God created evil

[Amandil]

Ah, now you have read what you want again as opposed to what I wrote. I asked if the guy should accept any responsibility. Not the responsibility, which implies all of it. Huge difference. But anyway, this is as about as close to an answer as we’re likely to get, so let’s fly with it.

Imagine the court case. The guy who massacred the family is up for the murder. The distraught survivors of the family are there. You are the guy who made the chainsaw. You are on the stand giving some background info and the defence council checks that you were the one responsible for making it.

He starts to badger you as if it was your fault. Trying to deflect the blame. Lessening the culpability of his client.

The council for the prosecution gets his turn. To make sure the guy in the dock gets the full blame for the murder, the first thing he says is: Mr Amandil, could you please tell the court that when you made the chainsaw, you had absolutely no idea whatsoever that it would be used to massacre this poor innocent family in the most horrendous fashion

You say…well, according to what you have just told me, you say:

‘Actually, yes. I did know that the person in the dock would use it to kill those people. I knew it as a fact. There was no doubt about it at all. I was absolutely certain without any shadow of doubt that he would kill those people. And can I just say, despite the fact that they would be alive today if I hadn’t made it, I still went ahead because killing them wasn’t my fault’.

How do you think you’d go? Maybe I can start a poll and we’ll see how many years people will think you’ll get.

That you continue to insist upon conflating the issue between natural law and positive law, and muddying the waters with your specious arguments and contrived assertions proved that you have no end other than to be an intellectually dishonest sophist.

You seem to have difficulty with he concept of hypotheticals, Amandil. We should practice.

You appear to have a difficulty with special pleading, which I have entertained for about as long as I’m willing to tolerate.

You’ve shown yourself for the intellectually inconsistent and dishonest fraud that you are.

You go right ahead and put God on “trial”. I will pity you when the verdict comes down.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

To give you all something to aim for, I’m afraid I can only manage 3.

Then you are way ahead of many who claim to believe in God.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You’ve shown yourself for the intellectually inconsistent and dishonest fraud that you are.

Good Evening Amandil: I am hoping that we can keep the conversation polite and to the point.

You go right ahead and put God on “trial”. I will pity you when the verdict comes down.

It occurred to me that what many Christians perceive to be a prosecution of God on the part of non-believers is actually a matter of simply putting people’s ideas about God on trial. I think people have a lot of ideas about God, and we get defensive when people challenge our ideas. Our ideas are in fact a set of beliefs, whereas we much prefer to think that what we have is in fact the truth, and what everyone else has is a set of beliefs. And when we start scrapping about it, well, it appears that our beliefs may not have mattered so much as the practical application of day to day living.

Thank you
Gary

 

[Amandil]

What I am saying is that there is a difference between truth and absolute truth.

Which at best begs the question.

Truth by definition is a set of statements based on a set of axioms.

“Axioms” are nothing more than self-evident premises.

If those axioms are self-evidently true, they are, necessarily, absolutely true.

…but absolute truth is a set of true statements.

Which is a distinction without a difference. Truth is truth, absolutely.

In latter case you need to accept the axiom meaning that the outcome, an statement, could just only believed since it is based on a set axioms which were accepted and in later case you know the absolute truth since the statement is true and complete by itself.

You’re writing in such circles here it begs the question if you even know what you’re talking about.

Care to put it in a syllogistic form? Or should I take a shot at it?

No. Any statement which is not based on any axiom and it is complete is absolutely true.

So, let’s try and sort out this intellectual whirlwind you’re in:

1. There are axioms, which are self-evident premises
2. “Truth by definition is a set of statements based on a set of axioms”
3. “…but absolute truth is a set of true statements.”

Therefore:
“Any statement which is not based on any axiom and it is complete is absolutely true.”

:ehh:

See the problem?

There is a difference between to know and to believe.

No there’s not.

“To know” and “to believe” are acts of the mind and the will, as distinct from the objects of knowledge and belief(i.e. truth).

 

[Amandil]

Good Evening Amandil: I am hoping that we can keep the conversation polite and to the point.

