The problem of evil

[Achilles6129]

Remember, your question was
How do you decide what is and what isn't the behavior of a benevolent being?
My response:
That´s an immensely important question. How do you suggest we go about collecting criteria and standards?
Your response:
I would suggest that the most intelligent being would know the true difference between good and evil.

That
a. is not an answer to the questions (it may be an answer to a question not asked, though),
b. leaves us with complete circularity (you are suggesting that we measure God by God´s standards),
and c. doesn´t even follow (Why would you assume that the most intelligent being would know this difference?).

Why wouldn't it be an answer to the question? The most intelligent being that there is would be the one in the best position to know the true difference between good and evil. Therefore, we could assume that if he says he's good, then he is. That would cover his behavior.

No one else would be in as good a position to know the difference between good and evil. So we should naturally trust what the most intelligent being is telling us.

 

[Achilles6129]

I think it's self evident that once a thing has existed (suffering in this case), nothing in any reality can "undo" it's prior existence. It's as illogical as a square circle.

Well, that's your perception of reality.

Do you believe that "omnipotent" means the ability to do anything, or anything that's logically possible?

Anything that's logically possible. However, we have to be careful about the words "logically possible" because someone's opinion of what's logically possible or not may not be correct. Again, it's based upon a perception of reality. So when you say that God couldn't possibly undo an action because it's not "logically possible," I would disagree and say that it's simply your opinion, based upon your perception (and experience of) reality.

And in both of those cases, it would have been better to have not suffered at all, than to suffer and then either get rewarded or forget the suffering occurred.

Again, your opinion, and your perception of reality.

 

[Achilles6129]

The first problem is that you are only offering the human perspective, which is the Bible.

My reasoning on the most intelligent being knowing the true difference between good and evil has nothing to do with the Bible; it's simple logic.

The second problem is that knowing what is good and evil does not guarantee that you will always do good.

That's certainly true, and that's where theology would come into play. We would simply say that if God says he's good, then we should trust that he is, based upon the fact that he more than anyone else is in a position to know the true difference between good and evil.

 

[Dan Bert]

That is the trap...on the tree of knowledge of good and evil..suffering is for stopping us from continuing to eat from that tree.
At this level we seek safety and the avoidance of pain. We see pain as bad and evil something to be avoided. As long as the people continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil...they remain under the law whether they want or not. And those who are under the law are children of wrath. Having more knowledge of good and evil will not bring us closer to God. It actually grows the separation between us and God. This knowledge divide us and make us feel separated from God as we see the none disturb state as good. But life is about being disturbed making choices we know lead to pains instead of avoiding such as for example a real fast. Fasting increases spirituality helps us master the senses and also cleanses the body. That was an example in choosing pain and suffering for more spirituality. Those on the tree of knowledge of good and evil want their cake and eat it too. This is not possible. The sword of fire that guard the tree of life will kill anyone who is still eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nature on this world do the will of the Father. Only man chooses to live in rebellion to the laws of heaven and also of nature. Atlantis was destroyed totally not just for disobedience but also for meddling with both laws

It is written in Galatians...if you are led by the Spirit then you are not under the law
In Romans it is written, If you are led by the Spirit you are Sons (of God)

as you can see here the key is to learn to be led by spirit...John said If we walk in the light as He is in the light then He gives the promises of this condition. You want to receive the promises? then live the condition the promises are based on. You not free from the law if you are eating from the knowledge of good and evil. You are not in the gospel of the grace of God either, you are not free from the law nor are you being called a son by heaven.

A person cannot eat from both trees. The Stories of Adam and Eve are also our stories.

dan

How does that part of the living world which is not homo sapiens learn obedience and therefore avoid suffering?

 

[quatona]

Why wouldn't it be an answer to the question? The most intelligent being that there is would be the one in the best position to know the true difference between good and evil. Therefore, we could assume that if he says he's good, then he is. That would cover his behavior.

Your question was: "How do you decide what is the action of a benevolent being?"
"The most intelligent being knows...." is not an answer to that question.
Neither is it an answer to my counterquestion: "How do you suggest we go about collecting criteria and standards?"

No one else would be in as good a position to know the difference between good and evil. So we should naturally trust what the most intelligent being is telling us.

Epistemologically, all this at best shifts the problem to "How do you decide who is the most intelligent being?"

 

[quatona]

My reasoning on the most intelligent being knowing the true difference between good and evil has nothing to do with the Bible; it's simple logic.

Well, no, it isn´t. But even if it were, here you appeal to human logic and in the next instance you discard it as potentially unreliable:

Anything that's logically possible. However, we have to be careful about the words "logically possible" because someone's opinion of what's logically possible or not may not be correct. Again, it's based upon a perception of reality. So when you say that God couldn't possibly undo an action because it's not "logically possible," I would disagree and say that it's simply your opinion, based upon your perception (and experience of) reality.

