Job's response to the Problem of Evil

[dostoyevskyfan]

Certainly I find many things repugnant in the present, too. And of course I do not blame God for it. I am pointing out that the Christian belief system is self-contradictory.

I forgot to mention. I’m pointing out that the the beliefs you have espoused in this thread are contradictory.

The “might makes right” maxim has allowed you to exist, it is necessary for your existence. Without it, your ancestors would not have survived. In a philosophical sense, I don’t believe in “good” and “evil” since God did not create evil and it does not exist. There is no such thing as “good” or “evil” only what exists and what doesn’t. In essence you are opposing your own existence by believing that the “might makes right” maxim is “repugnant” since it allowed you to exist and you currently exist in a culture where it still dominates today. This is what we call “hypocrisy”.

 

[R_Daneel]

The Catholic Church historically decided what books would be included in the Bible. We compiled the Bible. The very first Bible was compiled in Latin by St.Jerome. It was called the vulgate. The reason other Christians have the Bible is because Catholics wrote it. The reason skeptics have the Bible is also because of Catholics.

Well, the New Testament, not the whole shebang. Yes, I am aware of the compilation process; a collection of fallible humans took votes, and those books which received a majority vote, got included, the rest discarded. But that is not relevant at all. Your reasoning is still circular. The CC asserts that the Bible is the word of God - while they were the ones who cherry-picked what they liked and discarded what they did not like. Then they use the Bible to support what they say… a dog chasing its tail.

1. You find the Bible repugnant.
2. Therefore the Bible is false.

Oh, come on. I hope you are not that dumb. I said nothing of that kind. Why don’t you answer to what I actually said?

What criteria? You have still omitted a definition. Lol does that make you “evil” via equivocation of “guilt by omission” and “evil”? haha What is your definition of evil? Please type it out so I can read it.

Very well. Here comes:

“An action is evil if it intentionally causes harm to a being with a nervous system, or allows - through inaction - intentional harm to come to a being with nervous system, and if this harm cannot be justified.” I am sure you will now ask about justification.

An act of causing (or allowing) harm can only be justified, if the harm itself leads to some greater good, which (a) cannot be achieved without the aforementioned harm (the harm is logically necessary for the good), and (b) the greater good outweighs the effect of the harm, and (c) the harm caused (or allowed) is kept at a minimum, that is the causation of the harm stops at the precise moment when the greater good will be realized, and not a second longer.

At this point there usually comes another “objection”. People question, on what grounds dare we, skeptics, declare that the harm is unjustified, since we do not have acess to the whole picture. Indeed, we do not, we must go by the available evidence. That is the process we use in the courts, too. We use the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then it is most propably a duck”.

And finally comes the last (and worst) “argument” (shouting down the opposition): “how dare you miserable, filthy, disgusting sinners pass judgment over God?”. This is called special pleading and shouting when all the actual arguments are refuted. God gets no preferential treatment. If God’s actions cannot be justified, then we must go by the available evidence, bring forth and our verdict accordingly.
When this is applied to God, there can be no justification for allowing genocide. God is simply angry at some tribes, who worshipped other, false god (how I love the term: “false god”) and acts out of revenge - precisely as Isiah implies. There are many other examples in the OT.

You’re the one making the claim. The burden of proving:

A = torturing someone to death
B = allowing someone to be crushed to death
C = Evil
D = “guilt” by commission
E = “guilt” by omission

If A = D = C then B = E = C.

And again, I said nothing of the kind. You keep misrepresenting my words - and I am getting tired of your non-sequiturs. They are both evil, because they conform to the definition of evil I presented. There is no “IF…, THEN…” construct here at all.

 

[R_Daneel]

I forgot to mention. I’m pointing out that the the beliefs you have espoused in this thread are contradictory.

The “might makes right” maxim has allowed you to exist, it is necessary for your existence. Without it, your ancestors would not have survived. In a philosophical sense, I don’t believe in “good” and “evil” since God did not create evil and it does not exist. There is no such thing as “good” or “evil” only what exists and what doesn’t. In essence you are opposing your own existence by believing that the “might makes right” maxim is “repugnant” since it allowed you to exist and you currently exist in a culture where it still dominates today. This is what we call “hypocrisy”.

A very bad argument. I have nothing to do with the possible behavior of my ancestors. It seems to me that you have no idea what “hypocrisy” means.