It occurred to me that what many Christians perceive to be a prosecution of God on the part of non-believers is actually a matter of simply putting people’s ideas about God on trial.

Specious arguments are by definition weak, fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

“Bradski” can believe all he wants that he has scored some “point” in his absurd and convoluted way. I really don’t give a wit.

His ideas about God(and himself) were just as much on trial.

I think people have a lot of ideas about God, and we get defensive when people challenge our ideas. Our ideas are in fact a set of beliefs, whereas we much prefer to think that what we have is in fact the truth, and what everyone else has is a set of beliefs. And when we start scrapping about it, well, it appears that our beliefs may not have mattered so much as the practical application of day to day living.

Thank you
Gary

Yes you’ve made yourself rather known in regards to what value you place on such things such as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[PRmerger]

Then let’s go back to the chainsaw example.

People make them so they can cut wood. Yes, they can be used to kill someone, but it’s hardly the responsibility of the person making them if someone else chooses, with his free will, to do so.

But what if the person making them knew, as a fact, that the particular one he was just about to make would be used to massacre a family. Not just ‘the next one’, but the particular one he was just about to start.

He has a choice to make it or not. If he does and someone else chooses to use it to kill (as he knows they will), does he bear any responsibility at all for what happens?

The last time this came up, the response was ‘well, I’d tell the police’ or something equally as fatuous. What do you say?

I say that in your example, the chainsaw would have to have a mind of its own and the chance to do beautiful things as well as heinous things…

and in your example the creator of this chainsaw would have to assign a value of supremacy to the free choice of this chainsaw…even if she knew that the chainsaw could choose evil…

because she would want the chainsaw to be able to choose to do good things…despite the fact that evil that might come of her warped choices…

because she knew that, in the end, she could make all the victims of this chainsaw’s horrific choices blissfully happy for eternity…

so allowing this chainsaw to choose to do evil would be a small price to pay for the great gift of freedom.

Are you ok with the above caveats in your chainsaw example?

If so, then I will indulge the analogy and answer your question.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a difference between to know and to believe.

What’s the difference?

Let me give you some statement. You tell me if you “know” them or “believe” them.

And then let me know how you “know” it vs how you “believe” it.

1. Manila is the capital of the Philippines
2. The pilot of your flight on American Airlines will get you to your destination safely.
3. Probioitics help stop diarrhea.
4. The Westboro Baptist Church’s views on God and homosexuality are wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

First, your statement is self contradictory meaning that what is perfectly good can create something which is imperfect and this allows evil.

Second, I can argue that something which is perfect and omnipresent cannot create anything which is imperfect since you either have to exclude omnipresent or perfection once an imperfection no matter how small exists.

The above is nonsensical and I challenge any atheist with integrity to join me in saying the above is ludicrous.

Of course a perfect being could make an imperfect creature.

 

[Bradski]

I say that in your example, the chainsaw would have to have a mind of its own and the chance to do beautiful things as well as heinous things…

and in your example the creator of this chainsaw would have to assign a value of supremacy to the free choice of this chainsaw…even if she knew that the chainsaw could choose evil…

because she would want the chainsaw to be able to choose to do good things…despite the fact that evil that might come of her warped choices…

because she knew that, in the end, she could make all the victims of this chainsaw’s horrific choices blissfully happy for eternity…

so allowing this chainsaw to choose to do evil would be a small price to pay for the great gift of freedom.

Are you ok with the above caveats in your chainsaw example?

If so, then I will indulge the analogy and answer your question.

I don’t want you to treat it as analogy. It is obviously is meant to highlight problems with the matter in hand but it’s in itself a simple hypothetical. The whole idea of a hypothetical is to elicit an answer to that hypothetical problem and then, and only then, investigate how it might apply to the problem which prompted it.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that if my hypothetical is answered as it stands then any reasonable person would say that the maker of the chainsaw would be responsible in some way. That is painfully obvious from, for example, Amandil’s reluctance to give anything like a straightforward answer. And then when he does, he tries to treat it as an analogy and is forced to give an answer that is, as the hypothetical stands, patently absurd.

