The Problem of Evil

[com7fy8]

There is evil in the world. And I trust there is God.

Instead of judging Him for not removing all the evil, I trust Him to have me do what He wants me to do about the evil. He is my only resource who really works.

He has me doing better than my imagination had me doing.

I'm always learning. I would say with Him I learn better than what I have tried and what a lot of people say is needed.

If ones decide there is no God, they cut themselves off from the best resource, and then they are stuck with their own egos and the emotional weakness which can keep them suffering in frustration and nasty anger and arguing and unforgiveness and bitterness and trying to control other people, instead of enjoying loving and sharing.

But Jesus makes us strong so we are not controlled emotionally by the evil.

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

Jesus had people with Him for loving while He had them doing things to help other people (Mark 3:14). First, He has us getting into how to share in love with God and each other, so then we are strong in love. Then we are strong and sensible enough (1 Peter 5:8, Philippians 1:9) so we don't get bent out of shape about how things can go in relationships.

But as much as we depend on ourselves, we miss out on how we could be sharing with God and with other people. Our independence can be an idol and not a very good religion!!

 

[Dave Ellis]

Again, I ask please, can you give me an "objective, quantifiable way to measure morality?" If your answer is no, why are we having this conversation?

Because my answer is not no. I'm trying to work you through how it's done. I suspect you're avoiding answering my question because you know you use those same methods to identify other people as moral and trustworthy, versus immoral or untrustworthy, and to admit that would force you to concede my point.

You shouldn't take them seriously in of your own intellectual capacity to understand them, they are foolishness to the unbeliever.

They're foolishness to the believer as well, the only difference is the believer has been fooled into believing them.

Of course, because you are incapable of offering an objective, quantifiable way to measure morality of your own.

Of course I'm capable, however in order to do so you must have measurable data on which to make a judgment. You've thrown out vague, poorly defined examples.

No matter which way I answer, you'll add in some kind of detail which changes the scenario and makes my original answer wrong. So, I'm not going to answer until I can see all of the available information in the scenario.

This is simply embarrassing. You misspoke twice and still can admit you are wrong. We were never talking about politics, and obviously when I called secularism a "religion" I meant it as any philosophical system in which its worldview affects how people live. Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism were philosophical systems that essentially had religious adherents.

If you are not aware of the term's popular usage post-cold war (which is when I grew up), then what can I tell you?

Again, you're trying to shift the goalposts. You said secularism was a religion, I said it was not, it's a political viewpoint (which is correct).

Under the context you were using it, you were speaking as many Christians do and accuse atheists of holding secularism as their "religion".

After I called you out on it, you're now arguing that you meant it under the philosophical definition, which is still wrong.

As for the article you posted, it's hopelessly ignorant and fraught with errors.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So Dave, you would agree that objective moral values and duties exist correct?

 

[abacabb3]

Because my answer is not no.

Okay, so can you provide for me how it is objective and quantifiable? This is the fourth time or so, it is not that tough to explain yourself.

They're foolishness to the believer as well, the only difference is the believer has been fooled into believing them.

No, it is the wisdom of God.

Of course I'm capable, however in order to do so you must have measurable data on which to make a judgment. You've thrown out vague, poorly defined examples.

Bring out some objective ones then

Again, you're trying to shift the goalposts. You said secularism was a religion, I said it was not, it's a political viewpoint (which is correct).

Consider this dropped, but deep down you are just being too proud to admit that your are cutting hairs here. Try googling the term and see how it is popularly used, that's all I can say.

 

[abacabb3]

So Dave, you would agree that objective moral values and duties exist correct?

Of course, the arbitrary set of morals that are obviously derived from his Judeo-Christian heritage, minus the supernatural parts.

 

[jsteel]

One thing that may not have been thought of is that God may have stopped a portion of the evil things in the world. You argument assumes that God has done nothing at all.

Just a thought

 

[Dave Ellis]

So Dave, you would agree that objective moral values and duties exist correct?

I would agree objective moral facts exist.

As far as values and duties, what do you mean by that?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay, so can you provide for me how it is objective and quantifiable? This is the fourth time or so, it is not that tough to explain yourself.

I've already explained how I am attempting to demonstrate my point, when you get around to answering my question I can take this further.

No, it is the wisdom of God.

Can you demonstrate that? The bible isn't a particularly well written book, if that's the best your god can do, he's not particularly wise.

Bring out some objective ones then

It's your example, I can't provide objective facts when you're the one providing the scenario.

Consider this dropped, but deep down you are just being too proud to admit that your are cutting hairs here. Try googling the term and see how it is popularly used, that's all I can say.

Give me a break!

If you'll remember, I did google the term, which is where I found the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is based upon popular usage!

The only people I've ever heard of who refer to secularism as you are attempting to do are wingnut evangelicals who have no idea what the words they are using even mean.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of course, the arbitrary set of morals that are obviously derived from his Judeo-Christian heritage, minus the supernatural parts.

I'm not aware of any moral values that I hold that can be tied specifically to any Abrahamic religion.

And what do you mean by judeo-christian heritage?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Answer: The moment you enter higher order beings into the conversation, you just added additional possible viewpoints.

