CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The bible speaks to all of this. So the bible is the source, and the rationale makes perfect sense: God cares for His creations.
This is opposed to your argument from Epicurus, which has been disposed of in modern times. As I said, you refused to actually research the argument, so i had to destroy your argument. I want you to learn, but destroying arguments usually just makes people mad. If you want to actually talk intellectually, stop being arrogant.
This is not an argument about the authenticity nor of the reliability nor the credibility nor of the faith with regards to the Bible. This is an argument outside of that. Way to commit a red herring.
Who gave people their lives to make war? Gave people food so that they might understand what a famine is? Who gave them minds think? Who gave them a physical world to revel in and take pleasure in? And who sinned to make it all go to shame? God is still just is still caring and still loving. And who are you, o man, to say to God that what he has allowed to happen his wrong? are you to say that what he allows does not bring people closer to him, the greatest good? The arrogance in your heart can be seen utterly, o evil man.
I did disprove your argument. You are too blind and arrogant to see that, letting the evil in your heart escape reason.
A belief in God can probably help with depression and making the world seem more magical. I'm not sure if God is helping you pass a test or find a dollar, though. At least not God as a being separate from yourself.
So, you believe hell is where God sends people for eternal pain and suffering? You just told me that you would not hurt those you love... So, why do you think that God would be any different?
I believe that hell is supposed to be interpreted as a state of mind.
if a criminal kills a person. do you just let them go? God told you His rules and how to get to Him. If you don't follow those rules then you will be punished. It's same thing in society if you commit a crime, you have to suffer the consequences for your actions.
if a criminal kills a person. do you just let them go?
Murder can be forgiven, though... According to traditional Christian teachings. Not believing in God can not. So, if someone you love does not believe something you say, would you torture them?
God told you His rules and how to get to Him. If you don't follow those rules then you will be punished.
An eternal punishment seems a bit excessive, does it not?
It's same thing in society if you commit a crime, you have to suffer the consequences for your actions.
Prisoners receive food and entertainment... They aren't cast into a lake of fire.
Murder can be forgiven, though... According to traditional Christian teachings. Not believing in God can not. So, if someone you love does not believe something you say, would you torture them?
You avoided my question. Do you let the criminal go for what they did? yes you're forgiven but you still have to go through the consequences of your actions such as you still going to jail and you're only forgiven if don't continue the same sin.
Prisoners receive food and entertainment... They aren't cast into a lake of fire.
They used to make it so that they would force labor on them and that's how we got our highways in the past.
You avoided my question. Do you let the criminal go for what they did?
I didn't avoid your question. I responded with another point. I do not think a criminal who is guilty of murder should be released from prison, but I also do not think they deserve to be tortured for the rest of their life... Do you?
yes you're forgiven but you still have to go through the consequences of your actions such as you still going to jail and you're only forgiven if don't continue the same sin.
What does jail have to do with the afterlife?
They used to make it so that they would force labor on them and that's how we got our highways in the past.
Yeah, and that was a great idea.
Now you seem to be avoiding my points. Is it right for God to torture those who he loves for eternity?
You said it is ok to punish people you love because we punish criminals. It is not a valid comparison because we don't love criminals. I don't like criminals, and that is why I am fine with punishing them. So, God must hate us when he sends us to hell.
God doesn't hate anyone if He sends them to hell. People refused to believe in Him and thus if on earth you don't follow Him that means you don't want to be with Him in eternity.
You haven't provided any reason to believe this is true. Your proof that this claim was true was by pointing out that humans punish criminals. By showing that we don't love criminals I have demonstrated God doesn't love us because you said God was like humans punishing criminals.
People refused to believe in Him and thus if on earth you don't follow Him that means you don't want to be with Him in eternity.
God is helping a lot of people everyday. The reason sometimes it may seem like God isn't helping is because He is testing our faith or wants us to go through a difficult time because He wants us to bring us closer to Him through the testing He has given to people. We are going to face many trials in our life and God wants us to try close to Him instead of far away.
That's not a very nice thing to say about one of gods precious little children.
How do you explain things like that? Is god just testing that babies faith? Why would a benevolent god create a child that will just suffer excruciating pain for a day or two and then die?
That's not a very nice thing to say about one of gods precious little children.
Don't pull that crap with me with your statement. It's not my fault that you put that picture up and it was graphic.
How do you explain things like that? Is god just testing that babies faith? Why would a benevolent god create a child that will just suffer excruciating pain for a day or two and then die?
God doesn't test babies faith because the baby doesn't even know that God exists. God did create the child but it was the mother and father that created the baby. It was probably due to genetics that caused that baby to have that disease or whatever they have.
So why did god form the baby with a horrible genetic defect?
This is just an idea, but what if the lesson that comes from the baby's death was meant for the parents, not the baby? This of course would not align with Srom's view, though.
Then that would tell me that god is incapable of teaching the parents the lesson without causing severe harm to an infant, in which case he is not omnipotent. If he were omnipotent he could simply put the knowledge in the parents brain without having to harm a child. So as I see it, if he exists he is either malevolent or not omnipotent.
What if we exist on earth to have an experience of imperfection and limitation? What if it is all for some sort of spiritual growth? People assume that God is some sort of being observing from up above, like he is something we can see... But what if trying to see God is like trying to stare into your own eyes, without a mirror, of course? Even the Bible says that God's true name is "I Am." Say that out loud and tell me who God is.
If we are in fact eternal beings, then death is much like waking up from a dream. Why is God expected to make the world better, when most of the problems are of our own doing? If he is real, is death not like being set free? That is why the idea of heaven is so appealing, because people think of Earth as if it is hell. We could make our experience on Earth pretty damn close to heaven, but we choose not to. If there is an afterlife, we have the ability to make death seem like waking up from a great dream, rather than a nightmare. I just don't see why God should be considered malevolent because Earth is not heaven. An imperfect hundred years or so out of eternity is not that bad.
Oh... You mean they don't like that they can't get into heaven? Well, Christians say that all they have to do is believe and their sins will be forgiven... But I was referring to God in the general sense, not necessarily the Christian interpretation.
Not really because that is like calling someone stupid just because they don't like the same food as you do but either way the fact is that some people don't like a heaven.
"What if we exist on earth to have an experience of imperfection and limitation? What if it is all for some sort of spiritual growth?"
Then my original argument stands, that means god is incapable of teaching us that lesson without causing pain and suffering upon millions of people, so he is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.
"People assume that God is some sort of being observing from up above, like he is something we can see... But what if trying to see God is like trying to stare into your own eyes, without a mirror, of course? Even the Bible says that God's true name is "I Am." Say that out loud and tell me who God is."
It sounds like you are suggesting that we are all god. That seems like a pretty unusual use of the word god.
"Why is God expected to make the world better, when most of the problems are of our own doing?"
If he is benevolent, like most people claim, then he would prevent unnecessary suffering. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to prevent suffering that people have brough upon themselves, but a lot of suffering is not a result of our mistakes. We didn't create the thousands of diseases that exist. We don't create natural disasters. A child who is molested didn't do anything to deserve it. The way I see it, a benevolent god would act similar to a parent. If someone is trying to harm their child, any decent parent would protect them. If someone tried to rape my daughter and I had the power to stop it I would. If I was able to cure a disease I would. If there is a god out there, he clearly doesn't care about the well being of any of the life forms on this planet.
"I just don't see why God should be considered malevolent because Earth is not heaven."
Most definitions of god say he is the creator of all things. If that is indeed true, that means he created all of the things I mentioned in this debate. I don't see how a being that created those things could not be considered malevolent.
"An imperfect hundred years or so out of eternity is not that bad."
