The Problem of Evil

[Chany]

Most overused word in online debate history. Watch a real debate and debaters are very careful to use the term, because usually it amounts to a non-argument. That aside...

I actually think this is a good argument. To be omni-benevolent, it would seem, the being would have to be loving to every single things.

However, if we have an universe with meat eaters and herbivores, it seems to me to defy the laws of non-contradiction that an omni-benevolent being would deprive one animal so it would starve, but protect the other animal so it is not eaten. You might argue, well, get rid of eating meat. Well, have you every eaten meat? It tastes great.

So, now we get into obvious subjective stuff. Is it better that I can enjoy meat but animals suffer, or vice versa?

This is when our inability to actually know what is best prevents us from asserting that we could actually do better if we were all powerful. AN omnsicent being's omnibenevolence cannot look like how we think it would look. That would stand to reason.

So, though you say you are not, you obviously are approaching the problem with man as the center. You presume humanity and human ethics as moral standards, and then judge a higher being to them. This is obviously flawed.

I disagree with the premise, because we already know of acts of love that result from the existence of evil (i.e. forgiveness), so how could a being be omnibenevolent if there are acts of benevolence it will never act upon?

So, I can't tell you this necessitates evil, but I can confidently tell you that we cannot determine that it definitely necessitates the lack of evil either.

You misrepresent my position as anthrocenteric and proceed to knock it down. I declare strawman fallacy. I may be mistaken in practice, but not in principle.

First, your point on meat eating:

The argument against having a world of only herbivores is a dismissive joke. Even assuming the carnivores and herbivore dilemma, there is no reason why the animals cannot be provided their needs through moral means by an omnipotent being.

On to the charge of anthrocentricism:

I declared conscious beings. There may be different levels of conscious, but anything conscious applies. This includes animals, angels, aliens, and the being itself. The needs can be different, but they still persist. All can be met by omnipotent and omniscient being in a moral way.

I use humans because they are the most complex beings I've met and have the most needs, and because it is our class of being.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, what is morality? To humans, obviously it centers around concepts of humanity.

Completely false. It centers around sentient and sapient beings that are moral agents like we are, regardless of what species they are.

No one thinks its immoral when a lion takes down a gazelle.

Lions and gazelles are not sapient moral agents like we are.

So, you can appeal to emotionalism all you want,

I am appealing to morality.

Again, if you have the wrong center of the universe, you have everything wrong.

As shown above, you have the concepts of a moral agent wrong as well as the requirements for a moral agent. It has nothing to do with being H. sapiens.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most overused word in online debate history.

You are arguing that our argument is based on us being H. sapiens.

That is a strawman. That is not our argument.

Our argument is that morality applies to moral agents, no matter what species they are. That is the argument you need to address, not the strawman that you are pretending is our argument.

 

[Chany]

Lions and gazelles are not sapient moral agents like we are.

I would like to point out that I find the well-being of sentient beings to be important also. The existence of unnecessary pain in animals is a problem. I consider humans to have much more complex feelings and other additional needs as sapient beings.

However, if the need be, I will assume only sapient beings for the sake of argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would like to point out that I find the well-being of sentient beings to be important also. The existence of unnecessary pain in animals is a problem. I consider humans to have much more complex feelings and other additional needs as sapient beings.

However, if the need be, I will assume only sapient beings for the sake of argument.

Bioethics is an important part of scientific research. We treat different groups of species differently. For example, we offer primates much more consideration than mice, fish, or bacteria. There are experiments you can do with non-vertebrates that you would never be allowed to do with mice.

Why is that? We recognize that the more intelligent a species is, the more they experience pain like we do. That is the basis of morality.

 

[abacabb3]

You are arguing that our argument is based on us being H. sapiens.

That is a strawman. That is not our argument.

Our argument is that morality applies to moral agents, no matter what species they are. That is the argument you need to address, not the strawman that you are pretending is our argument.