 

[Picky Picky]

That is the trap...on the tree of knowledge of good and evil..suffering is for stopping us from continuing to eat from that tree.
At this level we seek safety and the avoidance of pain. We see pain as bad and evil something to be avoided. As long as the people continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil...they remain under the law whether they want or not. And those who are under the law are children of wrath. Having more knowledge of good and evil will not bring us closer to God. It actually grows the separation between us and God. This knowledge divide us and make us feel separated from God as we see the none disturb state as good. But life is about being disturbed making choices we know lead to pains instead of avoiding such as for example a real fast. Fasting increases spirituality helps us master the senses and also cleanses the body. That was an example in choosing pain and suffering for more spirituality. Those on the tree of knowledge of good and evil want their cake and eat it too. This is not possible. The sword of fire that guard the tree of life will kill anyone who is still eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nature on this world do the will of the Father. Only man chooses to live in rebellion to the laws of heaven and also of nature. Atlantis was destroyed totally not just for disobedience but also for meddling with both laws

It is written in Galatians...if you are led by the Spirit then you are not under the law
In Romans it is written, If you are led by the Spirit you are Sons (of God)

as you can see here the key is to learn to be led by spirit...John said If we walk in the light as He is in the light then He gives the promises of this condition. You want to receive the promises? then live the condition the promises are based on. You not free from the law if you are eating from the knowledge of good and evil. You are not in the gospel of the grace of God either, you are not free from the law nor are you being called a son by heaven.

A person cannot eat from both trees. The Stories of Adam and Eve are also our stories.

dan

You write all this stuff in response to my question:

How does that part of the living world which is not homo sapiens learn obedience and therefore avoid suffering?

and yet you in no way address my question.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Anything that's logically possible. However, we have to be careful about the words "logically possible" because someone's opinion of what's logically possible or not may not be correct. Again, it's based upon a perception of reality. So when you say that God couldn't possibly undo an action because it's not "logically possible," I would disagree and say that it's simply your opinion, based upon your perception (and experience of) reality.

What's logically impossible isn't an opinion, and it's not based on a "perception of reality". You're using the phrase as some sort of catch-all to deflect any arguments.

It's not my "opinion" that a square circle can't exist. It's the nature of any reality because contradictions can't exist. And unless you can show otherwise, it's a contradiction to say that something had existed and also that it had not existed.

Again, your opinion, and your perception of reality.

Individuals opinions are the only things that matter when discussing what our preferences are regarding suffering. So if I say that it's better for me not to have suffered, then... it's better for me not to have suffered. Once again, my "perception of reality" is not involved...

 

[Locutus]

Why wouldn't it be an answer to the question? The most intelligent being that there is would be the one in the best position to know the true difference between good and evil. Therefore, we could assume that if he says he's good, then he is. That would cover his behavior.

No one else would be in as good a position to know the difference between good and evil. So we should naturally trust what the most intelligent being is telling us.

Ever hear the term "evil genius"?

I can't imagine who you arrived at tge idea that intelligence equals goodness. They are utterly unrelated.

More importantly, do you trust the car salesman because he says "you can trust me"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure. As discussed before, a "valid reason" would be a demonstrable use (function & utility). That might be difficult for the civilian to achieve, though. The military likely has a special connection to knowledge regarding camouflage paint. I know my company protects the paint formula for our machines.

In fact, the military probably has special knowledge of many of the features of military vehicles. Would you agree?

I would think that we could determine the utility and function of anything the military makes independent of what the military says. We have an independent standard that we use, just as we do for morality. It is this independent standard of morality that we use to judge the actions of others, including deities.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's certainly true, and that's where theology would come into play. We would simply say that if God says he's good, then we should trust that he is, based upon the fact that he more than anyone else is in a position to know the true difference between good and evil.

That makes zero sense. Do you think our prisons are full of people who didn't know they were doing something bad?

 

[Resha Caner]

I would think that we could determine the utility and function of anything the military makes independent of what the military says. We have an independent standard that we use, just as we do for morality. It is this independent standard of morality that we use to judge the actions of others, including deities.

If you're implying there is a universal human standard I disagree, so you would need to explain this standard to me.

Might civilians make a judgement about the utility of a military vehicle? Sure. But, issues of democratic process & funding aside, I don't think the military really cares. That some civilian may think a particular aspect arbitrary is irrelevant to the military. The military is not going to adopt a civilian standard of judgement with respect to the necessary specifications of their vehicles.

Do some civilians have the ability to observe military vehicles and make reasonable judgements about their utility? Sure. But the ability of the average civilian is less than the ability of the military expert. It's a better bet to go with the judgement of the military expert than the average civilian.

