|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2020 5:45:08 GMT
I don't know why that person didn't save that child, so I couldn't say. Are you sure you don't want to define evil? We can use this definition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Which part? How about this: Evil is the act of doing harm for no reason other than to do harm.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 28, 2020 14:10:28 GMT
It could mean a low GAF (Give a F--K) factor. Or a high one. For the sake of discussion, we presume God exists and that he is benevolent, hence the arguments challenging that presumption. If we are also to presume that "evil" is an objective term, maybe we should agree upon its definition before continuing this chat. How can you presume that Jehovah is benevolent if he does NOTHING to ward off evil. At best, He is apathetic and lets the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 28, 2020 14:43:30 GMT
1. Epicurious probably didn't say that 2. Even if he did say it, it's flawed reasoning- something akin to an ant thinking a human should not step on it. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. 3. Disease and mean people are not a willful creation of God and more than likely is more the result of the bad habits and instruction of humans. This might be a decent argument if one thought free will didn;t exist, but let's assume there people having smarter conversations than that here. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. Except God. And he exhorts his followers to do the same. That his followers fail so miserably at simple respect for the non-human (and not all of the humans either) life of this planet is a strong case for free will being inherently evil, as the Bible stresses, or God really just don’t give a shit about us that much anymore. Context. The whole reason we are to care for our fellow humans is to get them to the point where God saves them from their mistakes and errors. It's usually met with some level of resentment and accusation. What do Christians do when that happens. Wipe the dust off our feet and hold onto the pearls rather than toss them to swine. I'm not sure how one can remember one aspect of doctrine but not the other. So as I've already said, God certainly cares about his followers. He has little to no reason to care about the whiners who have no interest in following him but seem to want the benefits of it. So arguing to God about why he is letting us kill each other just because we seem to like that is as bizarre a concept MCDonald's making Whoppers for people. So I would argue that God doesn't care about you to the extent that you don;t care about him and the worst crime he has committed is letting ones who don't care about him to do whatever they want to their detriment.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 28, 2020 14:56:28 GMT
1. Epicurious probably didn't say that 2. Even if he did say it, it's flawed reasoning- something akin to an ant thinking a human should not step on it. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. Ants care. And if God can squish humans with the same indifference as we squish ants... we still care. God may use God standards, but as humans, we use human standards. Ebola, bubonic plague, polio, syphilis the results of bad habits? The microorganisms were formed by bad habits? As for free will, it actually doesn't exist, but that's neither here nor there. Assuming it did (even though no mechanism has ever been proposed as to how it possibly could, or even properly defined what it's supposed to be), we did not choose to have free will. That was God's idea, apparently, and a phenomenally bad one at that. If his creation chooses of its own volition to act on faculties they were intended to have, then any and all consequences resulting from that is God's fault, and nobody else's. If I had an ant tank at home, and decided to take the top off, it's not the ants's fault that my house is infested by them. They only acted on the choice I decided they should have, and so it is my folly, and my folly alone, that caused the ants to roam freely in my house. The ants are just doing what ants do. Just as humans are only doing what humans do. We didn't have to be this way, God could have created us with perfect personalities and with no desire whatsoever to act against his will. And we would be perfectly happy in that scenario, because God would have designed us to be happy with only good and righteous interests. 1. Ants care and you still step on them. Maybe if they looked like the ones in Bug's Life... The weird thing is that if ants know they are about to get stepped on they will at least try to escape. Humans with their vast intelligence do the equivalent of F U to the foot, then eat each other, and then blame the foot that isn't even about to step on them. There's not even a better analogy for that inanity. 2. Yes. Every last one of those could have been controlled much better than they were. We have evidence of that right now. COVID would be controllable (Heck, it probably wouldn't even exist if not for human stupidity) if HUMANS simple behaved smart rather than blaming God for their sickness. For the few and far between that are not self inflicted, then God would offer solutions help cope ad provide hope. 3. Of course free will exists. You seem to be conflating free will with limits maybe? Humans have not escaped their more diverse ant farm. They aren't damaging anyone's home but their own. Fellow ants and organisms that are in the farm with them may suffer for it, but as with anything, their owner usually has a scheduled time to clean things up.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 28, 2020 15:15:34 GMT
