The problem of evil

[bhsmte]

I don't claim to know the origin of morality for all societies. Even in those cases where it seems apparent, the historical record serves as the data, but it is not always explicit evidence.

Do you claim to have evidence for the origin of morality from some societies?

 

[Locutus]

Every time someone insists something is very basic, I suspect that equates to an assumption or speculation rather than explicit evidence. Is that the case here?

Knock yourself out. Do your worst

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Short suffering, long suffering for 110 years at your request.

I say that short suffering is better.
Yes, all suffering is a direct result of man turning from God.
But that gives us the choice to turn back. That's the downside
of having the option to trust God. Yes, the children suffer from
our decision to sin.

Creating a world in which babies suffer as a result of the decision of others to sin is, to me, the most unloving thing a deity could do. It makes the sentence "God is love" nonsensical.

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you claim to have evidence for the origin of morality from some societies?

Yes, there is historical data to suggest the origin of some aspects of morality. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and its ubiquitous use throughout the Enlightenment is good evidence for its impact on issues of property. Likewise, Mosaic Law and its ubiquitous use in Israel is good evidence for its impact on Hebrew/Jewish morality.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, there is historical data to suggest the origin of some aspects of morality. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and its ubiquitous use throughout the Enlightenment is good evidence for its impact on issues of property. Likewise, Mosaic Law and its ubiquitous use in Israel is good evidence for its impact on Hebrew/Jewish morality.

What is that evidence exactly, as to how they use evidence, that points in one direction as to the origin of morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

What is that evidence exactly, as to how they use evidence, that points in one direction as to the origin of morality.

I'm not sure what you're asking. As I stated, there is documentation of its use.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure what you're asking. As I stated, there is documentation of its use.

I am asking for evidence that points in one direction, as to the origin of morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am asking for evidence that points in one direction, as to the origin of morality.

One direction? Are you asking if the evidence excludes alternative sources? Or if it excludes multiple sources?

 

[bhsmte]

One direction? Are you asking if the evidence excludes alternative sources? Or if it excludes multiple sources?

If the evidence could point in different directions, it isnt really evidence for one specific source.

 

[Resha Caner]

If the evidence could point in different directions, it isnt really evidence for one specific source.

I'm not sure we could ever prove one specific source. If you look at how I phrased my reply, I said Locke had an impact on the Enlightenment and Biblical morality had an impact on Israel. The Bible itself speaks to the issue of other cultures in the area influencing Israel. I've got a book by Garry Wills that argues the influence of Locke on Jefferson is overrated.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure we could ever prove one specific source. If you look at how I phrased my reply, I said Locke had an impact on the Enlightenment and Biblical morality had an impact on Israel. The Bible itself speaks to the issue of other cultures in the area influencing Israel. I've got a book by Garry Wills that argues the influence of Locke on Jefferson is overrated.

And my question was; what was their evidence that this morality, was directly impacted by the bible?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think western secular morality's basis is pretty fickle and fungible. In the Netherlands doctors now kill sexually abuse people to "end their suffering". That's just the consequences of a worldview steeped in nihilism and moral relativism. The moral of this story of course is that if you are a burden on people, you deserve to die. THAT is the godless world we are headed towards.

What you failed to mention is that the people suffering from these diseases are asking doctors to kill them. These aren't death penalties. These are requests for euthanasia by the people who would be euthanized.

 

[Resha Caner]

And my question was; what was their evidence that this morality, was directly impacted by the bible?

Its use. Are you looking for something different? Or are you thinking Mosaic Law hasn't had an impact on Jewish morality?

[edit] Let me clarify. When I said I can't prove one specific source, it might have been better to say I can't prove one sole source. There are always multiple factors at play. That doesn't mean we can't establish what some of those factors are.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed the Golden Rule only appears in the Bible.

Then why did you describe it as biblical, given all of the other places where the Golden Rule can be found?

I asked if all your logic does is confirm Biblical morality.

Obviously not. According to descriptions in the Bible, the Amalekites were a group of people that had harassed the Hebrew people for quite some time. God ordered genocide against the Amalekites, including innocent children. That is immoral. Logic would tell you that.

Logic and reason don't float in space by themselves. They need to confirm a premise. If your premise for morality isn't algebra, then what is it?

The premises are quite simple. You are able to feel pain, and you don't like it. Using empathy, reason, and logic, you are able to determine if your actions will cause pain in others. The conclusion is simple. You shouldn't do those things that you know will cause pain in others because you don't want those things done to you.

Yet in both cases they judged for themselves. So who judged their judgement to be immoral and worthy of confinement?

Just as you judge for yourself that the sum of angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees. How do people determine that this is correct?

Your argument. Your responsibility to support it. Just admit you don't have a citation.

I wasn't aware that I had to use a citation to make an argument. I guess you aren't able to address my argument.

Also, I have supported my argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Its use. Are you looking for something different? Or are you thinking Mosaic Law hasn't had an impact on Jewish morality?

