The problem of evil

[Drakim]

hey, note that this isn't really a thread about religion. Sure, it may overlap a little, but I feel that if I try to start this discussion in some official religion thread, it's going to be washed away by other posts about child rape, crusades and evolution. So, I've taken the liberty to make a separate thread for this.

Please read my whole post. I'm going to write some rebuttals to the most common responses, such as the one of free will. Please don't skip this and post "duh dude, it's all about free will"

So, I bet most people know the problem of evil. I was hoping this thread would become one of those big ones, where we can go in depth on the problem of evil while being free from other religious issues that comes up. It's more of a philosophical issue than a religious one really.

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
- Epicurus

So, the essentials are:

1. God can do anything. We are talking about the ultimate creator of the universe who created all matter and energy, and set in motion the laws of physics and whatnot.

2. God does not desire evil. Sure, you can argue that evil are necessary in some causes, but, if God has two choices, where the results are the same but one option causes more evil than the other, he is going to pick the one with less evil.

3. For the purpose of this thread, the existance of evil is proposed. The argument that evil does not exist is an interesting one, but it's outside the scope of this thread. (As is the argument that nothing is real and everything is an illusion. Seriously, there is an asshole post like that in every thread)

Now, the instant response you can get anywhere is that it's about free will. Evil must exist for there to be a choice. However, I have several issues with this response, which I will list here. I've never expressed these before online (not that they are very original), so I'd like your response to them.

1. The idea that evil must exist for free will to exist, is in essence a compromise. Something bad must exist for something good to exist. However, the idea that an omnipotent being needs to compromise about something is ridiculous. God being forced to compromise would mean that God isn't really omnipotent.

2. A lot of people who uses the "God cannot act because of free will" argument happens to believe that God came down on earth in some form, or spoke to some people, or did some miracles. These are clearly interventions that have prevented evil. Jesus healed some blind beggars. Why didn't they lose their free will? And if they kept their free will, then why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today? (as God desires less evil)

3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

I'm interested to hear your responses.

[fatape]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:
4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

im gonna call bullsit on that one if I was blindfolded and raped then I don't think it would be much time before I was "forced" to comply. Men don't control there junk directly.

other then that I think you have a good arguement

[Drakim]

At 6/4/09 11:16 AM, fatape wrote:

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:
4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

im gonna call bullsit on that one if I was blindfolded and raped then I don't think it would be much time before I was "forced" to comply. Men don't control there junk directly.

Sure, but you do realize that you had to start of your imaginary rape example by having yourself tied up and blindfolded? This isn't always easy at hand when a rapist rushes somebody in a back alley. I'm sure they could drag you out of sight and into a room, where they would tie you up and blindfold you and take their time, but my argument was really just that it was easier to rape women, not that it's impossible to rape men.

other then that I think you have a good arguement

Thank you

[EggSnake]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:
4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

Did you know that cattle developed horns after eons of eating their own babies? Did you also know that the only part of women that is smaller than a man is the chest, because of the massive absorbtion of hormones by the mammaries? Did you know that evil is considered seperate from murder and abuse in that evil is "magic"? Did you know that men never have really won the age old English fight over what the best is of everything? Did you know that 2 out of 3 of those factors lead to men raping each other more that women do to other women? Why do men want kids so bad anyways? To play some ball? To join some clubs? To make sure Mommy makes them dinner that they like? I think these American Christian values belong in the junkyard with all the other American Capitalist wastes of time. Like General Motors.

[Drakim]

At 6/4/09 12:11 PM, EggSnake wrote: stuff

Uhm, your rant was an.....interesting read. But I have a hard time finding any relevance to the problem of evil. Or anything else for that matter.

[aninjaman]

I don't get how this isn't a religious thread. This is simply stating why a benevolent god and evil can't exist together. It is an atheism argument.
Which leads to the question, who says god has to be benevolent?

[Drakim]

At 6/4/09 01:43 PM, aninjaman wrote: I don't get how this isn't a religious thread.

Why must the idea and concept of God be a synonym of religion? I mean, Buddhism doesn't have a God. Does that mean it's not a proper religion?

....or is it impossible to talk about God without having to use religion as a framework? The ideas cannot exist independently?

:This is simply stating why a benevolent god and evil can't exist together. It is an atheism argument.
Sure, but it's an argument I did not find another topic for by searching, and I felt that the official religion topics are too much about religion itself rather than philosophical aspects and ideas such as design or godhood.

Which leads to the question, who says god has to be benevolent?

Most people? Like, I bet that over 90% of the US population would instantly name God as benevolent, although I could be wrong.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote: 1. The idea that evil must exist for free will to exist, is in essence a compromise. Something bad must exist for something good to exist. However, the idea that an omnipotent being needs to compromise about something is ridiculous. God being forced to compromise would mean that God isn't really omnipotent.

;;;;
IT can mean many things... why couldn't it mean God doesn't actually care one way or the other.
Why couldn't it be something as simple as - There is no good or evil.
Or as i've mentioned once at least why isn't it possible there are more than 1 god/omniputent powerful being in the multiverse ?

But personally I believe -There is only a personal perspective of an action being good, or that action being evil.