I think this is all helpful for fleshing out what is arbitrary. However, the pertinent question related to my objection would be: Was the military decision to use camouflage paint arbitrary? The answer is no.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you're implying there is a universal human standard I disagree, so you would need to explain this standard to me.

Just so we are on the same page, are you saying that that morality is subjective and not objective?

Might civilians make a judgement about the utility of a military vehicle? Sure. But, issues of democratic process & funding aside, I don't think the military really cares. That some civilian may think a particular aspect arbitrary is irrelevant to the military. The military is not going to adopt a civilian standard of judgement with respect to the necessary specifications of their vehicles.

What the military finds relevant doesn't change the facts about whether it is arbitrary.

Do some civilians have the ability to observe military vehicles and make reasonable judgements about their utility? Sure. But the ability of the average civilian is less than the ability of the military expert. It's a better bet to go with the judgement of the military expert than the average civilian.

Most military gear is designed by civilians.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, we're not supposed to discuss Biblical apologetics on this forum, and I don't want this thread to get shut down if I start quoting Scripture, so I'll have to talk in generalities. Don't you agree that the Bible paints a portrait of a restoration of all things and an ultimate negation of all evil?

Restoration of all things, yes... Negation of evil? Sort-of. Some peoples Christian message seems to emphasize punishment so much, it is not clear there is a real victory of good.

I suppose my real issue is the fact that the Bible just says good wins, without explaining how that is so. Especially when you seen the amount of suffering in the world, it's hard to believe some kind of magic will wipe it away. When we are in heaven, are we just going to forget about all the 5 year olds that died of cancer? Maybe it is something beyond our comprehension, but still, you cannot at least acknowledge this is not an easy thing to accept?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just so we are on the same page, are you saying that that morality is subjective and not objective?

I was referring to the way you keep using "we" as if everyone agrees on this moral standard you're claiming. I'm quite sure people don't agree and that the moral standard is yours alone ... though you may have some select group of people who agree with you here and there.

But, to answer your question ... I think the way people choose their morals is subjective. I believe the efficacy of those morals is objective, but that point is moot given our finite abilities.

Most military gear is designed by civilians.

I would argue that is only a semantic distinction. I was careful to refer to the "average citizen". As it happens, my company supplies (among other things) military equipment and I've been involved in its design. First, the military excels at giving lists and lists of requirements to the extent that they put you in a box where very little designing actually occurs. Further, what design does occur is done by specialists who focus on military equipment. We have a special division that focuses only on military equipment, and my involvement was "subcontracted" by them so to speak. As such, given that the "civilians" who do this design work are military specialists, they are not "average citizens". I wouldn't hire you to design our military equipment given what I know of your background.

What the military finds relevant doesn't change the facts about whether it is arbitrary.

Neither will they consult you, so your judgement of what is arbitrary is irrelevant. It would only become relevant if you somehow became involved with the design or use of military equipment. [edit: In other words, your method of determining what is arbitrary is starting to appear ... umm ... arbitrary.] As such, I think it is important that we distinguish what is arbitrary from what is disagreeable. Maybe you objected to the Iraq War, etc. Maybe you're a passivist. That wouldn't make military decisions arbitrary.

So, is there any extent to which you would trust military experts. Suppose they have demonstrated items 1 through 9 and you agree they aren't arbitrary. Would you be willing to accept item 10 as not arbitrary based on a track record? Or are you going to insist that every single item must be judged on its own in order for you to assent?

 

[Loudmouth]

I was referring to the way you keep using "we" as if everyone agrees on this moral standard you're claiming. I'm quite sure people don't agree and that the moral standard is yours alone ... though you may have some select group of people who agree with you here and there.

I would bet that we agree more than we disagree. Most modern human societies think things like rape, theft, and murder are immoral (although we could argue back and forth about the tautological semantics of those crimes).

I would argue that is only a semantic distinction. I was careful to refer to the "average citizen".

Which is why we would go to an above average citizen when it comes to military equipment, in order to determine if it has function or utility.

The point being is that we could use knowledge and intelligence to determine the objective use for something, which is how we determine that it isn't arbitrary. If we simply say, "Well, the military made it so it must have a purpose", that is not a valid argument. It is nothing more than the abdication of curiosity, intelligence, and knowledge.

The same occurs when we say, "Well, God must have a reason for commanding that". We sentenced Nazi's to death even when they said they were just following orders. Why? Because obedience is not a valid replacement for morality. We are expected to judge morality for ourselves, not simply say, "Well, Hitler must have a good and moral reason for creating those death camps".

As such, I think it is important that we distinguish what is arbitrary from what is disagreeable.

I think it is important that if something is said to be non-arbitrary that there actually be evidence for that claim.