Okay, so me to accept your problem of evil as an article of faith I must accept:

-Nothing else in existence is sentient
-That it even matters in the grand scheme of things how sentient beings even feel
-That the universe is sentient-centric, so if something exists that does not benefit each sentient being the whole universe has something wrong with it


Sorry, need to be convinced of a few of those doctrines of yours before I swallow that pill. Just admit it, whether we are talking about "sentient beings" or humans, your whole view of the universe is dictated by how men ought to treat men should apply to God. It's anthropocentric, plain and simple. If you want to lie and argue about your sentient-centric view of the universe, fine, but we are merely changing terms. My point still stands.

 

[abacabb3]

You misrepresent my position as anthrocenteric and proceed to knock it down. I declare strawman fallacy. I may be mistaken in practice, but not in principle.

No one online is ever mistaken in principle...I think, like Loudmouth here, you have not even realized that you are imposing your own moral views onto the whole universe, and this by its very nature is anthropocentric. You have a big uphill battle to fight if you are here to argue that you have indisputable moral views that the whole universe should abide by, and that anyone or anything that does not meet them is deficient...because that is your argument ultimately.

The argument against having a world of only herbivores is a dismissive joke.

Actually, it is in the Bible in the Book of Isaiah, but okay...

Even assuming the carnivores and herbivore dilemma, there is no reason why the animals cannot be provided their needs through moral means by an omnipotent being.

Yes, but some needs won't be met, like the visceral satisfaction achieved by eating meat. So, now the law of non-contradiction comes into play. How can we have something omni-benevolent" is some of the good things won't exist? It just can't work.

I declared conscious beings. There may be different levels of conscious, but anything conscious applies. This includes animals, angels, aliens, and the being itself. The needs can be different, but they still persist. All can be met by omnipotent and omniscient being in a moral way.

So, you changed "Anthropocentrism" into "sentient-beingcentrism." Okay, you changed the vernacular. Now, as which of these creatures do you even understand what sentience is? As a human, no? So ultimately, if you are making an argument that the whole universe revolves around sentient-beings with an understanding of morality, this is part of your human experience. Youa re imposing your human experience a value judgment onto all of creation.

It's a silly argument and does not hold water, it is anthropocentric. The more you argue me on terminology instead of actually substantiating your point, the more irrelevant your PoE becomes, because it just becomes a matter of words and no evidence.

I use humans because they are the most complex beings I've met and have the most needs, and because it is our class of being.

I have noticed. Hopefully, I have given you more to think about.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, so me to accept your problem of evil as an article of faith I must accept:

-Nothing else in existence is sentient
-That it even matters in the grand scheme of things how sentient beings even feel
-That the universe is sentient-centric, so if something exists that does not benefit each sentient being the whole universe has something wrong with it

It isn't an article of faith, and none of those reflect my position.

This is what we mean by erecting strawmen.

Just admit it, whether we are talking about "sentient beings" or humans, your whole view of the universe is dictated by how men ought to treat men should apply to God.

Why would I admit to having a position I don't hold?

This is yet another example of you trying to erect a strawman. You are trying to force me to accept a position I don't hold in order to argue against it.

It's anthropocentric, plain and simple. If you want to lie and argue about your sentient-centric view of the universe, fine, but we are merely changing terms. My point still stands.

The point is that you are incapable of addressing the argument I am making, so you have invented a strawman argument to attack.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one online is ever mistaken in principle...I think, like Loudmouth here, you have not even realized that you are imposing your own moral views onto the whole universe, and this by its very nature is anthropocentric.

Morality doesn't change when you switch species. Morality is the same for all moral agents including alien species we may have not met, and gods who claim to understand morality. What does Genesis 3:22 say?

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” "

Even the Bible understands that morality is not human centered. It is a standard that exists independently of humans, and that humans understand it. It is that knowledge that we are applying.

You have a big uphill battle to fight if you are here to argue that you have indisputable moral views that the whole universe should abide by, and that anyone or anything that does not meet them is deficient...because that is your argument ultimately.

If you can't determine what is and isn't moral, then you are nothing but a robot following orders.

Are you a robot?

 

[durangodawood]

Morality doesn't change when you switch species.....

Youre joking, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Youre joking, right?

Morality applies to all sentient and sapient species which I had already established in a previous post. If you had quoted the rest of that section it would be much easier for you to understand.