But zero years of imperfection is better. It seems strange that a perfect being would create so many imperfect things.
Then my original argument stands, that means god is incapable of teaching us that lesson without causing pain and suffering upon millions of people, so he is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.
Evil and hate are only the lack of good and love. God being the source of all things, he couldn't have began lacking those qualities. Maybe over time he began to lack them, but I think it is more reasonable that we were given free-will for a reason, assuming God does exist.
It sounds like you are suggesting that we are all god. That seems like a pretty unusual use of the word god.
You could say God, the Holy Spirit, the Holy One, the Higher Self, The Great Spirit... And so on and so forth. Most religions and many philosophies (and some fields of science) agree that everything is the creative force.
Psalms 82:6 "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods'"
Muhammad said: "Who ever knows himself knows God."
In Hinduism, Atman and Brahman are considered to be the same. "If atman is brahman in a pot (the body), then one need merely break the pot to fully realize the primordial unity of the individual soul with the plentitude of Being that was the Absolute."
In several schools of Buddhism, everyone is thought of as God.
Many Native American tribes believed in the higher Self, or the Great Spirit.
The British philosopher, Alan Watts, taught that everyone is God.
Nikola Tesla believed we are all one, and so did Einstein, who was a pantheist.
There are a lot more, but the idea that everyone is God is not that uncommon. A lot of people have said it, and many people have misinterpreted what they said.
We didn't create the thousands of diseases that exist. We don't create natural disasters. A child who is molested didn't do anything to deserve it.
If there were no diseases and no natural disasters... Then the world would probably overpopulate, even if death remained. And what does a child being molested have to do with any of that? Sure, the child doesn't deserve it... But it is the molester who made the decision. Are you saying that God should make him drop dead before it occurs?
The way I see it, a benevolent god would act similar to a parent.
A parent would probably want his children to learn from their mistakes.
If someone is trying to harm their child, any decent parent would protect them.
But you assume that God is some bearded man sitting on a heavenly throne or something. You cannot in any way determine from our limited perspective whether God is benevolent or malevolent. We can't even determine what God is.
If there is a god out there, he clearly doesn't care about the well being of any of the life forms on this planet.
I think the omnipotent part has been misinterpreted. The Greek word that was used in the Bible actually translates to "all-ruling" or "almighty". According to the Bible, he can't truly do everything, because it says that he can neither lie nor doubt himself... So, if you have the Christian God in mind for this debate, then he isn't omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything.
Most definitions of god say he is the creator of all things. If that is indeed true, that means he created all of the things I mentioned in this debate.
That also means he created skyscrapers, cars, football helmets, toilet seats, condoms, televisions, mouse pads, clothes... You see where I am going with this.
So, that can be looked at in a couple of ways... He was the creative force behind the universe, and from the Big Bang (we'll say that is what he used), everything eventually came into existence. There is nothing on this planet that wasn't made from this planet... Including us (or our bodies, at least). So, we can say that God obviously created all things, if he does exist... And for the things that we personally created... Well, apparently God made those too... So, it sounds a little bit like we are God.
But zero years of imperfection is better. It seems strange that a perfect being would create so many imperfect things.
Maybe perfect beings chose to experience imperfection for a reason.
"Evil and hate are only the lack of good and love."
I disagree. Good and evil are just words we use to describe certain actions. The typical usage of the words are that good acts are ones that are beneficial to society, while evil acts are ones that are detrimental. The absence of beneficial acts does not necessitate evil any more than absence of evil acts necessitates good. If I'm not doing a good action does that mean I'm doing an evil action? Of course not, the default is neither good or evil. The two are not as intertwined as most people seem to think.
"the idea that everyone is God is not that uncommon."
If the word "god" is synonymous with "everyone", then it becomes a pretty useless word in my opinion. For example, if I say, "lets talk about god" what are we going to talk about? Bob's bad breath, Karen's smile, Kip's bad attitude? The whole concept of everyone being god seems a bit nonsensical to me.
"If there were no diseases and no natural disasters... Then the world would probably overpopulate, even if death remained."
There are countless other ways to deal with overpopulation other than infecting people with diseases that cause incredible amounts of suffering.
1. Make more people have no desire to have children.
2. Make more people gay.
3. Make people just drop dead at a certain age.
4. Make a bigger planet.
5. Don't create people.
If god exists, he seems to be completely inept and incapable of thinking things through.
"Are you saying that God should make him drop dead before it occurs?"
There are lots of options.
1. Make the child molester drop dead.
2. Remove the child molester's desire to molest kids.
3. Don't create the child molester in the first place (assuming omniscience).
4. Make the child molester feel pain instead of pleasure when thinking of molesting kids.
"A parent would probably want his children to learn from their mistakes."
A parent would want their child to not make the mistakes in the first place. If parents had the ability to eliminate their children's desire to do harmful things I'm pretty sure most of them would do it. If there was a pill I could take that would take away my desire to do stupid or harmful things I would take it without hesitation.
"But you assume that God is some bearded man sitting on a heavenly throne or something. You cannot in any way determine from our limited perspective whether God is benevolent or malevolent."
Remember, the debate title is "Why is God not helping us if God is so good." So, this debate is under the assumption that we are talking about a good god.
"We can't even determine what God is."
Then it's pointless to even talk about god if we're just talking about an undefined amorphous thing for which we have no definition. That's like trying to talk about a farklabork. What's a farklabork? No one knows, so how are we supposed to talk about it? If we want to talk about god we need a definition and since most people believe god is an omnipotent, intelligent, benevolent being, that's the definition I've been going with for this particular debate.
"if you have the Christian God in mind for this debate, then he isn't omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything."
Even if we limit his abilities, the Bible tells us he has the power to create an entire universe, manipulate peoples thoughts, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. So he clearly has the power to eliminate disease and stop child molesters.
Most definitions of god say he is the creator of all things. If that is indeed true, that means he created all of the things I mentioned in this debate.
"That also means he created skyscrapers, cars, football helmets, toilet seats, condoms, televisions, mouse pads, clothes... You see where I am going with this."
I see what your saying but I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. Whether he created everything or just some things isn't important, the important part is if he created all the horrible things I listed in this debate then he is malevolent. We humans didn't create those things, and since most theists believe that all life was created by god that means he created those things.
"Maybe perfect beings chose to experience imperfection for a reason."
Then they should explain it to us instead of playing hide and seek.
I disagree. Good and evil are just words we use to describe certain actions.
Well, duh... How else could I give you an idea of what I mean? I could stare at the screen and hope you feel the different emotions, I guess.
The typical usage of the words are that good acts are ones that are beneficial to society, while evil acts are ones that are detrimental.
Exactly.
The absence of beneficial acts does not necessitate evil any more than absence of evil acts necessitates good.
If evil is the lack of good, then the absence of evil can not exist any more than the absence of a lack of water. When an evil act is committed, there is no good involved. The two would not exist without each other, but to understand a full cup of water, you must understand that it can lack water. Some acts are obviously better than others, some worse than others... But the acts in between, should they be regarded as simply neutral? An act that is not harmful in any way would be considered good as opposed to bad. In my opinion, there would be a ring around the cup... Anything below it is bad, anything above it is good... It is when the cup is empty (or at least close to it) that an act can be considered evil.
If I'm not doing a good action does that mean I'm doing an evil action?
A bad one, at least.
Of course not, the default is neither good or evil. The two are not as intertwined as most people seem to think.
“God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.”
- Albert Einstein
Now just add an extra O to that quote lol.
If the word "god" is synonymous with "everyone", then it becomes a pretty useless word in my opinion.