If you want to add caveats to the hypothetical then that’s fine. But it needs to be answered in it’s original form first so we have something on which we agree and we start with a baseline from which we can develop the question.

If you answer it as it stands, then we can look at how the hypothetical can give different answers if we change it. So tell me if you think, as it stands, that the guy who makes the chainsaw has any responsibility at all for the deaths. Then we can look to see if allowing for the fact that some good may come of it, or any other permutation that you like, changes the original answer.

And prior to that answer (let’s get an answer first please) it is just one caveat you have asked for. The supremacy of free will. Which I allowed for. The guy had as much free will as you or I. He could choose to do good or evil. It just turned out that he decided to do evil. His choice alone. All the other remarks you made led from that.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, now you have read what you want again as opposed to what I wrote. I asked if the guy should accept any responsibility. Not the responsibility, which implies all of it. Huge difference. But anyway, this is as about as close to an answer as we’re likely to get, so let’s fly with it.

Imagine the court case. The guy who massacred the family is up for the murder. The distraught survivors of the family are there. You are the guy who made the chainsaw. You are on the stand giving some background info and the defence council checks that you were the one responsible for making it.

He starts to badger you as if it was your fault. Trying to deflect the blame. Lessening the culpability of his client.

The council for the prosecution gets his turn. To make sure the guy in the dock gets the full blame for the murder, the first thing he says is: Mr Amandil, could you please tell the court that when you made the chainsaw, you had absolutely no idea whatsoever that it would be used to massacre this poor innocent family in the most horrendous fashion

You say…well, according to what you have just told me, you say:

‘Actually, yes. I did know that the person in the dock would use it to kill those people. I knew it as a fact. There was no doubt about it at all. I was absolutely certain without any shadow of doubt that he would kill those people. And can I just say, despite the fact that they would be alive today if I hadn’t made it, I still went ahead because killing them wasn’t my fault’.

How do you think you’d go? Maybe I can start a poll and we’ll see how many years people will think you’ll get.

I have less than zero interest in legal proceedings, so I really do not know the answer to this…

But is there a court case where someone was convicted of murder for providing a murder weapon for someone, knowing that this person intended some malfeasance when it was purchased?

If so, is this person more guilty than the one who actually did the heinous action?

 

[Bradski]

I have less than zero interest in legal proceedings, so I really do not know the answer to this…

But is there a court case where someone was convicted of murder for providing a murder weapon for someone, knowing that this person intended some malfeasance when it was purchased?

If so, is this person more guilty than the one who actually did the heinous action?

He would be charged with being an accessory after the fact (so says my son in law to whom I have just asked the question and he’s done a law degree). He could be charged with murder although the actual killer would undoubtedly receive a heavier sentence if they were found guilty.

 

[PRmerger]

He would be charged with being an accessory after the fact (so says my son in law to whom I have just asked the question and he’s done a law degree). He could be charged with murder although the actual killer would undoubtedly receive a heavier sentence if they were found guilty.

Examples?

 

[Bradski]

Of course a perfect being could make an imperfect creature.

Indeed it could. It could, for example, make someone who they know will commit evil.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t want you to treat it as analogy. It is obviously is meant to highlight problems with the matter in hand but it’s in itself a simple hypothetical. The whole idea of a hypothetical is to elicit an answer to that hypothetical problem and then, and only then, investigate how it might apply to the problem which prompted it.

Fair enough. Not an analogy. Simply a hypothetical.

So if a manufacturer knew for a fact that a chainsaw would be used for a heinous action (although I’m not sure how this could be known for a fact…), she ought not make it.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed it could. It could, for example, make someone who they know will commit evil.

Sure.

No one has denied (esp. you) that God made people knowing they will commit evil.

That’s why God offered us a way to get out of this.

That’s why God offered us redemption.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that Theroux did an outstanding job. I actually thought of what the programme might have been like if someone like Chris Hitchens had done it. A lot of justifiable sound and fury but perhaps not so insightful.

Yes. Very likeable guy.