 

[abacabb3]

Morality applies to all sentient and sapient species which I had already established in a previous post. If you had quoted the rest of that section it would be much easier for you to understand.

Why does it have to?

 

[abacabb3]

It isn't an article of faith, and none of those reflect my position...The point is that you are incapable of addressing the argument I am making

Apparently, your argument is incomprehensible, because if it is not about ascertaining morality by that of the effects on sentient beings, as you are saying, then who knows what you are "really" talking about.

 

[abacabb3]

Morality doesn't change when you switch species.

What do you measure morality by?

Even the Bible understands that morality is not human centered.

Why is the Bible's position on morality even important? SHould we be basing it on the Bible or what else specifically?

It is a standard that exists independently of humans, and that humans understand it. It is that knowledge that we are applying.

So you have an idealist view of ethics. Okay, prove to me how it is correct then.

If you can't determine what is and isn't moral, then you are nothing but a robot following orders.

A robot with a better command of the English language and logic!

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you measure morality by?

Empathy and reason, two of the attribtues that moral agent have.

Why is the Bible's position on morality even important? SHould we be basing it on the Bible or what else specifically?

Since we are talking about the God of the Bible, I had this crazy thought that the Bible may be applicable. What say you?

So you have an idealist view of ethics. Okay, prove to me how it is correct then.

By the very fact that we jail and execute people based on it. If it was incorrect, would we be doing that?

A robot with a better command of the English language and logic!

You are incapable of distinguishing between moral and immoral?

If so, how can you claim that God is moral?

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently, your argument is incomprehensible, because if it is not about ascertaining morality by that of the effects on sentient beings, as you are saying, then who knows what you are "really" talking about.

You claimed it was anthropocentric. I have shown that it is not. You could start there.

 

[abacabb3]

You claimed it was anthropocentric. I have shown that it is not. You could start there.

Actually, you showed that it was but you take issue with the terminology. I think you would actually have to show how your argument does not revolve around a definition of morality that applies specifically to the human/"sentitent being" experience. Until you can come to grips with that, then what else is there to say?

 

[abacabb3]

Empathy and reason, two of the attribtues that moral agent have.

Hmm, what creature has empathy and reason...humans! And, if we were to define the essence of omni-benevolence by your supposed criteria, what creature do you suppose that would revolve around?

Since we are talking about the God of the Bible, I had this crazy thought that the Bible may be applicable. What say you?

Not applicable at all. We are talking the PoE. The problem would have to be even real before it can be addressed and any apologetic stance assumed.

By the very fact that we jail and execute people based on it. If it was incorrect, would we be doing that?

An argumentum ad populum does not prove anything, and furthermore, your application here is simply incorrect. You just argued that killing children is wrong because everyone else thinks it is. I am inclined to agree with you.

However, that was not the question. The question was how can you substantiate an idealist view of ethics? Further, are you confident someone smarter than you would not arrive at a better definition of right and wrong then the one's you arrive at?

So, while you commit the error of having an anthropocentric view of the universe philosophically, you in practice probably assume an egocentric view of the universe, believing that your definitions of right and wrong are perfect, that even a greater being like God Himself who would define them differently would be wrong, and so you apply your own definitions to the whole universe and judge it by them.

You are incapable of distinguishing between moral and immoral?

I am capable of approaching the issue not immediately assuming that I rationally can fully encompass the question at hand.

If so, how can you claim that God is moral?

Nope. Cannot make that claim at all. Neither can I claim that the god you speak of is immoral. We don't have the capacity to make the judgment nor the evidence at hand, which I already spoke of in great detail.

Hence, that is why the burden of proof is on the PoE-peoples. I am making no such truth claim, so all I need to do is dispute your "evidence." You are asserting a positive truth claim. You need to substantiate it on something a little more solid that emotionalism and a narrow anthropocentric view of the universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Humans are not the only species that can feel empathy, just going to put that out there.

 

[abacabb3]

Humans are not the only species that can feel empathy, just going to put that out there.

I don't know if I can prove it, but I am inclined to agree with you.