No, God becomes synonymous with One... Everything is an illusion, at least according to these ideas.
For example, if I say, "lets talk about god" what are we going to talk about? Bob's bad breath, Karen's smile, Kip's bad attitude? The whole concept of everyone being god seems a bit nonsensical to me.
1. Make more people have no desire to have children.
Brainwash them.
2. Make more people gay.
Brainwash them.
3. Make people just drop dead at a certain age.
How would that prevent overpopulation?
4. Make a bigger planet.
Ha! Yeah, that's a fair point.
If god exists, he seems to be completely inept and incapable of thinking things through.
According to a limited perspective.
A parent would want their child to not make the mistakes in the first place. If parents had the ability to eliminate their children's desire to do harmful things I'm pretty sure most of them would do it.
If a parent knew their child would live for eternity, they would allow them to make their own decisions... Especially if they know that they will eventually be at peace.
Then it's pointless to even talk about god if we're just talking about an undefined amorphous thing for which we have no definition.
Okay, then let's stop.
That's like trying to talk about a farklabork. What's a farklabork? No one knows, so how are we supposed to talk about it?
By pondering on the idea. It's like scattering a bunch of puzzle pieces across a table and guessing what the image may turn out to be.
If we want to talk about god we need a definition and since most people believe god is an omnipotent, intelligent, benevolent being, that's the definition I've been going with for this particular debate.
Well, my definition of God is the source of everything. We don't have much reason to assume he would be anything else, but we can guess.
Even if we limit his abilities, the Bible tells us he has the power to create an entire universe, manipulate peoples thoughts, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. So he clearly has the power to eliminate disease and stop child molesters.
If you interpret the Bible literally... Which I believe most of it is not supposed to be.
Then they should explain it to us instead of playing hide and seek.
Good things can happen without evil things happening and vice versa. That means they are not connected. The absence of good is not evil, it's neutrality, and likewise the absence of evil is not good, it's neutrality. Both good and evil are addative attibutes. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of putting my thoughts into words so hopefully this video will help clarify what I'm trying to say. The link should jump you to relevant part of the video, but if it doesn't just jump to 5:20.
"An act that is not harmful in any way would be considered good as opposed to bad."
I disagree. I would consider that neutral. When I said, "The typical usage of the words are that good acts are ones that are beneficial to society, while evil acts are ones that are detrimental." you said, "Exactly"
An act that is not harmful in any way doesn't necessarily benefit society so it doesn't fit the first definition. For example, a person who is in a coma isn't doing anything at all, so why would that be considered good. It's neither good nor evil, it's neutral.
“God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.” - Albert Einstein
"Now just add an extra O to that quote"
That quote is actually from a fictional story created by Christians to feed their persecution complex. Einstein never actually said it. It's also a flawed analogy. Light is a physical thing, electromagnetic radiation. When you take away the electromagnetic radiation you end up with darkness. Good, on the other hand, is not an actual thing, it's an adjective. If I punch someone in the face I am not taking away good I am doing something bad.
"That would still be individualizing too much. Here, this video may explain my point of view a little better..."
I'm afraid that didn't really make things any clearer.
"Brainwash them"
I'm not talking about humans modifying the desires of other humans, I'm talking about god creating them that way to begin with. Take myself for example. I wasn't brainwashed to not want kids., I just have no desire for them. Most, if not all, gay people weren't brainwashed to be gay, they were just born with no desire to be with people of the same sex.
"How would that prevent overpopulation?"
It won't prevent it completely, but it would slow it. I was just throwing out ideas.
"It's like scattering a bunch of puzzle pieces across a table and guessing what the image may turn out to be."
But I don't see any puzzle pieces. All I have is a bunch of different people telling me conflicting stories about what the puzzle looks like, but none of them have any credible evidence that there actually is a puzzle.
"If a parent knew their child would live for eternity, they would allow them to make their own decisions... Especially if they know that they will eventually be at peace."
Don't you think that an eternity of peace would be better than an eternity minus 85 years of peace? I don't see why a benevolent being would want anything other than eternal peace.
I'm not suggesting god physically force people to do things against their will, what I'm suggesting is he take away their desire to do harmful things. If you could take away a pedophiles desire to molest kids, wouldn't you? It causes no harm to the pedophile.
Lets look at a real life example. Every day parents try to prevent their kids from doing harmful things through various methods such as punishments, rewards and education. These are all done to try to remove their desire to do harmful things, just like I'm suggesting god do, just via a more effective methods.
Another option would be to make us feel the emotions of the people we interact with. So a bully would feel the fear and sadness that his victim feels. We would also feel the love that we give. It's basically empathy on steroids.
Good things can happen without evil things happening and vice versa.
You wouldn't know that they were good things, unless you knew bad or evil things.
That means they are not connected.
They are absolutely connected, just like light and dark, up and down, inside and outside, space and solid... You can't have one without the other.
The absence of good is not evil, it's neutrality, and likewise the absence of evil is not good, it's neutrality.
Can you give me an example of neutrality?
There is a sort of benevolent type of good, and then there is not causing harm in any way... Which would also be good. When you cross that line, to the point where you are causing harm in any way, then you reach bad... And an evil act is lacking any sort of good within it.
I don't think I'm doing a very good job of putting my thoughts into words so hopefully this video will help clarify what I'm trying to say.
It's the same way in which you can describe atheism as the "lack of belief in God" but still believe that God does not exist. Evil may be the opposite of good, but it is the lack of good. An evil act is totally lacking any good in it.
I disagree. I would consider that neutral.
Good as opposed to bad? Harmless vs. harmful? Where can neutrality fit in between those two?
When I said, "The typical usage of the words are that good acts are ones that are beneficial to society, while evil acts are ones that are detrimental." you said, "Exactly"
The comment you are referring to is good vs. bad, not good vs. evil. I'll use the atheism analogy.
Theism "belief in God"(Good)... Atheism "lack of belief in God"(Bad). Strong Theist "asserts that God exists" (Good)... Strong Atheist "asserts that God does not exist" (Evil). I'm not saying either group is actually good or evil, by the way... It was just for the sake of the analogy. A strong atheist still lacks a belief in God, right? In the same way, an evil action lacks good.
I said "exactly," because what is beneficial and what is detrimental?
Beneficial- "having good effect: producing a good or advantageous effect"
Detrimental- "harmful: causing damage, harm, or disadvantage"
That's just another way of saying good vs. bad/evil. In my opinion, detriment would be the lack of benefit. You could say that people are either closer to good or closer to evil, just like the temperature is either hot or cold... Or a car is going fast or slow. You may say that neutrality would be similar to a complete stop, but a stop is a lack of any movement at all... Just like an evil act would be the lack of any good... Or you may say that good would be similar to forward, evil similar to backward... Two opposing actions. But you can not know forward without backward, or backward without forward... And backward can be described as the lack of forward, and forward may be described as the lack of backward, but it is only backward in relation to the intended forward direction.
An act that is not harmful in any way doesn't necessarily benefit society so it doesn't fit the first definition.
I would say that any act that is not harmful is at least beneficial in one way or another.
Back to the atheism analogy, you do not think that with the concepts of weak theism/atheism and strong theism/atheism, there can't also be weak good/bad and strong good/bad?
For example, a person who is in a coma isn't doing anything at all, so why would that be considered good. It's neither good nor evil, it's neutral.