Ants care. And if God can squish humans with the same indifference as we squish ants... we still care. God may use God standards, but as humans, we use human standards. Ebola, bubonic plague, polio, syphilis the results of bad habits? The microorganisms were formed by bad habits? As for free will, it actually doesn't exist, but that's neither here nor there. Assuming it did (even though no mechanism has ever been proposed as to how it possibly could, or even properly defined what it's supposed to be), we did not choose to have free will. That was God's idea, apparently, and a phenomenally bad one at that. If his creation chooses of its own volition to act on faculties they were intended to have, then any and all consequences resulting from that is God's fault, and nobody else's. If I had an ant tank at home, and decided to take the top off, it's not the ants's fault that my house is infested by them. They only acted on the choice I decided they should have, and so it is my folly, and my folly alone, that caused the ants to roam freely in my house. The ants are just doing what ants do. Just as humans are only doing what humans do. We didn't have to be this way, God could have created us with perfect personalities and with no desire whatsoever to act against his will. And we would be perfectly happy in that scenario, because God would have designed us to be happy with only good and righteous interests. 1. Ants care and you still step on them. Maybe if they looked like the ones in Bug's Life... Yes, but then I do not care about the same things that ants care about. And ants do not care about the same things I care about. I go by human standards, they go by ant standards. This is only fair, and there is no need to mix the two. Except there is no foot. Some people do talk about the foot, but no one has actually ever seen the foot. And the only pieces of evidence are hear-say, and recorded hear-say. Thousands of years of no foot stomping, so there is no indication of it ever happening. So how is this process supposed to work? Humans are stupid, and from this stupidity microorganisms form out of the ether? Spontaneous generation? I think you're conflating free will with freedom of choice. Freedom of choice doesn't mean you're going to choose differently from what you are programmed to. We all make our choices based on our personalities - we are helpless to do otherwise. But none of us were ever in a position to choose our own personality. So God is fine with everything humans have ever done? That was what my analogy was about: the ants doing things the owner didn't want them to do. If we are doing things our owner does not want us to do, whose fault is that, when the owner isn't even anywhere to be seen and no one can seem to reach an agreement as to what the owner even wants us to do.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 28, 2020 16:55:59 GMT
No one actually cares what the ant thinks. Except God. And he exhorts his followers to do the same. That his followers fail so miserably at simple respect for the non-human (and not all of the humans either) life of this planet is a strong case for free will being inherently evil, as the Bible stresses, or God really just don’t give a shit about us that much anymore. Context. So I would argue that God doesn't care about you to the extent that you don;t care about him and the worst crime he has committed is letting ones who don't care about him to do whatever they want to their detriment. In addition, one should not forget, to ordering His followers to massacre those he doesn't care about. Or just drowning them all. Also lest we forget, apparently this "God is going to order BILLIONS of people to be killed and that will be the correct course to take" since " the vastly smaller group of his worshippers ... will always be more important to him." And His followers praise Him. It was the perceived immorality of God (as well as the rise of critical studies of the text and Darwinism) which helped cause the crisis of faith in the nineteenth century and it continues to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 28, 2020 22:27:07 GMT
Was the black death one of Jehovah's mistakes or was it intentional? How about Adolph Hitler? How about Covid? How about a bacon cheeseburger? Come to think of it, it violates two dietary laws, and it's in the bible. Why does Burger King serve them? As there are lots of contradictions in the Bible, (e.g. Ezekiel 4: 9, 12, & 15), was Yahweh just writing the Bible off the top of his head without thinking of what (S)He had previously written?