Incidentally, in a very weird twist, Theroux’s appearance is how I pictured you, even before I ever saw the documentary, only shorter, and with darker hair and no glasses.

(Surely* everyone* who’s a regular on the forum has a mental image of folks they’ve been in dialogue with, yeah?)

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough. Not an analogy. Simply a hypothetical.

So if a manufacturer knew for a fact that a chainsaw would be used for a heinous action (although I’m not sure how this could be known for a fact…), she ought not make it.

OK, thanks. Now are we going with a robot instead of a chainsaw? If so, I’m reiterating that the robot has as much free will as we all have. Despite that, the guy (Pete) making it knows that it will kill. Robbie makes the choice of his own free will, but death is the result. Everyone who dies goes to heaven.

Does that change Pete’s responsibility in any way?

 

[PRmerger]

OK, thanks. Now are we going with a robot instead of a chainsaw? If so, I’m reiterating that the robot has as much free will as we all have.

I am sorry. I don’t understand this.

How can a robot have as much free will as we all have?

Despite that, the guy (Pete) making it knows that it will kill. Robbie makes the choice of his own free will, but death is the result. Everyone who dies goes to heaven.

Does that change Pete’s responsibility in any way?

Pete? Robbie?

Is Robbie supposed to be the nickname of the robot?

Huh?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Amandil:

Specious arguments are by definition weak, fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

Good Evening again Amandil: While I don’t personally agree with a lot that has been said on this thread, I haven’t found anything said on this thread to be fallacious or intellectually dishonest. Now, on the other hand, if we do run into something fallacious or intellectually dishonest, we should be able to bear that out for what it is through intellectual honesty and truth, rather than through accusation, don’t you think?

"

Bradski" can believe all he wants that he has scored some “point” in his absurd and convoluted way. I really don’t give a wit.

If he hasn’t scored a point, then it should be easy enough to explain why he hasn’t. If he has in fact scored a point, then it would probably be up to someone to score a counterpoint. If what we have is the truth, it shouldn’t be all that hard to defend.

His ideas about God(and himself) were just as much on trial.

That is why we are having a discussion.

Yes you’ve made yourself rather known in regards to what value you place on such things such as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Nothing more needs to be said.

If scripture is sacred, then we should take care to understand it, and if we understand it, we quickly find that all things are sacred. Not just scripture. Which makes it matter very much how we treat others, even those who disagree with us. And if you believe scripture, we should take care as to what we do to the greatest as well as the least of our brothers. To me, that means avoidance of contempt.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But is there a court case where someone was convicted of murder for providing a murder weapon for someone, knowing that this person intended some malfeasance when it was purchased?

If so, is this person more guilty than the one who actually did the heinous action?

Good evening PR: The point that I am seeing from Bradsky is not that it makes the enabler more guilty. The point is that the enabler to the crime is not more holy, more all knowing or more infallible and probably not all good. At least this is how I understand the idea being offered. I think it gets worse though, but Bradsky can correct me if I’m wrong. We maintain that God is infinitely wiser than we are. Accordingly, If I have an IQ of 150 and give a weapon to a person with an IQ of 50 and known to me to also be predisposed to erratic behavior, it does make me rather more culpable than the perpetrator because of my better ability to reason, and his diminished capacity in comparison to mine. It’s an interesting dilemma. I think it’s a fascinating question.

Likewise, the chainsaw analogy is problematic because the human designer of the chainsaw did not also create the users of the chainsaw, nor does a human designer of a chainsaw have the ability to bestow the potential for misuse in the mind of the users. The problem is that the intents of a perfect designer should be implicit in the live production environment. And our live production environment is full of really bad things. Which implies that either the designer is not perfect, or we are in fact operating as designed. Neither or these options agree well with the ideas about God that many of us Christians offer as truths. This is the problem as I understand it from most of the atheists I have spoken to over time, and I have to admit that it’s an interesting problem. Admittedly, I have not heard a satisfactory answer to it.

As usual, I am open to some polite discussion on it.

Thank you,
Gary