The coma the person is in is bad. It does prevent them from doing any bad/evil act, though. In that sense, no harmful acts occurring is beneficial. It doesn't give them a chance to perform a kind act either, but I do not think that good and evil only come in extremes. If neutrality in this sense can only be defined as the total inability to perform any action, or the total absence of any action, then you can say that someone who is deceased is neutral. You need the cup for it to lack water, so if you take away the self-aware living person, that's kind of like taking away the cup. However, with someone who is alive and aware, they can perform either an extremely good or extremely evil act in a matter of seconds. That ability is taken away with someone who is in a coma.
That quote is actually from a fictional story created by Christians to feed their persecution complex. Einstein never actually said it.
That is fine. It was kind of a joke post anyways, hence the "just add an extra O."
It's also a flawed analogy. Light is a physical thing, electromagnetic radiation. When you take away the electromagnetic radiation you end up with darkness. Good, on the other hand, is not an actual thing, it's an adjective. If I punch someone in the face I am not taking away good I am doing something bad.
You can only know good and bad/evil through some sort of action. It is an adjective applied to physical things and actions. The word light is not a physical thing, just as is the case with any word.
If punching someone in the face is not lacking good, then the action should be able to be simultaneously good and bad.
But I don't see any puzzle pieces. All I have is a bunch of different people telling me conflicting stories about what the puzzle looks like, but none of them have any credible evidence that there actually is a puzzle.
The puzzle is supposed to be life... Everybody has evidence that exists. It not being put together is a metaphor for us not knowing our true origin or purpose, if there is one. We can look at that puzzle and make many different predictions as to what the image may be, and because it is not put together, our ideas are conflicting... But they're just ideas.
Don't you think that an eternity of peace would be better than an eternity minus 85 years of peace? I don't see why a benevolent being would want anything other than eternal peace.
I think an eternity of knowing what to expect would be incredibly boring. Us as humans get an adrenaline rush being on the brink of death, or in situations we do not have control over. Maybe it is that lack of control that gives this life meaning.
I believe that there is a cure for just about everything. I think a lot of them have been suppressed. So, take suppressed cures, wars, greed, cruelty, starvation, depletion of our resources... And you will see that most of our problems are of our own doing. I realize that there were times when diseases had no known cures (and many still don't), and starvation can be as a result of the climate, but it is because of the problems in life that we have become so advanced. We basically forced ourselves to evolve... And we are still evolving.
If I half-ass a research paper, I'm not going to expect good feedback. I'm going to get the grade I deserve, and I will probably regret that... But if I do my best, which I am capable of doing, then I am going to get good feedback, and it will benefit me. The same goes for life. I think humanity is half-assing it right now, and we're paying for it.
Maybe all of the natural problems are meant to unite people, but through our own human ego and materialism, we have caused a separation.
Doing any action that is neither harmful nor helpful, like tapping my fingers as I read your arguments, watching a ladybug crawl across the wall, or showing indifference towards a person instead of love or hate.
"You wouldn't know that they were good things, unless you knew bad or evil things."
I disagree. If I help someone move, that is easy to recognize as a good act even if no evil act has ever been committed in the history of the universe because it helps someone. If someone rapes someone else, I can easily recognize it as an evil act even if no good act has ever been committed in the history of the universe because it causes harm.
There are three different states, good, bad and neutral. Any of those states can exist without the others. Ignoring our human fallibility for a moment, it's possible to do things that are beneficial to society without doing things that are detrimental. It's also possible to do things that are detrimental to society without doing things that are beneficial. Therefore, they are not linked. It's also possible to do things that are neither beneficial nor detrimental, so they are neutral.
"There is a sort of benevolent type of good, and then there is not causing harm in any way... Which would also be good. "
And that is where we have a difference of opinion. I would consider that neutral because you aren't doing a good act or a bad one.
"When you cross that line, to the point where you are causing harm in any way, then you reach bad... And an evil act is lacking any sort of good within it."
While I agree that evil acts are lacking good, I don't agree that evil should be defined as a lack of good just like I don't think good should be defined as a lack of evil. Things should be defined by what they are, not by what they are lacking. For example, evil lack fluffy clouds just as much as it lacks good, but that doesn't mean evil is the lack of fluffy clouds.
"Good as opposed to bad? Harmless vs. harmful? Where can neutrality fit in between those two?"
Neutrality would be neither good nor bad. Harmless would be neutral, harmful would be bad, helpful would be good.
"Back to the atheism analogy, you do not think that with the concepts of weak theism/atheism and strong theism/atheism, there can't also be weak good/bad and strong good/bad?"
I agree that there are varying degrees or goodness/badness, but I don't see how that refutes what I've been saying. I'm not arguing that all good or bad things are equally bad or good. I'm arguing that good and bad are two separate, but related, things.
While thinking about all of this stuff something occurred to me; if god exists, he/she/it couldn't have been considered good or bad until he created something he could help or harm. He would be neutral until he actually did a helpful or harmful act.
Doing any action that is neither harmful nor helpful, like tapping my fingers as I read your arguments, watching a ladybug crawl across the wall, or showing indifference towards a person instead of love or hate.
I think it not being harmful would make it good. It may not exactly be helpful, but I think it would fit along the lines of what I said can be considered as weak good.
I disagree. If I help someone move, that is easy to recognize as a good act even if no evil act has ever been committed in the history of the universe because it helps someone.
How would you know that it was good, unless something else was considered bad? If we were to recognize it as a good act, without evil/bad as we know it ever existing, then it would have to be compared to neutrality to be considered good. That's like saying a car is moving forward, without having any concept of backward. The car would simply be moving, that's all we would know. A good action without any concept of evil would simply be an action.
If someone rapes someone else, I can easily recognize it as an evil act even if no good act has ever been committed in the history of the universe because it causes harm.
If people knew how to rape, but they did not know how to prevent a rape other than refraining from it... Not being raped would be seen as good.
There are three different states, good, bad and neutral. Any of those states can exist without the others. Ignoring our human fallibility for a moment, it's possible to do things that are beneficial to society without doing things that are detrimental.
Neutrality can be detrimental. If I sit on my ass for long periods of time, that will be bad for my health. If someone is screaming for help and I remain neutral, then that is bad. Even tapping your fingers while you read my argument, eventually if you do that long enough, it will become bad for your fingers. If neutrality does exist, it can only work by itself for a limited amount of time before it becomes bad.
It's like looking at a scale, one side is good and the other side is bad. When the scale is balanced, you get neutrality... But the scale is never truly balanced, it only appears that way because it is slowly shifting.
I would consider that neutral because you aren't doing a good act or a bad one.
Good comes in different levels. It can be outstanding, benevolent, loving, whatever... But it can also simply be fine, satisfactory, good enough and so on. It is in that sort of context where my idea of weak good is evident... Or in the case of what I mentioned earlier, neutral can favor either good or bad. It can be good to remain neutral and not get involved in a fight for no good reason, but it can also be bad not to intervene when someone is getting jumped in an alley-way. Maybe these can be best described as neutral good and neutral bad/evil.
While I agree that evil acts are lacking good, I don't agree that evil should be defined as a lack of good just like I don't think good should be defined as a lack of evil.
Good acts can be defined as moral, where as evil acts are defined as immoral. An act lacking set moral codes, will be considered bad or evil depending on how severe it is.
Good= Right
Bad= Wrong
Right cannot lack what is wrong, because you have to know the right to know the wrong. Have you ever heard anyone say that the answer (or act) was wrong without having any clue what the right answer (or act) was?
Things should be defined by what they are, not by what they are lacking.
Tell that to atheists.
For example, evil lack fluffy clouds just as much as it lacks good, but that doesn't mean evil is the lack of fluffy clouds.
But evil and clouds are not connected (unless there are evil clouds). You can define something by what it lacks when the opposing terms exist on the same scale, so to speak... Ex. hot/cold, light/dark, fast/slow, awake/asleep, alive/dead, loud/quiet, etc.
