Would existence be as good if it lacked good things?

Sorry, but this is completely made up to make it appear as if you have an answer.

Again, I don't need to even provide an answer because I am not making a positive claim about God. All I need to do is demonstrate that your logic is faulty or conclusions unnecessary, and I have proved my point.

Will Heaven have evil in it?

I'll let you know when I'm there, but if you want an argument on Christian theology, that's a different topic. We are speaking philosophically.

It would be pretty bad if we weren't moral agents since we are sending people to jail because they supposedly should know the difference between right and wrong.

But what constitutes being a moral agent, knowing right or wrong? I can assure you animals know when they are doing wrong things. They hide things when they are doing something wrong for example and they do "good" things, such as groom one another. I am not saying they have a very profound understanding of right and wrong, however, but they know and don't care that much about it (being that they are dumb animals).

So, if there are lower or higher intelligences, unless we are the greatest possible intelligence, our comprehension of good and evil is incomplete and flawed.

Baloney. That doesn't even pass the smell test.

Hmmm, who we are going to trust on this, the atheist or the Christian?

Christian theology teaches that the universe is God-centric, that God does things for His own Name's sake. So, to me, to grade God on His job at being God by measuring how great a job He is doing at being nice to humans would be ludicrous, because the universe does not revolve around any created object.

The whole point of the Epicurean argument is that we aren't the center of the universe.

Yet, the only way it can be applied in which to make God evil/weak/stupid is to presume an anthropocentric view of the universe, which is obviously faulty. Faulty premise means a faulty conclusion.

Notice how you completely avoid the argument.

Actually, I addressed it completely by showing it can be demonstrated that even a landmine does not necessarily reflect the nature of its creator. In fact, I prove your own hypocrisy, because if you were to apply your own reasoning to other things you would concede that 1. evolution isn't true and 2. the universe has a Creator, which as an atheist you don't believe.

Yet, laughably, you address none of my counter arguments!

As an atheist, the only logically consistent position you can hold on anything is nihilism. If you venture into anything else, you are going to contradict yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, the burden of proof is on the one
making a positive claim. I have disproved each of your examples.

Again, flat denial is not an argument.

You missed the whole point. You claimed there was absolutely no circumstance where killing a child can be justified. That's an outrageous claim, to compare God to such an example. But it's okay if you did, because I can make an equally outrageous example and show you to be wrong.

Again, all you have is flat denial. You just call it outrageous, as if that disproves it.

My whole position is that evil exists, and God does not want to stop it, but that does not make Him evil.

I have shown why that does make God immoral using parents who kill their children as examples. We execute people for the same actions that you are excusing.

Now, you would have to demonstrate that this somehow makes God evil.

If you can't understand why killing children is evil, then you have no place in a discussion about morality.

Yes, sin entered the world then, but evil preceded them. Satan was evil and he preceded Adam and Eve. However, this is going beyond the parameters of Epicurean discussion. I cannot demonstrate to you that the Adam and Eve story is true anymore than you can demonstrate that evil being a part of creation means that we with in an anthropocentric universe in which this means that God has failed mankind in some significant way making him stupid, weak, or evil.

An omnipotent being can create a universe without evil, by definition. Therefore, God has chosen to have people suffer for no other reason than to have them suffer. That is immoral.

And forgiveness is a good thing. Would existence be as good if it lacked good things?

So it is moral for parents to murder their children because it gives us a chance to forgive them making it a good thing?

Again, I don't need to even provide an answer because I am not making a positive claim about God.

Are you unaware that people claim that God is both all powerful and all knowing?

All I need to do is demonstrate that your logic is faulty or conclusions unnecessary, and I have proved my point.

You have completely failed at every turn. You have condoned the murder of children as something good.

But what constitutes being a moral agent, knowing right or wrong?

Yes.

A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."
Moral agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can assure you animals know when they are doing wrong things. They hide things when they are doing something wrong for example and they do "good" things, such as groom one another. I am not saying they have a very profound understanding of right and wrong, however, but they know and don't care that much about it (being that they are dumb animals).

I am talking about the profound kind.

Hmmm, who we are going to trust on this, the atheist or the Christian?

Christian theology teaches that the universe is God-centric, that God does things for His own Name's sake. So, to me, to grade God on His job at being God by measuring how great a job He is doing at being nice to humans would be ludicrous, because the universe does not revolve around any created object.

Judging someone by how they treat others is a perfectly fine measure of their morality. In fact, it is the primary measure of someone's morality.

Yet, the only way it can be applied in which to make God evil/weak/stupid is to presume an anthropocentric view of the universe, which is obviously faulty. Faulty premise means a faulty conclusion.

How you treat other sentient creatures is not a stupid view of morality.

Actually, I addressed it completely by showing it can be demonstrated that even a landmine does not necessarily reflect the nature of its creator. In fact, I prove your own hypocrisy, because if you were to apply your own reasoning to other things you would concede that 1. evolution isn't true and 2. the universe has a Creator, which as an atheist you don't believe.

Both of your arguments are laughable. I am showing how our universe is not consistent with a moral and omnipotent creator. Bad things happen because the there is nothing in this universe outside of our fellow humans that is looking out for us or cares about us. Evil happens because we are not omnipotent. That's the explanation.

Yet, laughably, you address none of my counter arguments!

How do you counter flat denial?

As an atheist, the only logically consistent position you can hold on anything is nihilism.

Pure baloney. Humans are more than capable of producing moral rules and purposes.