I also find it astonishing that anyone would defend the “might makes right” as a morally upright principle, but I guess, the zoo of the Lord is huge, and it takes all kinds…

 

[rvilbig]

I also find it astonishing that anyone would defend the “might makes right” as a morally upright principle, but I guess, the zoo of the Lord is huge, and it takes all kinds…

I’m not sure if this is the topic of this conversation, but Scripture does suggest to us that the might of the Catholic Church suggests that Her origin is Divine. In a sense then, might makes right. “For if this endeavor or this activity [the Church] is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39) Make sense?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure if this is the topic of this conversation, but Scripture does suggest to us that the might of the Catholic Church suggests that Her origin is Divine. In a sense then, might makes right. “For if this endeavor or this activity [the Church] is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39) Make sense?

No, not really. As a matter of fact, the “power” of the Church is steadily decreasing. A few hundred years ago, there was no real “secular” government, the Church “made” the kings, and removed them. Such a power is now nonexistent. Many of the Catholics themselves question Rome’s authority on important questions, like contraception, sexual behavior, etc… So the Church is on the decline, and there is no sign of the reversal of this trend.

But more to the point, if the Church “is” right, then its “rightness” must stand on its own merit, not because of its alleged “divine” origin, which is just another assertion of the Church, along with “infallability” and the like… The concept of “might makes right” is simply the declaration of power, and the idea that the strong and powerful decides what is “right”, and the weak must comply out of fear of retribution. No, I just do not think that this concept has any merit, and so far I have never met anyone like dostoyevskyfan, who would uphold this principle as the foundation of morality. Surprise comes at the most unexpected moments, I guess.

 

[rvilbig]

No, not really. As a matter of fact, the “power” of the Church is steadily decreasing. A few hundred years ago, there was no real “secular” government, the Church “made” the kings, and removed them. Such a power is now nonexistent. Many of the Catholics themselves question Rome’s authority on important questions, like contraception, sexual behavior, etc… So the Church is on the decline, and there is no sign of the reversal of this trend.

But more to the point, if the Church “is” right, then its “rightness” must stand on its own merit, not because of its alleged “divine” origin, which is just another assertion of the Church, along with “infallability” and the like… The concept of “might makes right” is simply the declaration of power, and the idea that the strong and powerful decides what is “right”, and the weak must comply out of fear of retribution. No, I just do not think that this concept has any merit, and so far I have never met anyone like dostoyevskyfan, who would uphold this principle as the foundation of morality. Surprise comes at the most unexpected moments, I guess.

We must be looking at different statistics. The Church has reported growth on every continent in recent years (article). In Africa, the Church has grown from 2 million Catholics in 1900 to 165 million Catholics in 2010 (article). I myself am a convert from atheism, and I know several others who have also converted from atheism. All of us are passionate about evangelizing. So if it’s up to me, the Church will continue to grow, even if that costs me my very life.

It’s never too late to convert, so don’t give up hope. You’ll be in my prayers.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rvilbig]

As a matter of fact, the “power” of the Church is steadily decreasing. A few hundred years ago, there was no real “secular” government, the Church “made” the kings, and removed them. Such a power is now nonexistent. Many of the Catholics themselves question Rome’s authority on important questions, like contraception, sexual behavior, etc… So the Church is on the decline, and there is no sign of the reversal of this trend.

Also, btw, even Richard Dawkins recognizes that a belief in God is persistent and enduring in the meme pool:

“Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent ‘mutation.’ In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? …] The survival value of the [G]od meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. …] God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture” (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, page 192)

Personally, I like the God meme and plan on replicating it as much as I can. It confers many advantages in this life, not to mention the eternal rewards that await in the afterlife. Besides, Saint Peter himself exhorts us to recognize the eternal survival value of the seeds planted by Christ:

“You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God, for: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the field; the grass withers, and the flower wilts; but the word of the Lord remains forever.” This is the word that has been proclaimed to you.” (1 Pt 1:23-25)

Christians have good seed. But more importantly, as Catholics, we are so fortunate as to receive the very Body and Blood of our good God. It can’t get any better than this during our earthly lives.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Well, the New Testament, not the whole shebang. Yes, I am aware of the compilation process; a collection of fallible humans took votes, and those books which received a majority vote, got included, the rest discarded. But that is not relevant at all. Your reasoning is still circular. The CC asserts that the Bible is the word of God - while they were the ones who cherry-picked what they liked and discarded what they did not like. Then they use the Bible to support what they say… a dog chasing its tail.