2. A lot of people who uses the "God cannot act because of free will" argument happens to believe that God came down on earth in some form, or spoke to some people, or did some miracles. These are clearly interventions that have prevented evil. Jesus healed some blind beggars. Why didn't they lose their free will? And if they kept their free will, then why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today? (as God desires less evil)

I believe God came down to earth about as much as I believe , I'm going to grow a nice set of tits & start having babies...seeing as I have a dick & I have used it to FATHER babies...chances are IMO about as good as God coming by, as my tit growing pregnancy happening. Your throwin greligion into a topic your trying to keep religion out of.

3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

;;;;
I'm sorry but I don't understand what natural planetary occurences has to do with evil ? Same goes for weather related incidents .Also That you've lumped this in with 'evil thoughts' isn't making sense to me-sorry if i'm being dense on this point...but the two IMO (again) are not related.

4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

;;;;
Let's first try & remember all men are not stronger than all women, men 'generally' are bigger & stronger than women, but that's not written in stone as they say. Because of physical demands placed on our bodies & the fact a female has to be able to carry a fetus to term means that she has adaptations that allow her body to accomplish this task.
Also in many species reproduction/sex is a 'drive' that animals feel & in many cases females 'choose' the male . So a bigger stronger male, a male with more brilliant coloring, looks 'healthier' than another male & because females desire to have 'healthy' babies the go for the Male who appears to be the better candidate. This is especially true in species like primates where the raising of the baby takes longer than in other species & having a stronger male means protection/help for the femate. But as has been proven in primate studies, some females actually 'cheat ' on the dominant male ,with another male when they think they can get away with it.

Somewhere I read a paper on 'god' & in it one of the ideas was that God, was responsible for the creation of the universe but he was also the destroyer as well. So God is both good & evil. They went on with how God should be thought of more in an positive (good) & negative (bad) concept & try to throw off the 'religious' groups ideas of God only being benevolent.

Let's not forget the idea of Good God & Bad Devil is a religious construct & there's no more proof of one than there is of the other.
When I think of God & how he relates to us here...Look at it almost like a Gardener, for a nice orderly healthy Garden, some plants must be helped. Some plants must be killed & some plants must be culled to keep them from taking over & ruining another plant(s). That doesn't mean any of them are 'good plants or bad or evil...they just are what they are. Our perspective of what plant is wanted or not wanted, drives the process of what lives ,dies, or is helped or arrested.

I would also like to point out that often an act like a suicide bombing at say a market place is viewed by us in the West as an evil act. But to the people who are poor , desperate have no hope for anything better , they do what they can to attempt to make a statement & escape by dieing and going to heaven where they will be 'rewarded' as per their religious teachings...So it is actually man against man & has nothing to do with God or good or evil, except in our perception (westerner...very terrilbe evil thing, muslim fighting western imperialism its a good thing)

Does any of this make any sense at all ?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote: 1. The idea that evil must exist for free will to exist, is in essence a compromise. Something bad must exist for something good to exist. However, the idea that an omnipotent being needs to compromise about something is ridiculous. God being forced to compromise would mean that God isn't really omnipotent.

That "evil must exist for free will to exist" isn't the case. That's backwards.
The case is that free will exists and thus evil has the potential to exist as well.

Evil is not a prerequisite for free will. Evil is a conditional consequence of free will.

I don't see how it means God is compromising on anything, either. If one intention of the hypothesized "God's Plan" is that we are to make our choices for ourselves (even if the consequences of our choices are unhealthy for ourselves or others), that end still seems achieved. As silly as this stuff sounds to some people, it seems even sillier to me to think that free will could be possible without also including the freedom to screw up, make mistakes, et cetera.

2. A lot of people who uses the "God cannot act because of free will" argument happens to believe that God came down on earth in some form, or spoke to some people, or did some miracles. These are clearly interventions that have prevented evil. Jesus healed some blind beggars. Why didn't they lose their free will? And if they kept their free will, then why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today? (as God desires less evil)

What do you mean by "why didn't they lose their free will?" As I understand it, they wanted to be healed; it WAS their will. I don't recall reading about them complaining that they could now see. As for "why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today?" ... I understand where people are coming from with this sort of argument and all but, man, it seems so simplistic. I think it's a little disappointing how some people consider the "why do bad things happen to good people?" argument a decent one.

It seems clear to me that situations that compromise health (whether the situations are intended by a person or not) will occur naturally and that we have a choice about doing something about those situations or not. You referenced Jesus healing the sick. Some people say that Jesus' life serves as a perfect example of how we should lead our lives. So what sense does it make to just passively hope that God will send a magic healing beam from outer-space to cure the planet? How does that really benefit our self-development or development as a species anyway, besides providing only some temporary relief until the NEXT generation is born with sick or infirmed people too? Aren't WE supposed to be compelled to heal the sick or at least provide them some measure of comfort in their suffering? Isn't THAT the lesson we should be learning?

God doesn't magically heal the sick or even force us to heal the sick since he wants us to act of our own accord. That being said, Jesus served as an example to show that's what God wants us to be doing. But the point of free will is that we should want to be doing it ourselves.

And you can't even say that "healing the sick" is necessarily an obvious or common sense policy because there are many people out there who would argue-for and firmly support philosophies of selfishness or philosophies that look upon weakness as something that should be destroyed as opposed to something fixed or accepted.