The moment you enter anyone into the the conversation you add additional viewpoints. How does that answer this question though? "Presumably you would have me define it from a theocentric viewpoint instead. But what does that even mean practically?"

Then, please give an example of an evil action that can be undone by a morally equivalent counter-action.

No idea where you are going with this. I smell a red herring.

I would imagine most people actually are not, they pick and choose their skepticism. Quite frankly, I view pretty much everything as an illusion and inherently "untrustable."

Even the theological claims of your religion?

Unless you can convince me that misologism is an untenable position. I cannot find a way in which someone can assert that math, epistemologies, and observations internalized by our senses can in any way be substantiated to any quantifiable degree of certainty.

What would be the point of that exercise? Regardless of what I present you will simply revert back to your misologism to dismiss it out of hand. How can one reason with someone who regards the act of reasoning with disdain?

I don't need to present the case because I don't think there is a problem of evil. We go back to the beginning. The moment you judge theoretical higher order beings by a moral system that you admit is only applicable to lower order beings, you have already conceded that moral system you use as the measure can theoretically be lower order as well.

If man is the highest order being, then there is no problem of evil.

This is assuming that there is a theocentric morality, which is something you've yet to argue for.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One thing that may not have been thought of is that God may have stopped a portion of the evil things in the world. You argument assumes that God has done nothing at all.

Just a thought

Okay, so that would be mean that God does intervene to prevent evil. This then raises the question of why he doesn't intervene more extensively.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course, the arbitrary set of morals that are obviously derived from his Judeo-Christian heritage, minus the supernatural parts.

I've noticed that those who make this claim tend to leave the term "Judeo-Christian heritage" vague. When they go into details, however, it is usually found that the particular attitudes and values they are talking about are not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, and in some cases they even predate both religions.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I would agree objective moral facts exist.

As far as values and duties, what do you mean by that?

Values have to do with what is right and wrong. Duties have to do with what ought or ought not be done.

Some people call them moral facts.

For example, what the Germans did to the minorities in their lands during WWII was objectively wrong. Simply put, it was wrong even though some of them were convinced it was right.

Agree?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Values have to do with what is right and wrong.

I'm not so sure about that one, values as I'd understand them are reached via a subjective basis. That doesn't mean a persons values line up with actual objective reality though. But I'm not totally sure if I'm defining it the same way you are.

Duties have to do with what ought or ought not be done.

I think duties could certainly be objectively based as a consequence of objective facts. For example, if you wish to live in a moral society, then you ought not to steal, kill, etc.

Some people call them moral facts.

I'd say objective moral facts exist for sure.

For example, what the Germans did to the minorities in their lands during WWII was objectively wrong. Simply put, it was wrong even though some of them were convinced it was right.

Agree?

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm not so sure about that one, values as I'd understand them are reached via a subjective basis. That doesn't mean a persons values line up with actual objective reality though. But I'm not totally sure if I'm defining it the same way you are.



I think duties could certainly be objectively based as a consequence of objective facts. For example, if you wish to live in a moral society, then you ought not to steal, kill, etc.



I'd say objective moral facts exist for sure.



Yes, I agree with that.

Great! You and I are in agreement.

Now, I will present you with the following premise from a moral argument for God's existence and since you already affirm premise 2 of the argument, you must show that premise 1 is not more plausibly true than its negation. If not, then you, on pain of irrationality, must say goodbye to atheism and are committed to the argument’s conclusion, i.e. God exists because the argument's form is logically valid.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Great! You and I are in agreement.

Now, I will present you with the following premise from a moral argument for God's existence and since you already affirm premise 2 of the argument, you must show that premise 1 is not more plausibly true than its negation. If not, then you, on pain of irrationality, must say goodbye to atheism and are committed to the argument’s conclusion, i.e. God exists because the argument's form is logically valid.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

We've been through this before Jeremy. Why keep beating a dead horse?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

We've been through this before Jeremy. Why keep beating a dead horse?

I want to see if he is going to be true to his word.

He asked for evidence, so I am giving it to him.

If he cannot provide either an undercutting or rebutting defeater to 1, then he, if he wants us to keep thinking he is a rational human being, must abandon his atheism.

Or he can take the easy way out and reply by saying, "I don't care what you think of me, I am going to be an atheist no matter what!"

If he takes the latter approach, he would at least have to his credit that he was being honest.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I want to see if he is going to be true to his word.

He asked for evidence, so I am giving it to him.

If he cannot provide either an undercutting or rebutting defeater to 1, then he, if he wants us to keep thinking he is a rational human being, must abandon his atheism.

Or he can take the easy way out and reply by saying, "I don't care what you think of me, I am going to be an atheist no matter what!"

If he takes the latter approach, he would at least have to his credit that he was being honest.

No, you aren't giving him evidence. You are repeating an argument that has already been done to death. Even worse, you are trying to switch the burden of proof. It's not up to him to support your argument; it's up to you.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Waiting for a response Dave Ellis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Waiting for a response Dave Ellis.

As I recall, we already had this discussion several months ago. Perhaps Dave should just copy-and-paste his responses to jog your memory of it. Even further back, 2 years ago perhaps, we had at least three threads on the moral argument, each precipitated by your very close associate, Elioenai26.