While thinking about all of this stuff something occurred to me; if god exists, he/she/it couldn't have been considered good or bad until he created something he could help or harm. He would be neutral until he actually did a helpful or harmful act.
Well, that isn't much of an argument to convince me since I think neutrality is either good or bad lol. I think it comes in different varieties, as we have already discussed, but I think that each variety is linked with it's opposite. If God wasn't causing harm, then I would call that good.
I don't think we're making any progress on this debate and we're just repeating the same stuff, so maybe it's best if we just agree to disagree on this one.
Any chance at making progress ceases once someone says, "let's just agree to disagree."
I feel like you either didn't read what I typed or you can't refute it, because for the most part, it wasn't a repeat of what has already been said. If you feel like proving me wrong, you can highlight similarities between the arguments and show me that the majority of the most recent one (other than this one) is a repeat... Or you can just move on, it doesn't really matter.
Any chance at making progress ceases once someone says, "let's just agree to disagree."
If it were a topic I cared a lot about I would want to resolve it, but we're just arguing over a minor point that makes little to no difference in real life, plus my free time is very limited at the moment. I'll make one final attempt to explain myself, but I honestly don't care enough about the topic to keep going back and forth for weeks.
I think it not being harmful would make it good.
Then you're redefining the word good or at the very least using a very obscure definition that is not commonly used. Think about it, if I say lets go out a do some good, do you really think sitting there tapping our fingers as we watch a ladybug crawl across the wall would qualify as doing something good?
If we were to recognize it as a good act, without evil/bad as we know it ever existing, then it would have to be compared to neutrality to be considered good.
First, comparing it to neutrality is a perfectly valid option, although we wouldn't label it as neutral in that case. Second, why does it have to be compared to anything at all? If it matches the definition that's all that matters.
That's like saying a car is moving forward, without having any concept of backward. The car would simply be moving, that's all we would know. A good action without any concept of evil would simply be an action.
No, we already defined good as actions that are beneficial to society. It's easy to see if an action is beneficial to society even if evil doesn't exist. For example, building schools is clearly beneficial to society. You don't need evil things happening in the world to see how schools benefit society.
If people knew how to rape, but they did not know how to prevent a rape other than refraining from it... Not being raped would be seen as good.
Remember, were talking good and bad in terms of harmful and helpful acts. Not raping someone is neither harmful nor helpful, therefore it is neither good nor bad.
Neutrality can be detrimental. If I sit on my ass for long periods of time, that will be bad for my health. If someone is screaming for help and I remain neutral, then that is bad.
Once something becomes harmful it is no longer neutral. It's not the action itself that is good or evil, it is the effects of the action that determine whether an action is good or evil. An action can be good in one situation but bad in another.
It's like looking at a scale, one side is good and the other side is bad. When the scale is balanced, you get neutrality... But the scale is never truly balanced, it only appears that way because it is slowly shifting.
I'm glad you used a scale as an analogy because I think it will illustrate my point perfectly. If evil is merely the absence of good, then that means you can never put anything on the evil side of the scale, you can only add to or subtract from the good side of the scale. In that case the evil side can never go lower than the good side no matter how much good you remove from the scale.
In order to make the evil side go lower than the good side you have to add evil, not just subtract good, which is the point I've been trying to make all along.
Another thing worth mentioning is that some actions can add to both sides of the scale simultaneously. For example, stealing food to feed your family is good because you are helping your family and bad because you are stealing from someone else.
Right cannot lack what is wrong, because you have to know the right to know the wrong.
But that's just a baseless assertion. I can just as easily reverse it. Wrong cannot lack what is right, because you have to know the wrong to know the right.
Have you ever heard anyone say that the answer (or act) was wrong without having any clue what the right answer (or act) was?
Many evil acts don't have a right act. Lets take murder for example; what's the right act to murder, raising the dead? If you're thinking "not murdering" would be the right act, then you destroy your whole argument because not murdering is the negation of murder. You would be saying good (not murder) is the absence/negation of evil (murder). That's the complete inverse of your argument.
Tell that to atheists.
Good point
Anyway, unless we can come to an agreement on the neutrality issue I think were at a dead end with this debate.
If it were a topic I cared a lot about I would want to resolve it, but we're just arguing over a minor point that makes little to no difference in real life, plus my free time is very limited at the moment.
Limited free time is understandable, but the fact that we are arguing over something minor doesn't matter. It's a debate site. I don't think we are resolving any major world issues on here. At best we're changing each others opinions, or getting to see other viewpoints. We disagree on this subject, therefore it is debatable... But if you are no longer interested in the subject, then I understand.
Then you're redefining the word good or at the very least using a very obscure definition that is not commonly used. Think about it, if I say lets go out a do some good, do you really think sitting there tapping our fingers as we watch a ladybug crawl across the wall would qualify as doing something good?
The thing is that I do not view that as bad, therefore I view it as good. If you sit there for an excessive amount of time, tapping your fingers to the point that it becomes detrimental to your health (and fingertips)... Well, that is no longer good. If you were to say, let's go out and do some good, then yes, I would assume that you mean something beneficial and kind, but that is because of the way in which you are using the word.
I am not arguing that my usage of the word is extremely common, because I imagine people tend to share your sort of view on the subject... I just think they are wrong.
First, comparing it to neutrality is a perfectly valid option, although we wouldn't label it as neutral in that case.
What would we label it as? Bad?
Second, why does it have to be compared to anything at all? If it matches the definition that's all that matters.
Everything has an opposite. That's how we know that things exist.
No, we already defined good as actions that are beneficial to society. It's easy to see if an action is beneficial to society even if evil doesn't exist. For example, building schools is clearly beneficial to society. You don't need evil things happening in the world to see how schools benefit society.
How would you be able to know that building schools was beneficial if you did not understand how not building schools could be detrimental? What does building schools benefit? Education. What would be the result of not having schools? Less education. Is that not detrimental in the long run? I guess it depends on your opinion towards schools, but I would assume that not having schools would be detrimental in the sort of way that ignorance would spread. We now look back in history and see how screwed up our education systems were and think, "If we continued like that, we'd really be in rough shape."
Remember, were talking good and bad in terms of harmful and helpful acts. Not raping someone is neither harmful nor helpful, therefore it is neither good nor bad.
You are arguing that harmful and helpful are the only way to think of good and bad. I am arguing that harmless can also be described as good.
Once something becomes harmful it is no longer neutral.
So, how does neutral in this sense exist by itself if it is in a continuous countdown?
If evil is merely the absence of good, then that means you can never put anything on the evil side of the scale, you can only add to or subtract from the good side of the scale. In that case the evil side can never go lower than the good side no matter how much good you remove from the scale.
Well, shit. My physics were a little flawed with that metaphorical scale. Okay, let me put it this way instead...
Good= Above half a cup of water
Neutral= Half
Bad= Below half
Rather than a scale slowly shifting, how about a cup slowly emptying?
In order to make the evil side go lower than the good side you have to add evil, not just subtract good, which is the point I've been trying to make all along.
Okay, but how about with the cup?
Another thing worth mentioning is that some actions can add to both sides of the scale simultaneously. For example, stealing food to feed your family is good because you are helping your family and bad because you are stealing from someone else.
But the action you are referring to is stealing... That's bad. Where the good comes in is when you give that food to your starving family. When you are forced into circumstances where you have to take part in immoral actions for your own benefit, it is not that the immoral action can be both good and bad, but rather the action itself is bad, but the later result is good. A bad action with good intent is no different than dumping out a cup of water with the intent to fill it up. It's kind of like that saying, "actions speak louder than words."