-----
If I could draw an analogy: When your own body is injured or sick, you WANT to feel better, you WANT to be healthy, but just because you want it doesn't mean its going to happen by itself even if you DO have full ownership over your own body. You can't command your blood to clot. The fact is that all your internal systems have to be working in concert, correctly, to restore health. In a sense, humanity (and the rest of all life and all existence) serves as the body of God. So, God may WANT to be at full goodness, full health, but it's necessary that the internal systems (us!) take care of it. Even though God wants it, we're the ones that have to act for the betterment of the whole body. How would Jesus fit into that? I don't know, think of him as the placebo pill. The strength in the pill doesn't come from its ingredients, rather, it comes from how the body responds to the presence of an agent meant and intended to heal. It isn't actually some external chemical doing the healing, it's the body itself.
-----

3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

What does 'evil' have to do with earthquakes and typhoons anyway? Just because people might suffer in weather doesn't mean that weather is evil (or even a result of themselves performing evil actions, as some might think).

Evil can lead to suffering, but it doesn't mean that suffering is always a product of evil actions.

4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

I honestly think it's heeeeelarious whenever someone brings up the "God doesn't seem like all that good of a designer" angle. You might as well make the argument that a hammer is practically a recipe for a broken skull and go on ignoring the whole "free will" thing that you've apparently already dismissed.

Men and women aren't just different physically, they're different psychologically and emotionally as well (which of course, as the materialists would presume stem from the physical anyway). In any case, through our immediate experience we learn that:

Life is created through the reconciling of opposites.

A lock and a key are two separate and quite different things, but the purpose of one is only achieved through interacting with the other in such a way that their different purposes (keeping things closed vs. opening things up) are essentially one in the same.

[Ericho]

I mostly assume that God's understanding is simply beyond the comprehension of any human being, thus we'll never be able to understand it, so I doubt trying to put a lot of human logic is going to help us.

[Drakim]

At 6/4/09 02:29 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Now I'm sad. Seriously, that was a bad post morefngdbs D: You are supposed to be one of the good posters.

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote: 1. The idea that evil must exist for free will to exist, is in essence a compromise. Something bad must exist for something good to exist. However, the idea that an omnipotent being needs to compromise about something is ridiculous. God being forced to compromise would mean that God isn't really omnipotent.

;;;;
IT can mean many things... why couldn't it mean God doesn't actually care one way or the other.

Oi, disputing one of the preconditions are we? That's great, but it has no place in this topic. The problem of evil requires that God cares one way or the other. The question about God's care for the world is one that should go in another thread.

Why couldn't it be something as simple as - There is no good or evil.

Again, I even addressed this in my first post. Didn't you read it? This is outside the scope of this topic.

Or as i've mentioned once at least why isn't it possible there are more than 1 god/omniputent powerful being in the multiverse ?

Can there even be two separate omnipotent forces at the same time? Who would win if they fought? If it was a draw, I would hardly call either of them "omnipotent", being able to do ANYTHING.

But personally I believe -There is only a personal perspective of an action being good, or that action being evil.

Great. Find a relevant topic for that.

2. A lot of people who uses the "God cannot act because of free will" argument happens to believe that God came down on earth in some form, or spoke to some people, or did some miracles. These are clearly interventions that have prevented evil. Jesus healed some blind beggars. Why didn't they lose their free will? And if they kept their free will, then why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today? (as God desires less evil)

I believe God came down to earth about as much as I believe , I'm going to grow a nice set of tits & start having babies...seeing as I have a dick & I have used it to FATHER babies...chances are IMO about as good as God coming by, as my tit growing pregnancy happening. Your throwin greligion into a topic your trying to keep religion out of.

Yeah, I do admit that is a blunder, but I could come up with no other way to make my point. People say that God cannot fix up all the bad stuff while they are arguing that we should believe that he came down and fixed up all the bad stuff. It doesn't match.

3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

;;;;
I'm sorry but I don't understand what natural planetary occurences has to do with evil ?

It's a common thought in society that death and suffering is evil. God designed our planet, and thus how it would act. The way the planet acts causes death and suffering.

Same goes for weather related incidents .Also That you've lumped this in with 'evil thoughts' isn't making sense to me-sorry if i'm being dense on this point...but the two IMO (again) are not related.

Part of my point is that they aren't related. Both can for the (sake of the argument) be classified as evil, but, the free will stuff only applies to thought. Yet, the free will argument is used as a solution to the problem of evil.

4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

;;;;
Let's first try & remember all men are not stronger than all women, men 'generally' are bigger & stronger than women, but that's not written in stone as they say.

Fuck, sweet jesus. Did you really think I was arguing all men was stronger than woman? Please please just....ARG.

Because of physical demands placed on our bodies & the fact a female has to be able to carry a fetus to term means that she has adaptations that allow her body to accomplish this task.

But she was designed by an omnipotent God. He could make a design that could accomplish these tasks without making her prone to rape.

Also in many species reproduction/sex is a 'drive' that animals feel & in many cases females 'choose' the male . So a bigger stronger male, a male with more brilliant coloring, looks 'healthier' than another male & because females desire to have 'healthy' babies the go for the Male who appears to be the better candidate.