 

[Resha Caner]

If we simply say, "Well, the military made it so it must have a purpose", that is not a valid argument. It is nothing more than the abdication of curiosity, intelligence, and knowledge.

I don't see that "intelligence" is really any better a decision criteria than trust - especially since everyone wants to think they're the intelligent one. As I was trying to point out in my last post, it would be an oxymoron for someone to insist on being the sole arbiter of what is arbitrary. So there has to be some level of trust.

Therefore, I would really appreciate you answering my question about track records: If the military establishes a satisfactory track record, would you be willing to, at least occasionally, trust that some of their decisions are non-arbitrary without personally evaluating them?

The same occurs when we say, "Well, God must have a reason for commanding that". We sentenced Nazi's to death even when they said they were just following orders. Why? Because obedience is not a valid replacement for morality.

I don't say what you have placed in quotes, so it doesn't apply to me. Nor is it the question we're discussing, even though that's what you constantly return to. The challenge would be: Do the morals expressed in the Bible have demonstrable utility? And remember, it's not a matter of whether you like it or not. We're not discussing whether you think what happened was moral. We're discussing whether the morals are arbitrary.

So, I'll make this easy for you. Since you don't believe in God, for the sake of this conversation we'll remove him from the picture. We'll simply ask: Did the authors of the Bible have demonstrable reasons for the morals they expressed?

- - -

P.S. Be careful about the Nazi thing. Don't confuse the legal wranglings of Nuremberg with morality. It's sort of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. You believe the guy is guilty so you find whatever legal means you can to convict. The idea that soldiers in the military can disregard orders they don't like is close to fiction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Therefore, I would really appreciate you answering my question about track records: If the military establishes a satisfactory track record, would you be willing to, at least occasionally, trust that some of their decisions are non-arbitrary without personally evaluating them?

If it was a matter of debate, no I wouldn't trust them. Not ever.

The challenge would be: Do the morals expressed in the Bible have demonstrable reasons?

Are those reasons arbitrary? That's the real question.

"Because God says so" is arbitrary.

So, I'll make this easy for you. Since you don't believe in God, for the sake of this conversation we'll remove him from the picture. We'll simply ask: Did the authors of the Bible have demonstrable reasons for the morals they expressed?

You tell me. You are the one who is claiming that they are not arbitrary. If you can't come up with those reasons, then we have would have to conclude that they are arbitrary until such evidence is brought forward.

P.S. Be careful about the Nazi thing. Don't confuse the legal wranglings of Nuremberg with morality. It's sort of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. You believe the guy is guilty so you find whatever legal means you can to convict. The idea that soldiers in the military can disregard orders they don't like is close to fiction.

The Nuremburg defense (i.e. "I was just following orders") is a common example used in discussions of morality. I was only using an extreme example to show that obedience is not a valid replacement for morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

If it was a matter of debate, no I wouldn't trust them. Not ever.

You changed the question. Please answer the question I asked, which assumes they have a credible track record.

Or I can just jump to a conclusion, which is that your answers stem from the fact that you don't trust the Bible.

Are those reasons arbitrary? That's the real question.

You must have posted before I corrected my statement. I corrected it to use the word "utility". Is the utility demonstrable?

You tell me. You are the one who is claiming that they are not arbitrary.

Technically I'm not. I responded to a post claiming God's morality was autocratic and arbitrary. Though you aren't the one who posted that claim, you did essentially step in as a proxy. If you're ceding the claim of that original post, I'm OK with that.

Anyway, I did state something beyond, "God says so."

The Nuremburg defense (i.e. "I was just following orders") is a common example used in discussions of morality. I was only using an extreme example to show that obedience is not a valid replacement for morality.

Hmm. For someone who insists on evaluating everything himself, this seems an odd answer - to defer to what other people say. Regardless, I consider obedience very important to morality.

 

[Loudmouth]

You changed the question. Please answer the question I asked, which assumes they have a credible track record.

Even if they have a credible track record, if it was a matter of debate I wouldn't trust them.

Or I can just jump to a conclusion, which is that your answers stem from the fact that you don't trust the Bible.

Can you show me any evidence that backs up the claims made in the Bible?

Technically I'm not. I responded to a post claiming God's morality was autocratic and arbitrary. Though you aren't the one who posted that claim, you did essentially step in as a proxy. If you're ceding the claim of that original post, I'm OK with that.

I am still waiting for evidence demonstrating that they are not arbitrary. Until such evidence is given, I will continue with the conclusion that they are arbitrary.

Anyway, I did state something beyond, "God says so."

Why don't you summarize them and see if they work.

Hmm. For someone who insists on evaluating everything himself, this seems an odd answer - to defer to what other people say. Regardless, I consider obedience very important to morality.

I said just the opposite, that we shouldn't defer.