The problem of evil

[Dan Bert]

If I may add. Let us look at things from the point of view of God. And you will see how we unknowingly judge and condemn God. First of all everything is perfect the way it is. The first question...Is God is in Charge or not in charge. If you choose that God is in Charge then everything that occurs is perfect since I know without a doubt God is perfect. We judge everything by our own sense of good and evil. And this is eating from the tree of good and evil. And this is what brought division, diseases, afflictions and death. To eat from this tree is to hang (on this tree) also called the Hanging tree. In the end it brings death to all those who continue to eat from this tree.

Is it unfair? To say something is unfair for an individual we have got to know what is fair for that individual...not apply our standard to the individual. God knows what is fair and unfair for each one of us. God is in charge and everything He does or allows to occurs to us is justice, mercy and understanding.

So from the point of view of God who knows all things from the beginning to the end...would you say that was is happening in the world is perfect? I do. I know the changes I wish to occur on it would be according to my own limited knowledge of good and evil...and would take this perfect world that God keeps making every day to my one way of doing things. This is having one's will over God's will because we think in our arrogance we can make things better.

We have come to identify everything that is painful as something to be avoided and evil. We have come to identify everything that is pleasurable as good. Hence the distortion in our knowledge of good and evil. We also want to be safe and stay in the non disturb state or to return to it. Some more than others. So we adjust our knowledge of good and evil and morality to try and get what we want. God's law have a say in this regardless of what our knowledge of good and evil say.

dan

Do you think your ability to see unfairness and suffering would be an
indicator that you've been given sight to identify these problems?

I mean, if you watch goldfish, they seem pretty content in pond
bowl, or a plastic baggie. They don't seem worried about the
world they exist in.

 

[SkyWriting]

What does a church have to do with forgiveness?
If I've wronged somebody, the only forgiveness I care about is from the person that I wronged. Presumably that would come after I made some effort to correct my mistake.
If I wrong somebody, then go to a church and receive forgiveness from them, that's not a forgiveness that matters. That's an abdication of responsibility to set things right with the person or people who were actually wronged.

I don't attend any church, so your misdirection is lost on me.
Maybe the next person you try that on will be more receptive.
"Isn't that a damning indictment of the religion?" was the topic stream.
This, I assigned the idea of "The Christian Religion".

Christianity is based on the idea that you damage your own well-being or
purpose for existing when you sin. "Sin" would be any time you do something
to other people that you would not want them doing to you. But you do it anyway.
Your basically damaging your soul, kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a
hammer by doing what you know to be wrong.

What you need is forgiveness from God for the damage you've caused to yourself.
Christianity offers that forgiveness.

If you don't recognise the harm you've caused yourself, then it's like
hitting your sister with a hammer, and your parents say...."Tell her your sorry"
And you instantly say " I'm Sorrrrrrrr-reeeeeeee" rolling your eyes.
"Please forgive meeeeeeeeeeeee!"

That's what your saying, getting their forgiveness is important.
Not really. It the internal crime that the other person cares about.
They don't need you to beg forgiveness. They need you to find it for yourself.

 

[SkyWriting]

If I may add. Let us look at things from the point of view of God. And you will see how we unknowingly judge and condemn God. First of all everything is perfect the way it is. The first question...Is God is in Charge or not in charge.

The first question, is everything perfect? No. If yo are currently walking and God is walking beside you, then yes. You are in His domain and you are in Heaven. Just as Adam was. This is not Heaven. God is not walking here.

This is the place we ended up when removed from the Garden and the gate was closed.
This place is more similar to Hell than Heaven.

9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be dissolved in the fire, and the earth and its works will not be found.11 Since everything will be dissolved in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness…

This is God's plan that we see the evil here and ask God to take us back. But God is not in charge here because this is not Heaven.

 

[Picky Picky]

Yes you have got it right. Animals act according to their species...ex. Cats, dogs, Cows etc. Trees act like trees etc. Everything act according to their creative purpose except man. Even rocks act like rocks should. None deviate from their creative purpose except man. I used dust as an example because ancient prophets also used to sit in the dust and with their hands put the dust on they head showing that they were lower than the dust of the earth. Dust is useless not even dirt. Nothing grows in dust. Dust go wherever the wind blows. Does not complain and do not seek to be something else. Dust obey perfectly the will of God.