Yet again, God defined and designed these systems. He could have done them differently. You are in essence saying that "that's just the way it is". This is not the case when we have an omnipotent designer.

This is especially true in species like primates where the raising of the baby takes longer than in other species & having a stronger male means protection/help for the femate. But as has been proven in primate studies, some females actually 'cheat ' on the dominant male ,with another male when they think they can get away with it.

I hardly see the relevance.

Somewhere I read a paper on 'god' & in it one of the ideas was that God, was responsible for the creation of the universe but he was also the destroyer as well. So God is both good & evil. They went on with how God should be thought of more in an positive (good) & negative (bad) concept & try to throw off the 'religious' groups ideas of God only being benevolent.

Great, but outside the scope of the problem of evil.

Let's not forget the idea of Good God & Bad Devil is a religious construct & there's no more proof of one than there is of the other.

YES, BUT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT A PROBLEM THAT ARISES WHEN ONE FOLLOWS A PARTICULAR CONSTRUCT. Sweet jesus, do you go posting about firemen in a police thread?

The problem of evil is easy to solve by simply saying God isn't omnipotent or that God isn't all loving. But, that's the point, you can't say that. The problem of evil is a problem posed to those who already holds those two sets of belief.

When I think of God & how he relates to us here...Look at it almost like a Gardener, for a nice orderly healthy Garden, some plants must be helped. Some plants must be killed & some plants must be culled to keep them from taking over & ruining another plant(s). That doesn't mean any of them are 'good plants or bad or evil...they just are what they are. Our perspective of what plant is wanted or not wanted, drives the process of what lives ,dies, or is helped or arrested.

Great. Go make a neutral theism thread now.

I would also like to point out that often an act like a suicide bombing at say a market place is viewed by us in the West as an evil act. But to the people who are poor , desperate have no hope for anything better , they do what they can to attempt to make a statement & escape by dieing and going to heaven where they will be 'rewarded' as per their religious teachings...So it is actually man against man & has nothing to do with God or good or evil, except in our perception (westerner...very terrilbe evil thing, muslim fighting western imperialism its a good thing)

How do you even know that? How do you know that God doesn't want suicide bombers? It's an uber act of faith.

Does any of this make any sense at all ?

No, it does not. I think something is wrong with you. Posting while smoking the mary J?

[poxpower]

At 6/4/09 03:59 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

But the point of free will is that we should want to be doing it ourselves.

Why did God give people free will if he wanted them to behave a certain way?

And when he obviously punishes entire civilizations if a few people choose to be bad? If I decide to be evil and shoot up a school, God does nothing to help the righteous that I kill.

Explain.

You can't command your blood to clot.

Aren't all the flaws in our bodies God's fault if you attribute creation to God?
Why do we have to die? What lesson is there to be learned when you can just die from a mistake?

It's like if I kick you out of school if you answer one question wrong during a class. It's nonsense.

And if we DON'T die and go to heaven: then what's the point of life?
???

What's heaven like that makes it better than here?

And if we come back reincarnation-style, then what's the point of lessons? We'll forget them each time anyway.

And if we just die and that's is, then clearly there's no lessons to be learned except "do ALL THAT YOU CAN TO SURVIVE, NO MATTER WHO HAS TO DIE".

In a sense, humanity (and the rest of all life and all existence) serves as the body of God.

So why does God send horrible natural disasters to decimate random populations of good people?
And if he doesn't do that, then what the fuck DOES he do? Why call him God? He can't stop a lava flow if it's about to raze a town of peaceful loving farmers?

I honestly think it's heeeeelarious whenever someone brings up the "God doesn't seem like all that good of a designer" angle.

The "god is a perfect creator" argument is usually nonsense and argues from the point that EVERYTHING is "perfect". Clearly women can't be as perfect as men and vice-versa. Whatever criteria for perfect you choose, you have to pick one and stick with it.

The "out" for this is just the one you're taking: everything is different but still perfect.
All hammers are perfect. Broken hammers are perfect like non-broken hammers. Midgets are perfect. Fat women are perfect. People with cancer are perfect.

It's nonsense.
You just eliminate every and all criteria by which to judge if something is perfect or not, or even well-made or not.

Thankfully, that shit doesn't fly in engineering school, where people actually have standards for well-made objects and good designs and they know that if a nuclear reactor explodes, it wasn't "different', it was SHITTY.

Life is created through the reconciling of opposites.

Wait so why aren't there always the same number of men as women again?

======================================

The bottom line is this:

Good and evil are subjective. God doesn't decide what's good and evil, and neither does anyone. To say that "god allows evil" is to presume to know the definition of evil, which is nonexistant.

And second point: omnipotence is nonsensical. It's like "infinite" in math terms. You can't define omnipotence or perfect in any meaningful way and apply it to the real world. If God is perfect, then is he a man or a woman? What color is his favorite?
Etc. etc. It just leads to tons of crazy nonsensical things where you have to either admit everything is just a matter of opinion hence God can't be objectively perfect or omnipotent anyway or you have to admit insane things like "blue is the best color" which are clearly impossible to support logically.

[poxpower]

Oh and to add to the design point, design implies a goal or a function.