[edit] Let me clarify. When I said I can't prove one specific source, it might have been better to say I can't prove one sole source. There are always multiple factors at play. That doesn't mean we can't establish what some of those factors are.

Do all the people who use the bible have the same morality?

 

[Resha Caner]

I wasn't aware that I had to use a citation to make an argument. I guess you aren't able to address my argument.

The need for a citation depends on the type of argument. If you're going to point to things like science or history, and we disagree, you need a citation. The reason this smells so bad is because whenever I ask you questions about biology, you always have a citation ready at hand. It's one of the reasons I continue to listen to you about biology despite our disagreements. Even in this thread you cited something when I mentioned biology. Then, suddenly, you're making historical claims about the source of western morality but refuse to cite anything to support your claims.

Then why did you describe it as biblical, given all of the other places where the Golden Rule can be found?

Oh, please. I call it Biblical because its a principle espoused by the Bible. I didn't learn it from ancient Egyptian texts.

Was Euclid the first to discuss planar geometry? No. Then maybe we shouldn't call it Euclidean geometry.

Just as you judge for yourself that the sum of angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees. How do people determine that this is correct?

I didn't ask "how". I asked "who". More avoidance.

The premises are quite simple. You are able to feel pain, and you don't like it. Using empathy, reason, and logic, you are able to determine if your actions will cause pain in others. The conclusion is simple. You shouldn't do those things that you know will cause pain in others because you don't want those things done to you.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Is it really a matter of eliminating pain, or of minimizing it? And minimizing it for each individual? Or for society as a whole? Or just the society you live in?

Obviously not. According to descriptions in the Bible, the Amalekites were a group of people that had harassed the Hebrew people for quite some time. God ordered genocide against the Amalekites, including innocent children. That is immoral. Logic would tell you that.

I expected you would mention this eventually. Is this the example you want to use to test your pain premise?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do all the people who use the bible have the same morality?

Most are using essentially the same Bible. But no, they don't all exhibit the same morality.

FYI, when you don't answer questions I'm assuming you are assenting to my position. That might be a bad assumption, so you might want to answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

The need for a citation depends on the type of argument. If you're going to point to things like science or history, and we disagree, you need a citation. The reason this smells so bad is because whenever I ask you questions about biology, you always have a citation ready at hand. It's one of the reasons I continue to listen to you about biology despite our disagreements. Even in this thread you cited something when I mentioned biology. Then, suddenly, you're making historical claims about the source of western morality but refuse to cite anything to support your claims.

I am the one making the argument. If you can't address it, just say so.

Oh, please. I call it Biblical because its a principle espoused by the Bible.

It is a principle espoused by multiple cultures that are completely independent of the Bible. You are arbitrarily picking the Bible out of many, many possible sources.

I didn't ask "how". I asked "who". More avoidance.

I didn't avoid anything. I guess you can't address the argument.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Is it really a matter of eliminating pain, or of minimizing it? And minimizing it for each individual? Or for society as a whole? Or just the society you live in?

I didn't say that the application of these simple rules would result in an easy to decipher and simple moral code. Many complex things are the result of the interplay between very simple rules. Very simple physical laws can produce very complex chemicals. Simple mechanisms of geologic activity can produce very complex geologic formations. Morality is no different.

I expected you would mention this eventually. Is this the example you want to use to test your pain premise?

It is the example I want to use to test biblical morality. According to you, God could not order an immoral act. Therefore, you would classify the slaughter of children on the orders of God as being moral. Do you stand by this biblical morality or not?

 

[Resha Caner]

I am the one making the argument. If you can't address it, just say so.

I did address it. But when you ignore my replies there is nothing more to say.

It is a principle espoused by multiple cultures that are completely independent of the Bible. You are arbitrarily picking the Bible out of many, many possible sources.

Really? You have evidence that I was aware of the Egyptian source when I was learning the Golden Rule? Funny. The way I remember it, I didn't know of it at that time. When you only know of one source, I don't see how its arbitrary to follow it.

Or is it that you know why, upon my learning other cultures had similar maxims, I chose to remain with the Bible? Please tell me.

It is the example I want to use to test biblical morality. According to you, God could not order an immoral act. Therefore, you would classify the slaughter of children on the orders of God as being moral. Do you stand by this biblical morality or not?

I'll agree to do that on 2 conditions. 1) That if we're going to use this example to judge Biblical morality, we judge it based on my interpretations. We already know you've judged it to be immoral. There's nothing more needed for that. 2) We also use this example to judge your moral premise regarding pain. That will require you explaining what you think happened.

 

[bhsmte]

Most are using essentially the same Bible. But no, they don't all exhibit the same morality.

FYI, when you don't answer questions I'm assuming you are assenting to my position. That might be a bad assumption, so you might want to answer.

If people who use the bible have varying morality, that tells me other factors are in play.