Each one of us was given a creative vision. Satan in heaven changed this for the angels and the angels were deceived by Satan into thinking they could change it. That is how they fell, they tried to change their creative purposes. That explains why the Nephelims came to be on the earth. They took for themselves daughters of men. The Nephilims were their children and God punished the Watchers severely. The word Watcher...is used at least twice in the OT and support Genesis account. At least the little there is in the bible.

Dan

So if obedience is required for suffering to be avoided, and if animals are naturally obedient, why have they not avoided suffering? You seem determined not to answer this question.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't attend any church, so your misdirection is lost on me.
Maybe the next person you try that on will be more receptive.
"Isn't that a damning indictment of the religion?" was the topic stream.
This, I assigned the idea of "The Christian Religion".

Christianity is based on the idea that you damage your own well-being or
purpose for existing when you sin. "Sin" would be any time you do something
to other people that you would not want them doing to you. But you do it anyway.
Your basically damaging your soul, kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a
hammer by doing what you know to be wrong.

What you need is forgiveness from God for the damage you've caused to yourself.
Christianity offers that forgiveness.

If you don't recognise the harm you've caused yourself, then it's like
hitting your sister with a hammer, and your parents say...."Tell her your sorry"
And you instantly say " I'm Sorrrrrrrr-reeeeeeee" rolling your eyes.
"Please forgive meeeeeeeeeeeee!"

That's what your saying, getting their forgiveness is important.
Not really. It the internal crime that the other person cares about.
They don't need you to beg forgiveness. They need you to find it for yourself.

Well, I have to say I totally disagree on that one.

Frankly, the idea that the church can forgive your wrongs is immoral. It reduces ones empathy for others, thinking that making things right with them isn't as important as making things right with the church, when the church is ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

It's a disturbing practice that ranges from petty mistakes, to serious personal offenses like child molestation or rape. I'll bet you there's a number of people out there who committed serious crimes against others, and feel fine about it now because their church said they're good with god. That's an abdication of moral responsibility, and one that the church actively created and encourages.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the context of a discussion on the arbitrary it does. This could be just a whim of yours.

The show it is just a whim. All you appear to be doing is finding arbitrary reasons to ignore my argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I may add. Let us look at things from the point of view of God. And you will see how we unknowingly judge and condemn God. First of all everything is perfect the way it is. The first question...Is God is in Charge or not in charge. If you choose that God is in Charge then everything that occurs is perfect since I know without a doubt God is perfect. We judge everything by our own sense of good and evil. And this is eating from the tree of good and evil. And this is what brought division, diseases, afflictions and death. To eat from this tree is to hang (on this tree) also called the Hanging tree. In the end it brings death to all those who continue to eat from this tree.

Is it unfair? To say something is unfair for an individual we have got to know what is fair for that individual...not apply our standard to the individual. God knows what is fair and unfair for each one of us. God is in charge and everything He does or allows to occurs to us is justice, mercy and understanding.

So from the point of view of God who knows all things from the beginning to the end...would you say that was is happening in the world is perfect? I do. I know the changes I wish to occur on it would be according to my own limited knowledge of good and evil...and would take this perfect world that God keeps making every day to my one way of doing things. This is having one's will over God's will because we think in our arrogance we can make things better.

We have come to identify everything that is painful as something to be avoided and evil. We have come to identify everything that is pleasurable as good. Hence the distortion in our knowledge of good and evil. We also want to be safe and stay in the non disturb state or to return to it. Some more than others. So we adjust our knowledge of good and evil and morality to try and get what we want. God's law have a say in this regardless of what our knowledge of good and evil say.

dan

I think you have made our point for us. If the only way you can get around the problem of evil is to assume that God is perfect and moral with no evidence or argument supporting it and no matter what happens, then our point is made. The same argument could be made for any deity or tyrant.