As humans, it's easy for us to judge the value of a design because we know the purpose of what we make. It's easy to compare one stick to another for clubbing-purposes.

So what your challenge is, if you argue that everything is equally well-designed, is to prove that each thing has it's own unique purpose.

It's pretty fucking easy when you pick broad things like "women are for babies, men are for sperm" but why don't you compare two women?
Why don't you compare a sterile woman, with a non-sterile one?

Clearly in that case if you were arguing that the purpose of women's design is to carry kids, then one is superior to the other. In fact, one is worthless.

But if you weren't arguing that this was the purpose of women, then give whatever purpose.

Ultimately this will lead you down the same path where you'll have to admit either that some things are inferior to others and thus God sucked at designing those things or that everything has it's own impossibly narrow and unique purpose, hence, again, everything is 100% perfectly designed.

Which renders the definition of "good" design nill since it's impossible to make a BAD design.
Which again still doesn't make God a good designer because he can't fail anyway. It's like playing Mortal Kombat 3 as Motaro. Yeah you'll win, but no one will call you a good player.

[ILovezoms]

Yes this argument can easily be batted away with the free will defence

and then that leads to "well all life is pre-determined by genes and stuff'

then you have the hint of randomness which makes that obselete and so on and so forth

I can see this becoming just another Religion debate so you guys really need to keep it in one thread

[kraor024]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:
3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

Even it may appear to be unnecessary there is no way to tell if it is because we do not know the goal, I think all human acts of evil would look unnecessary if you didn't know the reason any of them were happening.

All evil may be necessary to whatever god's goal could be.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:

Aight I'm not going to reply to this OP yet because I feel I've already explained things like this far too much already, so I'm just going to reply to a reply somone did on another topic but it relates to this topic so....yeah..

At 6/4/09 10:14 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

I am absolutely willing to give respectful responses, so long as we can both agree not to start insulting one another.

Well we wont know till we try 8P lol

Human nature, I suppose. Animals generally have to be violent to gain control in social circles. However, now that our methods of gaining power in society are not (usually) directly linked to violence, it's an unfortunate trait that we still have.

Thought i don't agree with your saying humans are animals, I agree that violence has been a very poor way for people to get what they want, violence by the way in all cases is used when somone wants something but doesn't get it, from a poor person stealing food to a rich person shooting a cop who saw him doing crack to a government official having somone assassinated. Instead of taking the high road which would be the smartest because if your intentions are for good and your means nonviolent then there shouldn't be any reason people wont agree and thus no reason to use violence, so violence can be confidently deemed as wrong right?

What the shopkeeper did was a very nice thing, and proves that we can someday have a brighter future.

I don't actually think anybody does what they do because they're evil, or because they just hate goodness. I think everybody, in their minds, is somehow attributing their actions to supporting some cause.

Well thats up to the person doing the actions i suppose, what they choose to justify it with, but does anything ever justify violence? Sure if your life were threatened or somone else's life were threatened n you decided to defend yourself and ended up either seriously injuring or killing the other person, would that make your act of violence right? My opinion, ofcourse not, violence is wrong, but the justification that your life or another's was in danger sort of nutralizes it a bit, you feel bad that you had to resort of violence and that you hurt/killed another person.... (I really hope you wouldn't enjoy killing somone in any situation).

No, I understand what you are saying. I'm a generally optimistic person, almost to the point of stupidity. I, whenever I can, try to help the people around me.

lols

The one problem is that, as humans, flawed creatures, we aren't always sure what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Well I'm sure we have a pretty good idea of right n wrong, if I hit you in the head with a sludghammer that wouldn't be good would it? lols (i wouldn't do that though)
"flawed creatures"? ....(shrugs) maybe, but this is what we are...( I don't think I would call free will a flaw or maybe that not what you mean...)

I am always willing to have this conversation.

Wewt

[GrammerNaziElite]

Human nature, I suppose. Animals generally have to be violent to gain control in social circles. However, now that our methods of gaining power in society are not (usually) directly linked to violence, it's an unfortunate trait that we still have.

Thought i don't agree with your saying humans are animals, I agree that violence has been a very poor way for people to get what they want, violence by the way in all cases is used when somone wants something but doesn't get it, from a poor person stealing food to a rich person shooting a cop who saw him doing crack to a government official having somone assassinated. Instead of taking the high road which would be the smartest because if your intentions are for good and your means nonviolent then there shouldn't be any reason people wont agree and thus no reason to use violence, so violence can be confidently deemed as wrong right?

Well, humans are animals, we are biologically and physiologically the same as them. Obviously humans have a quality that are lacking, maybe not a soul per say, but some quality. I agree that violence is wrong, or at least in most cases. Some problems can only be solved with violence, as unfortunate as it is, but I suppose as long as it's for the greater good, it's excusable. I can understand how a poor person might want to steal food, I guess that's more of a grey area.

What the shopkeeper did was a very nice thing, and proves that we can someday have a brighter future.

I don't actually think anybody does what they do because they're evil, or because they just hate goodness. I think everybody, in their minds, is somehow attributing their actions to supporting some cause.