But that's just a baseless assertion. I can just as easily reverse it. Wrong cannot lack what is right, because you have to know the wrong to know the right.
Wrong is the total lack of right. It's why a grade gets lower with each wrong answer. If one hundred pennies represents each right answer on a one hundred question test, and with each wrong answer a penny is taken away... Then if you end up with all wrong answers, you completely lack pennies.
Many evil acts don't have a right act. Lets take murder for example; what's the right act to murder, raising the dead? If you're thinking "not murdering" would be the right act, then you destroy your whole argument because not murdering is the negation of murder. You would be saying good (not murder) is the absence/negation of evil (murder). That's the complete inverse of your argument.
I kind of look at it like a drought. The lack of water results in the death of certain organisms, in the same way that the lack of good results in immorality. With a lack of what is good (water), comes what is bad (drought).
If plants are not dying, then that is good... But when they lack what keeps them from dying, then that is bad. Not dying is certainly the negation of dying, but it is the lack of something that resulted in death. When the land gets sufficient water, then the cup is full, so to speak.
Anyway, unless we can come to an agreement on the neutrality issue I think were at a dead end with this debate.
No... Because his actions should also be interpreted allegorically. God as an exterior being, disconnected from ourselves, as if he is a bearded man in the sky, should be thought of as an allegorical symbol of something, just like Satan... Both of whom are in the Book of Job. People get caught up in the literal interpretations and miss the message.
That's the problem. I think the Bible, at least for the most part, is supposed to be a guide for a better life. The people who wrote the Bible probably didn't know much about God, either.
I'm glad you can at least admit that god created the baby with the defect. I'm sure you think that there must be a good reason why he would do such a thing, but can you at least understand why some people would think that nothing could justify doing such a terrible thing to a child? Surely an omnipotent being could come up with a better way to achieve whatever outcome you think he wanted to achieve without subjecting a child to such a horrific fate. If he can't come up with a better way then he isn't omnipotent.
Yesterday small child was brutally raped by his father. You're seriously saying that God allowed the man to do that so the child's faith was strengthened? Either way you look at it you have to conclude that God is evil (at least by the human definition of the word).
Look at the story of Job for example. He was a godly man, he had everything taken away from him and yet He still never cursed God at all and still continue to believe and it brought him closer to God in the end. Sometimes God put us through trials that we must face to get even closer to God.
Where was god through atrocities such as the Slave trade, Holocaust or the Rwandan or Cambodian Genocides? How is anything that bad going to be any use to anyone? God is evil if he exists for allowing such things.
Humans are the ones who are at war with each other. God gave the earth for us to tend to and for dominion on this planet. It wasn't God's fault that war broke out, genocide, or slave trades. That was what humans did. Not God.
You don't understand. God isn't evil. The reason why He allows evil is simple. If God eliminated evil right now all of it. Would everyone still be here? No, because we all have the potential to do evil. It's what we say that can be evil, even our thoughts can be evil, and our actions could be evil.
Everyone has sinned. (Romans 3:23) Ever looked a women lustfully in your heart? Every told a lie? Ever disobeyed your parents? Ever wanted something that someone else had? I'm sure you have done all of those things I've listed.
I never disobeyed my parents or have look at women in anyway like that. I also have never lied I have respected the rules and have not done any sin or will and that has been my goal all my life and it will stay that way.
to say you have never sinned is the biggest lie i have ever read, you have never felt greed, lusted after a woman or man (mentally counts too) got angry, or anything like that?
im calling extreme bullshit, if you have never sinned you would be jesus christ
Will so fair I have not done sin so I'm good for now but I could still soon or later but I just want to know why God made it impossible for us to not sin.
I just hope that I don't sin because me and my mom made that a goal for me. Why God would you make it impossible not to sin is it because you don't want us to be as good or even better then you.
Who do you think makes it so you don't run into a car tomorrow hm?
Well.. Me, Myself and I.
I'm wondering how you can be sure it's God keeping you from harm? It could just as well be the devil.. now before you say, the devil is evil, therefore he would cause you harm instead of keeping you out of harm, let me tell you a story that actually happened.
In the first world war a British soldier encountered a wounded German soldier, but just before shooting him he was struck by a deep feeling of compassion and let the German live. This act of mercy saved the German from certain death. Logically the German suspected it had to be an act of God, guiding the British soldier not kill him in cold blood. Later on he even went so far to claim God wanted him to survive to do God's divine work. That German soldier was Adolf Hitler.. plunging the world in yet another war, killing 60-70 million people.
If God did guide the Brit, then God is evil, since being all knowing would've give him the foresight into the future and thus knew millions would die. He'd would have known that "his" people would be systematically murdered by the millions.. even the innocent children. This all could've be prevented if the soldier didn't show mercy and killed Hitler right there and then.
If God didn't guide the Brit, then God is just as evil, since being all knowing would've give him the foresight into the future and thus knew millions would die. He'd would have known that "his" people would be systematically murdered by the millions.. even the innocent children. This all could've be prevented if the soldier didn't show mercy and killed Hitler right there and then.
The reality of things is that there is no God and people finally started to realize this as fact after being informed about the horrors of the concentration camps.
Not being harmed in an accident and thanking God for this is incredibly stupid, since the world is full of suffering.. why would God safe you and not a child fighting cancer or the thousands dying of malaria, aids or famine every single day?
We are given free will to make our own decisions. He helps us by giving us choices. Therefore he cannot directly help us since he already gave us free will which would contradict his gift.
There is no evidence that we have free will, let alone that it was given to us. In fact, research increasingly indicates that the absence of free will is more probable than its existence (source).
He helps us by giving us choices. Therefore he cannot directly help us since he already gave us free will which would contradict his gift.
How is it helpful or a gift to introduce the capacity for bad when you do not have to, particularly when you know full well that that capacity will be realized?
Are the 10 commandments evidence God made a mistake giving us free will?
Is God a hypocrite by blames us for exercising that free will e.g. deciding not following his cult and then threatening us with eternal torment in hell?
God is exactly like a mobster saying, "Don't worry.. you pay up or not, it's your choice.. but we'll break your legs if you don't pay up!"
The presence of God gives us spiritual support,makes us always believe in the miracle and gives us a ray of hope when we have done everything what we human beings can do in front of the disasters.It doesn't mean that He must appear in a shape of creature to lead us,but it's undoubtedly our believe in God makes us don't give up too easily when the untoward circumstances arise.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" - Epicurus, 33 A.D.
This, of course, does nothing to address the content of the quotation. The statement is also widely attributed to him by multiple sources; the place I pulled it from obviously and unfortunately wrote the date incorrectly.
1. Free will is a delusion, not a reality. This is a good summary explaining why. Feeling like you chose something is not proof that you actually did.
2. If free will actually did exist, then we would be left with the following: God created evil/bad (unless God is not all-powerful) knowing full-well (unless God is not omnipotent) that it would be enacted, and chooses to continue letting it exist as an option (unless God is impotent) even when it harms those who are "good" (which would make God malevolent). So, actually, the argument advanced by Epicurus would hold true even if free will were more than a delusion.
You don't think we have free will, so then that means you must believe everything we do is predestined. So if i went out and killed someone tomorrow, whos fault is that? Im going to change my beliefs real quick and say god doesnt exist.
Now who is responsible for my actions if i dont have free will?
Answer that
I love philosophy, but you nor epicurus or any great minds of the past will ever convince me that free will doesnt exist.
Noone knows what created what. But we as human beings have free will. Animals do not have free will because they go off of instincts, they dont choose what thy do they just do what they do because thats what they do.