Epicurus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
1. Epicurious probably didn't say that 2. Even if he did say it, it's flawed reasoning- something akin to an ant thinking a human should not step on it. No one actually cares what the ant thinks. 3. Disease and mean people are not a willful creation of God and more than likely is more the result of the bad habits and instruction of humans. This might be a decent argument if one thought free will didn;t exist, but let's assume there people having smarter conversations than that here. (1) When I googled that quote, Epicurus' name popped up. Even if the quote had been said by Sheldon Cooper, the statement stands for itself. (2) It is solid logic and has nothing to do with your silly ant analogy. BTW, ants do care whether people step on them. Ants, like 99% of all living creatures, have a will to survive. When they suspect danger, they run and hide just like you and me. The 1% that don't will not pass on that trait to offspring. (3) Setting aside your "free will" comment, what is your rationalization for diseases such as Black Plague, Smallpox, Covid, cancer, polio and erectile dysfunction. And what about deadly snakes, hurricanes, miscarriages, birth defects and man-eating sharks. As Jehovah is the creator of EVERYTHING, how can you rule out the fact the He created all those diseases/catastrophes as well. So, were those creations "mistakes" or did Jehovah willfully create those diseases to make humans miserable? HBTY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 21:46:58 GMT
Which part? How about this: Evil is the act of doing harm for no reason other than to do harm. I agree with this
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2020 22:12:47 GMT
Which part? How about this: Evil is the act of doing harm for no reason other than to do harm. I agree with this So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 22:26:10 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Possibly. Or maybe some heavy mood swings.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2020 22:31:45 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Possibly. Or maybe some heavy mood swings. Whatever it takes to convince yourself (or anyone) that God is evil if not non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 29, 2020 22:49:06 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. In connection with this it can be remembered that the Christian deity only created an earth that He saw was "very good" rather than perfect but then scripture tells us that He apparently takes pleasure in His creation. Since there is nothing better than perfection, then I can imagine a god who would take pleasure in something better.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2020 23:02:50 GMT
So when we read about God doing harm, we assume he does it for the lulz so we can brand him an asshole and smugly refute the whole benevolence thing. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. In connection with this it can be remembered that the Christian deity only created an earth that He saw was "very good" rather than perfect but then scripture tells us that He apparently takes pleasure in His creation. Since there is nothing better than perfection, then I can imagine a god who would take pleasure in something better. Unless you're arguing that God takes pleasure in the suffering of his creation, I don't see the connection. I'm thinking the crucial pivot here is the phrase "something better."
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 29, 2020 23:24:43 GMT
In connection with this it can be remembered that the Christian deity only created an earth that He saw was "very good" rather than perfect but then scripture tells us that He apparently takes pleasure in His creation. Since there is nothing better than perfection, then I can imagine a god who would take pleasure in something better. Unless you're arguing that God takes pleasure in the suffering of his creation, I don't see the connection. I'm thinking the crucial pivot here is the phrase "something better." "May the glory of the Lord endure forever, May the Lord rejoice in his works. "(Ps 104) This is not a prayer for something that might not happen. The psalmist does not mean: “O, I hope God will rejoice in his works, but I am not sure he will.” If that were the meaning, then the first line of the verse would have to have the same sense: “O, I hope God’s glory will endure forever, but I am not sure it will.” Neither do the words qualify the 'works' of the Lord which don't include a nature full of waste and suffering from the parts that do. Hence God finds as much pleasure in those many types of parasitoid wasps whose offspring paralyse a host and then slowly eat it inside to out while it is still alive as He does, presumably, flowers and puppies. I suppose one can take issue with something perfect being necessarily the greater. However this is not the standard line taken by thinkers down the ages who have commonly argued that perfection (i.e. not something just very good) is the greatest condition of anything, right down to the notion that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived, bring us into the Ontological.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2020 23:47:05 GMT