Well thats up to the person doing the actions i suppose, what they choose to justify it with, but does anything ever justify violence? Sure if your life were threatened or somone else's life were threatened n you decided to defend yourself and ended up either seriously injuring or killing the other person, would that make your act of violence right? My opinion, ofcourse not, violence is wrong, but the justification that your life or another's was in danger sort of nutralizes it a bit, you feel bad that you had to resort of violence and that you hurt/killed another person.... (I really hope you wouldn't enjoy killing somone in any situation).

Well, it all really revolves around the concept of righteousness. Killing is always bad, but it's not always wrong. If you have to kill to save lives, while the killing itself is still apprehensible, the fact that they were doing it for a good reason sort of balances it out. It's a very sticky situation, and it's very susceptible to the slippery slope.

That being said, I don't really think anybody is EVIL. Nobody really ever does bad things for the hell of it, everybody tries to justify their actions somehow, even if it's in the most greedy and selfish way. Hitler killed millions of people indirectly, but he did it for the good of Germany. That doesn't make what he did RIGHT, but it does mean that he wasn't a Bond villain.

No, I understand what you are saying. I'm a generally optimistic person, almost to the point of stupidity. I, whenever I can, try to help the people around me.

lols

The one problem is that, as humans, flawed creatures, we aren't always sure what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Well I'm sure we have a pretty good idea of right n wrong, if I hit you in the head with a sludghammer that wouldn't be good would it? lols (i wouldn't do that though)
"flawed creatures"? ....(shrugs) maybe, but this is what we are...( I don't think I would call free will a flaw or maybe that not what you mean...)

Free will isn't a flaw, but we are flawed. We certainly aren't perfect. We fight and we curse and we kill. And we don't always know what's right. Some of us may have a general idea, but is it, say, right to kill a 3-year old to save her mother? I don't know. Police officers and soldiers are often racked with a guilty conscience because they may not have done the best thing.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 6/5/09 12:14 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:
Well, humans are animals, we are biologically and physiologically the same as them. Obviously humans have a quality that are lacking, maybe not a soul per say, but some quality. I agree that violence is wrong, or at least in most cases. Some problems can only be solved with violence, as unfortunate as it is, but I suppose as long as it's for the greater good, it's excusable. I can understand how a poor person might want to steal food, I guess that's more of a grey area.

Yes, yes we are simillar to animals when it comes to basic structure such as bones n muscle, brain and other parts are alot more advanced, same creator, same basic design n we have many many different designs that are found in different creatures also in which I don't attribute to an evolutionarry standpoint but that is beside the point n the discussion.
Yes some problems can only be soved with violence meaning when a person's life is in imediate danger, its not done for the greater good, its done out of survival which is every human being's right, what isn't however is any other act of violence for anything other than sel defense, when a poor person steals food they mat be doing it for a cause other than themselves but that doesn't make it right, what would be more acceptable would be that the person accepts what they've done as wrong and feels remorse and tries to overcome it so they wont feel the need to do it again, agree?

I don't actually think anybody does what they do because they're evil, or because they just hate goodness. I think everybody, in their minds, is somehow attributing their actions to supporting some cause.

Ofcourse no one is truly a purely evil person but I suppose what I'm going off as I call acts of evil are the 10 commandments, everything the oposite of what God is and wants is seen as evil because he is the..... well hes God lol
I'm not one to try and justify my actions just because I don't want to feel bad for doing bad things or have an excuse, hell even when I kill a little insect I feel a lil bad about it 8/

Well, it all really revolves around the concept of righteousness. Killing is always bad, but it's not always wrong. If you have to kill to save lives, while the killing itself is still apprehensible, the fact that they were doing it for a good reason sort of balances it out. It's a very sticky situation, and it's very susceptible to the slippery slope.

But killing is always wrong, it sometimes may be the only answer to save yourself or others, the point is that you must realize that you've done something wong that you should never do, if somone thought that killing was right in certain situations then they would most likely be killing people on accident thinking they were going to try and harm other people....same with the soldiers in other countries, but with them theyre trained to kill and their morals are stripped away from them, thats part of the reason there has been alot of suicides and nervous breakdowns there

That being said, I don't really think anybody is EVIL. Nobody really ever does bad things for the hell of it, everybody tries to justify their actions somehow, even if it's in the most greedy and selfish way. Hitler killed millions of people indirectly, but he did it for the good of Germany. That doesn't make what he did RIGHT, but it does mean that he wasn't a Bond villain.

Exactly! Hitler did HORRIBLE things with the best intentions in mind, some of the worst things are done with the best intentions, but that doesn't make it right, I think you've got the idea now XD

Free will isn't a flaw, but we are flawed. We certainly aren't perfect. We fight and we curse and we kill. And we don't always know what's right. Some of us may have a general idea, but is it, say, right to kill a 3-year old to save her mother? I don't know. Police officers and soldiers are often racked with a guilty conscience because they may not have done the best thing.

That is exactly what I'm saying, along with the manipulation of religion and other such things, the grasp on right n wrong has somewhat been lost in some people.
And the part about killing a child to save her mother, I would think the mother would be expected to gladly give her life to save her daughter's, but thats just me, its not me to decide on whether somone should value another's life over their own, but you've gotta admit that giving your life to save another's is like the epitome of good I'm sure we can agree on that.

hmmm, i feel pretty good about this convorsation 8)

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 6/4/09 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/4/09 03:59 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

I will eat my own words just this once of saying i was going to ignore Pox and answer a bit of his reply....