So if a scientist put humans into an arena or house, is the scientist considered evil for letting them kill each other or is he merely letting nature run its course?
No he is just observing and doing an experiment, he may want to help very badly, but if he interferes, then the humans have lost their free will, even if it is to stop a murder from happening.
God knew that evil would come about, but if he stopped it then we wouldnt be here to discuss it (personal opinion). Thats free will, if he interfered in our lives he would be controlling us like puppets.
Do you want to be controlled like a puppet or do you want to use your free will to control your own actions? It seems like you are trying to pass of responsibility for the actions you choose in life.
You don't think we have free will, so then that means you must believe everything we do is predestined. So if i went out and killed someone tomorrow, whos fault is that? Im going to change my beliefs real quick and say god doesnt exist. Now who is responsible for my actions if i dont have free will? Answer that
Predestined? No. Predetermined? Yes. I do not believe in responsibility, but in accountability. As a matter of necessity we can and ought to be held to account for our conduct, even though we are not responsible for it.
I love philosophy, but you nor epicurus or any great minds of the past will ever convince me that free will doesnt exist.
Probably because you are already strongly determined not to change your view. No matter of reason or evidence can convince someone who is adamantly against being accurately informed.
Noone knows what created what. But we as human beings have free will. Animals do not have free will because they go off of instincts, they dont choose what thy do they just do what they do because thats what they do.
If you read the source I referenced then you should appreciate that research actually shows that human beings do go off of instincts. What we perceive to be choices are actually set in action before we are aware of having felt that we have made a choice (hence, why choice is a delusion).
So if a scientist put humans into an arena or house, is the scientist considered evil for letting them kill each other or is he merely letting nature run its course?
The difference between the "scientist" and God is that the scientist is not supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing.
[...] if he interferes, then the humans have lost their free will [...]
You cannot lose what you do not have to begin with.
God knew that evil would come about, but if he stopped it then we wouldnt be here to discuss it (personal opinion). Thats free will, if he interfered in our lives he would be controlling us like puppets.
Hypothetically, if God existed and if God created evil and if God created free will... there is no reason that God could not have created free will but not evil.
Do you want to be controlled like a puppet or do you want to use your free will to control your own actions?
What I want is entirely irrelevant to what is.
It seems like you are trying to pass of responsibility for the actions you choose in life.
Responsibility? Yes. Accountability? No. I hold myself to full account for my thoughts and conduct, generally more so than many other people I know.
Wow, did you know that with free will you can commit evil? so, it wasnt really created, it is just there to be done, and we can choose to do it or not
You have yet to prove that free will is more probably true than its absence. I have presented analysis and evidence against that probability.
You also have not proven that if a God exists that entity did not create evil (you just asserted it). Even assuming that is true, though, we still must conclude that God is either omnipotent or malevolent: If God did not create evil and it just exists, then God is not omnipotent. Further, if God did not create evil but still allows it to exist knowing that some humans will engage with it (out of free will or no), then God is either not omnipotent (again) or is malevolent.
I saw that one part of your argument and just lost my logic
You cannot lose what you did not have to start with.
Unaddressed point.
I consider my point regarding the distinction between accountability and responsibility conceded, until such point as you actually address it and present a counter-rationale.
Dude, predetermination has to do with set variables, there are no set variables in humans. You can predetermine where the planets will be in 1 year based off initial conditions
Predestination has to do with theological issues and the absence of free will.
As you have observed, predestination is innately theological; as an anti-theist I reject all theology as a legitimate basis for any perspective.
By contrast, determinism is both secular and substantiated by evidence. Its veracity is in no way contingent upon our capacity to accurately observe it; just as the location of the planets was true before we understood how to assess that accurately. Determinism is not the ability for humans to predict human behavior, but the perspective that all human thought and action is a determined consequence of preceding conditions that are outside of our conscious control. There is evidence to substantiate this claim, which I have now personally expounded upon and presented documentation of (neither of which you have directly contradicted).
(1) This does nothing to refute the above statement. God still created evil and either chooses or is incapable of preventing and/or eliminating it.
(2) There is none, but we are debating within a debate framework that presumes the existence of "good". Further, subjective morality may still be debated but not absolutely determined with certainty.
(1) This does nothing to refute the above statement. God still created evil and either chooses or is incapable of preventing and/or eliminating it.
Is there a problem in God creating evil?
(2) There is none, but we are debating within a debate framework that presumes the existence of "good". Further, subjective morality may still be debated but not absolutely determined with certainty.
If there is a framework of good, then the only basis for that framework is God. Thus, your argument either is logically inconsistent, or you presuppose God already to be the basis of good.
(1) You completely misunderstand the point Epicurus was making. If evil exists and God is incapable of preventing it, then God is impotent. If evil exists and God is capable of preventing it but chooses not to, then God is malevolent.Whether God created the evil or not is entirely irrelevant.
(2) I believe what you meant to say is that there can be no objective good which does not originate from some source external to human beings, and that therefore if an objective good exists that the source must be good. I never stated that an objective good exists, and there is no proof whatsoever that it does (that burden of proof does fall to you).
It is still possible to debate subjective moral frameworks against one another, and I would argue that this is in fact the only way in which we can have those debates. As I already stated though, the conclusions reached must be innately conditioned by their subjectivity, meaning that they must be recognized as subjective judgements that lack objective certainty.
It is also worth noting that subjective moralities do exist outside of religion; most atheists do believe in good and bad independent of religion and god. The idea of "good" is not dependent upon the existence of the idea of "god".
More importantly, I fail to see how this disputes or undermines the original Epicurus point.
(1) How would God be malevolent if He created evil? Or at least the capacity for evil? Or even allowed evil? That doesn't follow.
(2) Your argument presupposes objective morality, which presupposes God being the basis of good. You can therefore say the argument is logically inconsistent, or God is the basis of good, though He allows evil, or even created it.
The point is this: nothing Epicurus has said rebuts God being the basis of good, let alone existing. In fact, his argument actually goes to prove God as being real, being the basis for morality. People who consistently reference Epicurus have a limited understanding and background of philosophy; they are ignorant of the fact that the problem of evil has been disposed of in modern times. So, in other words, it's a bad argument, and only amateur philosophers and philosophy students use it.
(1) If God created evil, is capable of preventing evil from happening, and still permits evil to happen then God is a closed case for malevolence (def: having or showing a wish to do evil to others).
(2) Actually, my argument presupposes that objective morality does not exist. I was attempting to give your vague claim that God is the sole origin of "good" the benefit of the doubt; however, it appears that you did mean to imply the religion is the only source for morality. I refuted that as well, and refer you back to you last post to the argument you have not addressed.
(3) Regarding personal attacks. That you have stooped to attacking me as an individual rather than refuting the actual arguments indicates the invalidity of your arguments and your poor grasp of the subject material at hand. I do not consistently quote Epicurus, and my understanding of and background in philosophy is at least comparable to yours (something we have already established in previous debates).
Far from being ignorant regarding the non-objective reality of evil, I am one of the only debaters on this site that actively denies its existence as an objective reality. If you were actually competent in philosophy you would be well aware that this is not a popular nor widely accepted perspective in the field.
While you vehemently reject the notion of evil you apparently have no issue with harping upon "good", even though that idea is equitably illegitimate. Since you believe in "good" it does follow that you believe in "bad", however, so for the sake of your limited comprehension merely replace the word "evil" with "bad" in the Epicurus quote; you will find the essence holds and that the conclusion is the same: God is either malevolent or impotent, and thus there is no reason to call it God.