Unless you're arguing that God takes pleasure in the suffering of his creation, I don't see the connection. I'm thinking the crucial pivot here is the phrase "something better." "May the glory of the Lord endure forever, May the Lord rejoice in his works. "(Ps 104) This is not a prayer for something that might not happen. The psalmist does not mean: “O, I hope God will rejoice in his works, but I am not sure he will.” If that were the meaning, then the first line of the verse would have to have the same sense: “O, I hope God’s glory will endure forever, but I am not sure it will.” Neither do the words qualify the 'works' of the Lord which don't include a nature full of waste and suffering from the parts that do. Hence God finds as much pleasure in those many types of parasitoid wasps whose offspring paralyse a host and then slowly eat it inside to out while it is still alive as He does, presumably, flowers and puppies. I suppose one can take issue with something perfect being necessarily the greater. However this is not the standard line taken by thinkers down the ages who have commonly argued that perfection (i.e. not something just very good) is the greatest condition of anything, right down to the notion that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived, bring us into the Ontological. I'm not sure I understand. If God's creations are "good" and God created evil, then evil is good?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 0:45:46 GMT
"May the glory of the Lord endure forever, May the Lord rejoice in his works. "(Ps 104) This is not a prayer for something that might not happen. The psalmist does not mean: “O, I hope God will rejoice in his works, but I am not sure he will.” If that were the meaning, then the first line of the verse would have to have the same sense: “O, I hope God’s glory will endure forever, but I am not sure it will.” Neither do the words qualify the 'works' of the Lord which don't include a nature full of waste and suffering from the parts that do. Hence God finds as much pleasure in those many types of parasitoid wasps whose offspring paralyse a host and then slowly eat it inside to out while it is still alive as He does, presumably, flowers and puppies. I suppose one can take issue with something perfect being necessarily the greater. However this is not the standard line taken by thinkers down the ages who have commonly argued that perfection (i.e. not something just very good) is the greatest condition of anything, right down to the notion that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived, bring us into the Ontological. I'm not sure I understand. If God's creations are "good" and God created evil, then evil is good? This depends on one arguing that anything created by God must necessarily be good - which, of course, some do. It could be said though that in nature at least, anything is 'good' which fulfils its purpose. So for instance the purpose of a cancer cell is to reproduce itself and spread, or that of that wasp mentioned above is to similarly survive, if even through what one might think a cruel stratagem. So God is pleased at things working to their point. But in a world which is not perfect not everything succeeds, which is where the pressures of evolution come in, and the survival of the fittest.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2020 1:19:25 GMT
I'm not sure I understand. If God's creations are "good" and God created evil, then evil is good? This depends on one arguing that anything created by God must necessarily be good - which, of course, some do. It could be said though that in nature at least, anything is 'good' which fulfils its purpose. So for instance the purpose of a cancer cell is to reproduce itself and spread, or that of that wasp mentioned above is to similarly survive, if even through what one might think a cruel stratagem. So God is pleased at things working to their point. But in a world which is not perfect not everything succeeds, which is where the pressures of evolution come in, and the survival of the fittest. A quick Google search for what God hates produces a lot of references to Proverbs 8:13. So even though God takes responsibility for the creation of everything in existence (even evil), there are some things he hates. Do you suppose that wasp is one of them? And if not, have we successfully refuted the notion that God is benevolent?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 1:35:27 GMT
This depends on one arguing that anything created by God must necessarily be good - which, of course, some do. It could be said though that in nature at least, anything is 'good' which fulfils its purpose. So for instance the purpose of a cancer cell is to reproduce itself and spread, or that of that wasp mentioned above is to similarly survive, if even through what one might think a cruel stratagem. So God is pleased at things working to their point. But in a world which is not perfect not everything succeeds, which is where the pressures of evolution come in, and the survival of the fittest. A quick Google search for what God hates produces a lot of references to Proverbs 8:13. So even though God takes responsibility for the creation of everything in existence (even evil), there are some things he hates. Do you suppose that wasp is one of them? And if not, have we successfully refuted the notion that