But the point of free will is that we should want to be doing it ourselves.

Why did God give people free will if he wanted them to behave a certain way?

Because life isn't about doing what God wants us to do, its about choosing to do what God want us to do, he gave us the choice to be with him which means we also have the choice to not be with him, God already knows how we're all going to end up but the thing is that we don't, so we have this chance to be with God and to do that you must be perfect, but obviously none of us are perfect, that is why Jesus died for our sins so that we could be forgiven n after we pay the price of a mortal death, and because we were born spiritually dead we can then be saved from an eternal spiritual death and be born again.

And when he obviously punishes entire civilizations if a few people choose to be bad? If I decide to be evil and shoot up a school, God does nothing to help the righteous that I kill.

Because you have a choice and so would the other people at the school, obviouslt if one of the students had the oppuratunity to take you down when you weren't looking, they would sacrifice their own lives to protect everyone else, which is the most honorable thing but isn't very common since the situation comes very rarely and sometimes isn't seen as such if the person wasn't successful.
The thing you're referring to is Noah and the village that was destroyed before the flood, its really odd that you would ask questions about it though you somehow know that God doesn't exist, very very odd.

[GrammerNaziElite]

Yes, yes we are simillar to animals when it comes to basic structure such as bones n muscle, brain and other parts are alot more advanced, same creator, same basic design n we have many many different designs that are found in different creatures also in which I don't attribute to an evolutionarry standpoint but that is beside the point n the discussion.

Well, we are certainly a lot more advanced. A mouse must feel the same way about ants. I don't think our human 'spirit', as it will, is anything more than an advanced intellect.

Yes some problems can only be soved with violence meaning when a person's life is in imediate danger, its not done for the greater good, its done out of survival which is every human being's right, what isn't however is any other act of violence for anything other than sel defense, when a poor person steals food they mat be doing it for a cause other than themselves but that doesn't make it right, what would be more acceptable would be that the person accepts what they've done as wrong and feels remorse and tries to overcome it so they wont feel the need to do it again, agree?

I agree with you on this, if the person can accept that what they did was wrong and try not to fall under circumstances that would have them do the same thing again, all the better for them.

Ofcourse no one is truly a purely evil person but I suppose what I'm going off as I call acts of evil are the 10 commandments, everything the oposite of what God is and wants is seen as evil because he is the..... well hes God lol

Well, I'm an atheist, but I can agree. The 10 Commandments are very simple laws, so simple rthey are barely even tied to religion. They are definitely a good moral code to live by, whether or not God exists.

I'm not one to try and justify my actions just because I don't want to feel bad for doing bad things or have an excuse, hell even when I kill a little insect I feel a lil bad about it 8/

Sometimes we have to justify our actions, otherwise we go mad with guilt. But if you over justify, you're just setting yourself up for more wrongdoing.

But killing is always wrong, it sometimes may be the only answer to save yourself or others, the point is that you must realize that you've done something wong that you should never do, if somone thought that killing was right in certain situations then they would most likely be killing people on accident thinking they were going to try and harm other people....same with the soldiers in other countries, but with them theyre trained to kill and their morals are stripped away from them, thats part of the reason there has been alot of suicides and nervous breakdowns there

It depends on where you draw the end of the line for morality at. Killing is always wrong at the time of the death, and always BAD no matter what, but is it still wrong if the benefits of the death outweigh the taking of a life? I suppose it depends on whether you judge something based on its own merit or based on the results of the action.

Exactly! Hitler did HORRIBLE things with the best intentions in mind, some of the worst things are done with the best intentions, but that doesn't make it right, I think you've got the idea now XD

Exactly, but it's right in their mind. The question is what is right to everybody.

That is exactly what I'm saying, along with the manipulation of religion and other such things, the grasp on right n wrong has somewhat been lost in some people.
And the part about killing a child to save her mother, I would think the mother would be expected to gladly give her life to save her daughter's, but thats just me, its not me to decide on whether somone should value another's life over their own, but you've gotta admit that giving your life to save another's is like the epitome of good I'm sure we can agree on that.

Morals are slipping away pretty quickly, but I suppose that's always been a problem. A hundred years ago, even a thousand years ago we still had amoral people, we just pay more attention to the ones nowadays. The only time I can think of when morals were rock steady was back in the fifties in America. Unfortunately, that stability came with the side effect of intolerance.

As for the mother and daughter thing, that's what I'm saying. It's a tough choice.

hmmm, i feel pretty good about this convorsation 8)

[Drakim]

Shit, so many replies but no time! D:

But, I can't avoid raising my eyebrowns at this.

At 6/5/09 02:14 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Well, I'm an atheist, but I can agree. The 10 Commandments are very simple laws, so simple rthey are barely even tied to religion. They are definitely a good moral code to live by, whether or not God exists.

The 10 commandments are useful whether God exists or not? Dude, have you even read them? How are the 4 first commandments relevant at all if God doesn't exist?