(1) Simply because God creates evil or even allows evil, it does not infer that He is malevolent. You're begging the question. You have skipped a questionable premise, assuming for it,
(2) if there is no objective morality, then you cannot say something is evil. Evil is an objective claim; morality is analytically objective. If it is not, then it is simply preference, which therefore cannot be considered 'Morality'. You have yet to show morality is objective. You're begging the question on that.
(3) it wasn't an attack on you. I was simply stating that you are in fact ignorant of the problem of evil and the philosophy behind it. If you're going to argue it, then you might want to actually study it first, since it has been disposed of in modern times. Only amateur philosophers use it. People take intro to philosophy, and nothing else, and think they know the argument. They are ignorant of the fact it has been refuted many times. You're just fighter proving my point. Study it more, or this is just going to continue in ignorance.
So putting it all together: you are begging the question big time, you are claiming a contradictory position, and you need to study philosophy more.
(1) No, actually, I have not skipped anything. If God creates evil intentionally and does nothing to prevent it from playing out, then that represents a wish to do evil unto others which fits the definition of malevolence to the letter. The only way out of this premise is to presume that God did not choose to create evil or is incapable of preventing it, which makes God impotent. You have not disproved this argument, only asserted it is wrong. My point stands.
(2) I have not shown that morality is objective because it is not, and neither is the tangential concept of evil. Both are subjective ideas constructed by human beings that would cease to exist in objective reality if we stopped thinking them or ceased to exist ourselves. You give no reason why subjective, preferential morality cannot be considered morality and I would contend that the empirical existence of multiple moralities in our world soundly defeats your claim. Again, you have not proven that morality is innately religious or uniquely the purview of any God. My points here stand.
(3) You were attacking my credibility which is an attack upon the person, rather than the idea. Rather than say I am ignorant it would serve you to actually prove that I am; you of course cannot do this because you do not grasp the concepts we are discussing yourself. I am tired of you always reverting to unsubstantiated claims of your intellectual superiority whenever you are backed into a corner you cannot find a way out of. I have already told you multiple times what my background in philosophy is, and we have established that it actually exceeds yours.
Further, I have expressly demonstrated that my argument does not at all rely upon referencing the idea of evil and explained how the argument still stands if you change the phraseology. Rather than actually address the argument, of course, you just revert to your usual misapplication of "begging the question." If you are going to consistently avoid thinking and debating, at the very least come up with some new excuses every so often.
I have clarified my stances here, established your lack of refutation, and am entirely comfortable leaving it at that for anyone who chances to read this. Given your aversion to actual debate, I am disinclined to continue this engagement. Expect no further reply.
(1) actually, you're still begging the question. There is a huge premise you're missing and have yet to address. This is why I told you in point 3 to actually research it more. If evil is a necessary condition of a greater good, then God can do the higher good, which necessitates evil. God is not malevolent. You're begging the question.
(2) when a person says that something is evil then they are saying that something is ontologically that way. So when you were saying that something is evil you can only say that because it is objectively evil. Like to say that subject morality exists is to say that it is simply preference but that is equivalent to liking ice cream cone over a snowman. The only way around this, because morality by definition has to have evil and good, and it is to say that morality is really not morality but that's absurd and a contradictory position
You're still begging the question and you are still holding two contradictory position. I wanted you to actually research it first before you get your butt destroyed. Why because nowadays whenever someone brings up the table with out research on what actually has happened that namely that it has been disposed of people get their butts handed to them
You need to research it more but you're too arrogant to do so.
plurality of religions is a proof or morality being subjective.
That does not follow. Thats like saying that reality is subjective because we have different views on what is true.
If god represents good and creates evil then he failed or is not good...
That does not follow either. If God does the greatest good possible, which has a necessary condition of evil, then God can do the former, which necessarily leaves Him out of blame for the latter.
If there is anything he can't do he isn't God. I expect him to help people and not to allow such suffering exist. Also people needing suffering isn't a good enough argument for God allowing it to exist in the way it does in case you're going to use that.
If we are in fact eternal beings, then a hundred years of experiencing limitation does not seem like something God needs to interfere with.
If someone were torturing you and/or sexually abusing you now you be saying this? Or if you had some kind of terrible mental illness that made your life hell or if you had something like a flesh eating disease or pancreatic cancer? The suffering that so many human beings face can be so horrible no matter how little time it lasts in the grand scale of things can be so bad that it would be heartless and evil not to stop their hardship if you possessed the power to do so.
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent." - St. Thomas Aquinas
God is said to be everywhere and everything... Thus, God is doing everything.
If someone were torturing you and/or sexually abusing you now you be saying this?
I would not be happy, but we only know (or can only remember) this existence. If we are eternal beings, after death would be much like waking up from a dream... And in some cases, it may be like waking up from a nightmare.
Or if you had some kind of terrible mental illness that made your life hell or if you had something like a flesh eating disease or pancreatic cancer?
Maybe there is a purpose for everything.
The suffering that so many human beings face can be so horrible no matter how little time it lasts in the grand scale of things can be so bad that it would be heartless and evil not to stop their hardship if you possessed the power to do so.
Here is what someone who experienced an NDE had to say: "Simply put, being born into this physical world is actually a choice that we make on the other side. In reality, we choose to come to this world, and when we make this choice it is to experience many of the things that do not exist back home. If you remember correctly how I made mention earlier of a place where everything is perfect, a place on the other side that I call home. Back home, since everything is perfect, so are we to varying degrees–which doesn’t necessarily mean that we are in any way imperfect–we are all merely perfect on different levels.
So therefore, in order to enrich our highest form of energy–or our souls–and grow to be more perfect, or in other words to mature to a higher level of perfection we must first experience many facets of imperfection. The only way for us to accomplish this feat however is by gaining knowledge of what it is like to be imperfect, and all of the various aspects involved. Now, in this case, the only means of experiencing imperfection is to choose to incarnate and come to an imperfect world. And, contrary to my own previous knowledge that we only have one shot in this world, I know now that we may opt to do this many times. Time and again we choose to visit a living mechanical world that was designed and created imperfect purposely for the evolution of the soul, essence, spirit energy or whatever term you prefer. In a paradoxical sort of way you could say that anger, hatred, greed, jealousy as well as all other forms of human suffering were designed to exist in this world exclusively for our benefit because they do not exist back home."
And another NDEr, when asking, "where is God?" got this response: "How can you see that which you are yourself a part of? We are all expressions of God. When you see with your eyes, you see through the eyes of God and he experiences reality through yours. When you speak to God, you speak to yourself. We are one and the same, there is no division or separation. You can no more ‘see’ God than your hand can see you, for it is a part of you and functions because of you and for your purposes, as well as it’s own. There is no separation. Any that seems to exist is an illusion. The light that surrounds us here is God. It is our source of being and is given freely to all."
So, I realize that quotes from those who experienced NDE's isn't the most convincing evidence, but we do not know if what they experienced was real, a hallucination, or if they were lying, so it's worth a read, and at least acceptance as an idea of what us and God may be.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" - Epicurus, 33 A.D.
I mean, I think that the above view is a more cut dry way to show how I feel on this, but it's not really my point of view. IMO if god does exist, (we need a definition of "god" to agree upon first) then we cannot go out and say that he is evil for letting bad things happen to us, or good for letting good things happen to is, it's over-interpenetrating. If god does exist then we cannot even begin to understand his intentions.
It is far to egocentric to believe that this divine entity would put all his emphasis on the human species. We believe in God because we want to believe that optimism is inherent in the universe. We want to make our own lives better, which is what God does for many people. But existing because it is "good" does not justify it's existence in the first place.