 

[Resha Caner]

The show it is just a whim. All you appear to be doing is finding arbitrary reasons to ignore my argument.

What argument is there to ignore? Shall we review?

1) Your position was that something is arbitrary until shown otherwise.
2) The criteria you gave for showing the non-arbitrary is demonstrable utility.
3) You stated that your morality does not depend on track records or empirical models, but the principles of empathy, logic, and reason.

I don't necessarily agree with the above, but it's the standard we have for this discussion. So, I begin by assuming your morality is arbitrary, and ask you to show otherwise. It's not my job to disprove your moral principles. As best I can recall, you've stated no demonstrable utility that results from these moral principles of yours. Further, when I asked if this follows a particular school of thought (such that you could provide further citations to support your position) you said it doesn't matter. I assume from that you have nothing to cite. In fact, when I cited something calling into question the value of empathy, you seemed to indicate that logic and reason mitigate the problem. I was not referring to empathy alone, but simply to its shortcomings as a moral principle. Logic doesn't make bad ideas good ones. Regardless, I assume you have nothing to cite.

So, what can I conclude from what you've given me other than that this is your personal view alone - a view based on personal whim - and therefore arbitrary.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

First of all everything is perfect the way it is.

I can't do a better job of making fun of the "best of all possible worlds" idea than Voltaire, so I'll just point you to read Candide instead. But really? Everything is perfect?

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a disturbing practice that ranges from petty mistakes, to serious personal offenses like child molestation or rape. I'll bet you there's a number of people out there who committed serious crimes against others, and feel fine about it now because their church said they're good with god. That's an abdication of moral responsibility, and one that the church actively created and encourages.

I just don't see Christian belief in forgiveness, at least typically, as being some kind of blank cheque for psychopaths. Most people who seek some kind of forgiveness through faith realize they have done wrong and want to live a better life. It doesn't serve justice to demand those sorts of people be punished or treated umercifully.

 

[Loudmouth]

What argument is there to ignore?

Morality is derived from the mechanisms of empathy, reason, and logic instead of being decided arbitrarily. I think I have made that argument several times now.

So, I begin by assuming your morality is arbitrary, and ask you to show otherwise. It's not my job to disprove your moral principles. As best I can recall, you've stated no demonstrable utility that results from these moral principles of yours.

You find no utility in the morals that western societies use? None of them? Those are the morals I am talking about, and those are the ones derived through empathy, reason, and logic.

Further, when I asked if this follows a particular school of thought (such that you could provide further citations to support your position) you said it doesn't matter.

That's because it doesn't matter. All you are trying to do is drag it off topic.

In fact, when I cited something calling into question the value of empathy, you seemed to indicate that logic and reason mitigate the problem. I was not referring to empathy alone, but simply to its shortcomings as a moral principle. Logic doesn't make bad ideas good ones. Regardless, I assume you have nothing to cite.

Why would I need a citation? Are you going to have a discussion with me or not?

So what can I conclude from what you've given me other than that this is your personal view alone - a view based on personal whim - and therefore arbitrary.

If it is based on a reasoned and logical argument, then it is not based on personal whim. Are you going to address the argument or not?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's because it doesn't matter. All you are trying to do is drag it off topic.

This seems to be a repeating MO. I think it should be called the "rabbit hole" school of apologetics.

 

[Resha Caner]

Morality is derived from the mechanisms of empathy, reason, and logic instead of being decided arbitrarily. I think I have made that argument several times now.

A statement of your position is not an argument.

You find no utility in the morals that western societies use? None of them? Those are the morals I am talking about, and those are the ones derived through empathy, reason, and logic.

Really? No influence from Christianity or other cultures? I need a historical citation that these 3 principles are what established the morality of "western societies".

Are you going to have a discussion with me or not?

I'm trying. As soon as you give me something to discuss, we can begin. A historical example ... something.

 

[Loudmouth]

A statement of your position is not an argument.

I stated my argument.

Really? No influence from Christianity or other cultures? I need a historical citation that these 3 principles are what established the morality of "western societies".

Why? So you can ignore those as well?

Address the argument.