This is going off topic. That’s still a strawman of the Catholic position on authority/apostolic succession. It’s a historical argument that traces authority back to Christ and his apostles. Since you aren’t taking the care to read the links, I’m just going to move on and just assert that you aren’t understanding our position and misrepresenting what the Church claims.

Oh, come on. I hope you are not that dumb. I said nothing of that kind. Why don’t you answer to what I actually said?

A logical inference is something implied in what you say but did not explicitly state. You were suggesting (whether you are aware of it or not):

1. I don’t like the events in the OT.
2. Therefore the OT is false.

I could be mistaken, but logic/argumentation does not seem to be your strong suit.

Very well. Here comes:

“An action is evil if it intentionally causes harm to a being with a nervous system, or allows - through inaction - intentional harm to come to a being with nervous system, and if this harm cannot be justified.” I am sure you will now ask about justification.

An act of causing (or allowing) harm can only be justified, if the harm itself leads to some greater good, which (a) cannot be achieved without the aforementioned harm (the harm is logically necessary for the good), and (b) the greater good outweighs the effect of the harm, and (c) the harm caused (or allowed) is kept at a minimum, that is the causation of the harm stops at the precise moment when the greater good will be realized, and not a second longer.
​

Here’s where I handed you the noose. I emphatically reject your definition of evil. This is primarily because you do not have the “might” to make your definition “right”. If you were holding a gun to my face, and said, “Accept my definition of evil or I’ll pull the trigger…”, I would strongly consider agreement with you. I’m sure not even every atheist will accept your definition of evil, and you have no way of “enforcing” your definition as a universal standard because you lack power. It remains only ***your ***definition.

It is also because I can already foresee contradictions arising in the definition you proposed and it’s logical opposite, “good”, which you have defined by negation. The terms “harm” and “justification” are still quite nebulous. That being said, I commend your effort…you are well on your way of actualizing your own subjective “utopian vision” for the human race either by starting your own church, government, or other institution that enforces “morality”. Godspeed.​

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

A very bad argument. I have nothing to do with the possible behavior of my ancestors. It seems to me that you have no idea what “hypocrisy” means.

I’m not talking about the “behavior” of your ancestors. They were a production of “might makes right” in action, and logically, so are you. You are opposing the moral principle that has allowed you to exist, so you are a hypocrite. You can’t redefine the word “hypocrisy” to plead your case. The only way to non-hypocritically reject “might makes right” is suicide. (but please don’t feel like you have to justify yourself to me. I don’t want that.)

I also find it astonishing that anyone would defend the “might makes right” as a morally upright principle, but I guess, the zoo of the Lord is huge, and it takes all kinds…

I’m a gracious ape in God’s zoo. He allows me to interact with all kinds of creatures.

Please don’t think that I am defending “might makes right”; I’m not. I just have the wisdom to understand that that’s how it is. Whether or not I think the maxim “might makes right” is right itself…is irrelevant since I don’t have might. Please think about that long and hard.

If you were to go up to the atheist Stalin at the time of his regime and accuse him of being “evil” as you have defined; even if you were correct that “no creature with a nervous system should be harmed”, it would be irrelevant, because he would have you shot, or he would send you to a gulag to get some material profit out of you before you expire.

Likewise if you went up to Bill Gates and told him that his monopoly is evil because it “harms” you (a creature with a nervous system) who aspires to create a new operating system, he would ignore you. If you didn’t have “might” aka “wealth” you new buisness would fail miserably because no one would want your operating system when they can have windows 7.

 

[R_Daneel]

A logical inference is something implied in what you say but did not explicitly state. You were suggesting (whether you are aware of it or not):

1. I don’t like the events in the OT.
2. Therefore the OT is false.

I could be mistaken, but logic/argumentation does not seem to be your strong suit.

You are seriously mistaken, and that “inference” exists only in you imagination.

I emphatically reject your definition of evil.

Then there is nothing to talk about.

This is primarily because you do not have the “might” to make your definition “right”.

I only appeal to normal common sense and logic, not “might”. Obviously you have no actual argument to present, and such nonsense is just that: nonsense.