[GrammerNaziElite]

The 10 commandments are useful whether God exists or not? Dude, have you even read them? How are the 4 first commandments relevant at all if God doesn't exist?

Well, I was more referring to the last 6 Commandments, which people pay much more attention to anyway.

[AapoJoki]

At 6/5/09 01:41 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: its really odd that you would ask questions about it though you somehow know that God doesn't exist, very very odd.

No, it's not. It's called "having an imagination". You can just as well ask why Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side, but it doesn't mean you believe Anakin Skywalker exists.

Either way, these questions are used as a rhetorical device to show the inconsistency of believing in a benevolent, omnipotent god. But I suppose you're unfamiliar with that, too.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/4/09 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote: Now I'm sad. Seriously, that was a bad post morefngdbs D:

;;;;
Sorry Drakim, I didn't post to try & piss you off.

When an animal hunts down & kills a baby, any baby , animal or human . It isn't evil.
Evil is just an opinion by humans about an action that in the opinion of some or all is considered evil.

I don't believe free will , god any of that has anything to do with the concept of evil.
So it (evil) wasn't created by god, or a devil... its just a label that humans put on certain behavior or acts & although not all people may agree that it is in fact 'evil' . If the members of the group your in all think the actionis evil...then it is.

So IMO there Drakim , 'There is no evil' .
None at all. Its just a label ,a word we use to describe an action just like the word 'good'. Another word that describes many different things, things that some will agree = is good & some will not.
Subjective opinions by various persons, changes the outlook of an action , & words we use to describe what we observe in a negative or positive light.

[Ericho]

At 6/4/09 05:02 PM, poxpower wrote: So what your challenge is, if you argue that everything is equally well-designed, is to prove that each thing has it's own unique purpose.

It's very hard to understand and we may never know. You can't simply not believe in something because you don't understand it.

Oh, and congradulations, poxpower, on your new level.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/4/09 05:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Oh and to add to the design point, design implies a goal or a function.

;;;
Not always .
Look at male's , they have nipples.
Useless unworking nipples . If we don't need nipples why are they in our design ?
The reason is we all start out as female in the womb. The presence of a Y chromosome cause changes. The reason we have nipples is because females do.

[Leeloo-Minai]

If you were so inferior to the being you attribute as "god", would rebellion against his percieved tacit approval of evil be playing into his divine plan?

Were humanity to come to one definitive conclusion, then His judgement would hence be made, no?

[Aughiris]

The 'problem with evil' is that many of you don't realize that 'good' and 'evil' are subjective, not objective, even when we're talking about the oh so divine delusion we call 'god'.

For example, if you cannot look trough the eyes of Adolf Hitler and understand that even though he was a madman and had a disgusting view on the world that all he ever wanted to do was to do good for himself and the German people, you are no better than an ape.

[ThunderboltLegion]

I realize you have a lot to read and respond to so I'll keep this short and to the point.

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote: 1. The idea that evil must exist for free will to exist, is in essence a compromise. Something bad must exist for something good to exist. However, the idea that an omnipotent being needs to compromise about something is ridiculous. God being forced to compromise would mean that God isn't really omnipotent.

It's only a compromise if you think of good and evil as two opposing and opposite forces. Evil could simply be the absence of good. So you really don't need the trinity of good, evil and free will. Rather just good and the option to reject that good, otherwise known as free will.

2. A lot of people who uses the "God cannot act because of free will" argument happens to believe that God came down on earth in some form, or spoke to some people, or did some miracles. These are clearly interventions that have prevented evil. Jesus healed some blind beggars. Why didn't they lose their free will? And if they kept their free will, then why isn't God doing something about all the sick people today? (as God desires less evil)

As long as nothing Jesus does affects ones ability to make a choice I see no contradiction here. Showing himself, doing good and preventing 'evil' are just examples or evidences of his divinity.

To make a choice you don't need to be ignorant of the truth (or which is the obvious right choice).

3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

At first glance this doesn't seem like a problem as natural disasters don't seem to fit the definition of "evil" per-se and every death that occurs doesn't necessarily seem to be the (direct) result of 'evil' ...but I think I know what you're getting at.

Why would God create a world where thousands of his children die before their time every day?

One word; entropy.

God did create the world but not the conditions that we live in. Originally the world was meant to be an eternal paradise free from death. Then Eve, using her free will, committed the original sin of choosing to reject Gods word thus disrupting this paradise. I could go on and theorize about what exactly could have taken place to catalyze entropy, why and how but I think that would be getting off topic so for the sake of argument all we need to know is that from that point on entropy increased.

One could then argue that these natural disasters are a result of 'evil' and that the world we live in and everything bad that happens is of mans doing.

4. A lot of design issues seems prone to more evil. Why would God make man physically stronger than the woman, give man a generally stronger sexual desire, and design the sexual organs so that a woman doesn't need to comply in order to have sex, unlike the man? That's practically the recipe for rape!

Some knifes are designed to cut vegetables and are sometimes used for murder. Murder is not the original intended purpose of the design but is rather the result of misuse.

Rape is simply a misuse of the design. It is the result of 'evil', not any design that rape or any other act of 'evil' occurs.

[Aughiris]

At 6/7/09 09:24 AM, Victory wrote:

Cite me a single source claiming that 'God' is objective.