I'm trying. As soon as you give me something to discuss, we can begin. A historical example ... something.

Morality is derived through the use of empathy, reason, and logic which makes it non-arbitrary.

Discuss.

 

[Resha Caner]

I stated my argument.

Please summarize it for me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please summarize it for me.

Morality is derived from the mechanisms of empathy, reason, and logic instead of being decided arbitrarily.

 

[Resha Caner]

Morality is derived from the mechanisms of empathy, reason, and logic instead of being decided arbitrarily.

That's an argument? It seems more a hypothesis or a belief than an argument - a statement of a position. How does it demonstrate utility?

Empathy is an anecdotal experience as it requires sharing the experience of the affected other person. Such experiences are significantly variable and in some cases impossible to duplicate. It is therefore very unreliable for systematic morality, requiring personal, subjective judgement that would introduce whim. <--- That's an argument.

And, in addition to the previous citation I gave, here is another supporting my view of empathy: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201505/empathy-vs-sympathy
The key quote being, "It means very little to know that a million Chinese are starving unless you know one Chinese who is starving."

 

[Loudmouth]

That's an argument? It seems more a hypothesis or a belief than an argument - a statement of a position. How does it demonstrate utility?

It offers a standard for morality that everyone can access and judge for themselves.

Empathy is an anecdotal experience as it requires sharing the experience of the affected other person. Such experiences are significantly variable and in some cases impossible to duplicate. It is therefore very unreliable for systematic morality, requiring personal, subjective judgement that would introduce whim.

And yet it doesn't. Completely different cultures have arrived at the same conclusions independently of one another through empathy. For example, all cultures think theft and murder are wrong. The Enlightenment saw the emergence of what we would call modern democratic governments and philosophies, and they too were based on empathy, reason, and logic.

Also, it is not empathy alone. Reason and logic are a part of it too.

And, in addition to the previous citation I gave, here is another supporting my view of empathy: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201505/empathy-vs-sympathy
The key quote being, "It means very little to know that a million Chinese are starving unless you know one Chinese who is starving."

That is an example of not applying empathy.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is an example of not applying empathy.

Do you mean sympathy? Empathy is about "walking in someone else's shoes". How is it a lack of empathy to suggest that one can't understand the suffering of the Chinese unless one at least knows Chinese who have suffered?

It offers a standard for morality that everyone can access and judge for themselves.

How is it that in this sentence you have everyone judging for themselves and in the next sentence you say your system doesn't lead to subjective personal judgements? Your statements contradict. Everyone's ability to utilize reason and logic is different. Therefore, if left to themselves, there will be many different conclusions ... and there are many different conclusions. Just look at the ethics forum of CF.

Access is a good thing, but I don't see how this gives better access to a moral system. In fact, it prevents access to some. What do you do about those?

And I don't see how access & subjective judgement count as utility. You'll need to clarify.

Completely different cultures have arrived at the same conclusions independently of one another through empathy.

Citation please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you mean sympathy? Empathy is about "walking in someone else's shoes". How is it a lack of empathy to suggest that one can't understand the suffering of the Chinese unless one at least knows Chinese who have suffered?

Good point. In that case, it is a lack of applying reason and logic. You know that you wouldn't want to starve just because of the greed of others. Logic dictates that if you wouldn't want it to happen to you, it would be unjust and immoral to let your actions cause others to starve.

How is it that in this sentence you have everyone judging for themselves and in the next sentence you say your system doesn't lead to subjective personal judgements?

Because reason and logic are not subjective.

Everyone's ability to utilize reason and logic is different.

Everyone's ability to utilize algebra is different. That doesn't make algebra subjective or a personal whim.

Access is a good thing, but I don't see how this gives better access to a moral system. In fact, it prevents access to some. What do you do about those?

The only people without access are those who can't empathize, use reason, or use logic. Those who don't have empathy or the ability to reason and use logic we already excuse from wrongdoing since they are not moral agents.

And I don't see how access & subjective judgement count as utility.

Reason and logic are not subjective.

Citation please.

You don't accept the rather obvious observation that almost all countries outlaw theft and murder?