It is also because I can already foresee contradictions arising in the definition you proposed and it’s logical opposite, “good”, which you have defined by negation. The terms “harm” and “justification” are still quite nebulous.

There is nothing nebulous about them at all. We all understand (well, maybe you do not) what “harm” is. And I gave a precise definition of justification.

Likewise if you went up to Bill Gates and told him that his monopoly is evil because it “harms” you (a creature with a nervous system) who aspires to create a new operating system, he would ignore you. If you didn’t have “might” aka “wealth” you new buisness would fail miserably because no one would want your operating system when they can have windows 7.

This example clearly shows that you have no idea what you talking about. Bill Gates and Microsoft have no monopoly on anything. There are altenate operating systems, some are even free (for example Linux). But even if Microsoft were the only player on the block, you could live without a computer and Bill Gates would have no power (“might”) to force you to buy his product.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I only appeal to normal common sense and -]logic/-], not “might”. Obviously you have no actual argument to present, and such nonsense is just that: nonsense.

[SIGN]Argumentum Ad Judicium[/SIGN]

A fallacy that appeals to the “masses” and their common judgments. It’s similar to the Ad Populum fallacy. You just want people to hop on your “bandwagon” and you erroneously assume that everyone agrees with you without providing the slightest justification, via logic or otherwise, for your own assertion.

Finally, you use rhetorical “common sense” rhetoric to reassure yourself…“Obviously”…and then end with tautological twaddle…“nonsense is nonsense”. How can anyone argue with that? Surely no one would dare to say that “nonsense isn’t nonsense”…You’re so deeply entrenched and dogmatic that I may have to abandon this effort and label it an act of futility.

Here’s my argument again:

“Might makes right” is the foundation of all human morality; the strongest and the mightiest, the hedgemony, are the only ones who have the means to actualize a system of morality. Morality, since it is an intangible, must be enforced by some sort of authority, otherwise it is rendered non-existent. The authors of human morality cannot be the weak and the impoverished, since they have no means to actualize a moral system. Morality thus is usually enforced by the state.

Where does “the state” come from? The answer is…competing human forces…“packs” or “herds”…if you will, that are struggling for power. History isn’t written by the vanquished…no…it is written by victors. So too, is morality written. The weak, the impoverished, the vanquished are…for all intensive purposes…ahistorical and amoral. That is to say they are outside of history itself and outside the human construct of morality unless the hedgemony pens them into it.

In such a moral system as we find ourselves in through out the course of human history, and even today, to object to the system itself would prove to be a futile act of self-righteousness destined to fail without first possessing some kind of power. Paradoxically, the act of obtaining power to usurp the current moral system, would require a physical display of force and might. It is thus impossible to ever prove that “might makes wrong”…unless you are Jesus Christ, who did just that.

This why an egalitarian system of morality…such as communism…while benign in theory…fails miserably when actualized. In order to actualize the idea that everyone is equal, shared property, no economic classes…one would first have to be above everyone else’s economic class, own a boatload of property, and NOT be equal to everyone else…in order to put the system into place. This is why China, USSR, Cambodia, etc…do not resemble “communist” regimes as described by Marx, but rather, …totalitarian ones…

good day to you sir.

 

[R_Daneel]

“Might makes right” is the foundation of all human morality; the strongest and the mightiest, the hedgemony, are the only ones who have the means to actualize a system of morality. Morality, since it is an intangible, must be enforced by some sort of authority, otherwise it is rendered non-existent. The authors of human morality cannot be the weak and the impoverished, since they have no means to actualize a moral system. Morality thus is usually enforced by the state.

And you still confuse legality and morality. To figure out the difference is left as a homework assignment. Goodbye to you, too…

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

And you still confuse legality and morality. To figure out the difference is left as a homework assignment. Goodbye to you, too…

No difference. Here’s your reading assignments if you want to continue our discussion:

A copy of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling: $1.89
amazon.com/Trembling-Penguin-Classics-Soren-Kierkegaard/dp/0140444491

A copy of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil: $2.95
amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Prelude-Philosophy-Future/dp/0394703375/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281556872&sr=1-3

Total investment: $4.84 + shipping and handling

Wisdom: priceless.

Honestly, I’d love to continue this but not with the current state of your “soul” or “intellect” if you want to call it that.

Pax.