God is benevolent? This depends (in the case of the wasp) that one can call it 'evil' in any meaningful sense - although it certainly represents 'misfortune' for the unlucky host - and whether, if it is designed with a function, then God can then hate His own design. To take another example: a very good and moral man is standing under a tree during the thunderstorm and is struck by lightning. Could God 'hate' that bolt? Not enough to stop it. It is only fulfilling a function, to discharge. (Proverbs 8:13, btw, seems to refer to moral rather than natural evil) The other issue is that if things really are good as God does them or since He says they are, then that spells problems for notions of Objective Morality. For although there are always things good-bad which people will argue over each way, there are other things such as genocide, which very nearly everyone agrees is reprehensible. But if what God ever says not? Someone else has just recently on another thread assured me that God can 'transcend reality' Can He also transcend morality?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2020 1:54:35 GMT
A quick Google search for what God hates produces a lot of references to Proverbs 8:13. So even though God takes responsibility for the creation of everything in existence (even evil), there are some things he hates. Do you suppose that wasp is one of them? And if not, have we successfully refuted the notion that God is benevolent? This depends (in the case of the wasp) that one can call it 'evil' in any meaningful sense - although it certainly represents 'misfortune' for the unlucky host - and whether, if it is designed with a function, then God can then hate His own design. To take another example: a very good and moral man is standing under a tree during the thunderstorm and is struck by lightning. Could God 'hate' that bolt? Not enough to stop it. It is only fulfilling a function, to discharge. (Proverbs 8:13, btw, seems to refer to moral rather than natural evil) The other issue is that if things really are good as God does them or since He says they are, then that spells problems for notions of Objective Morality. For although there are always things good-bad which people will argue over each way, there are other things such as genocide, which everyone agrees is reprehensible. But if what God says not? If you agree with the definition of evil I provided above, then you should also agree that the wasp is not evil. Did God still say things were good after A&E ate that apple? The reason for the flood seems to imply that they were not. Perhaps he should have made everything unable to be perverted. Any speculations as to why he didn't? Did God himself commit an evil act by putting that tree in the garden? I think "objective morality" only applies to the most fundamental characteristics and attributes. Sure, what makes one happy doesn't necessarily make another happy, but I think most if not all people would agree on what it means to be happy. From what I understand, we will not be judged so much for what what we do, but who we are. Something about acts being the effect rather than the cause.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 11:30:38 GMT
This depends (in the case of the wasp) that one can call it 'evil' in any meaningful sense - although it certainly represents 'misfortune' for the unlucky host - and whether, if it is designed with a function, then God can then hate His own design. To take another example: a very good and moral man is standing under a tree during the thunderstorm and is struck by lightning. Could God 'hate' that bolt? Not enough to stop it. It is only fulfilling a function, to discharge. (Proverbs 8:13, btw, seems to refer to moral rather than natural evil) The other issue is that if things really are good as God does them or since He says they are, then that spells problems for notions of Objective Morality. For although there are always things good-bad which people will argue over each way, there are other things such as genocide, which everyone agrees is reprehensible. But if what God says not? If you agree with the definition of evil I provided above, then you should also agree that the wasp is not evil. If this is the case, then it leaves God taking pleasure, in this instance, in a creature that consumes another from within while the unfortunate victim is still alive. For if something is not evil then God likes it. (Unless because He likes it, then by definition it is not evil of course.) This opens up the whole tin of free will, or the phenomenon of moral evil, different from natural evil that we have just been discussing. The question of why God would create the serpent and thus introduce evil into the world, even if it has to be chosen, or why He did not make mankind always inclined to make the most moral decisions while still allowing that choice, is a question best asked of Him. Unfortunately He has been very quiet in modern times. This is the old debate as to whether one is saved by works or faith alone. The Bible has verses which can be used to support either view. I am not sure whether what makes one happy can be used as guide as to what is right; one thinks of schadenfreude (pleasure on observing misfortune in others), or that a serial killer might be happiest when his or her murderous urges are assuaged.
|
|