The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Oreoracle]

why does it matter what my position is?

I’m trying to help you out by pointing to any hypocrisy you may possess. I suspect that you have lots of it. You’d be eager to share your point of view if your own skeptical argument didn’t undermine it. You know this, yet you continue this sort of hit and run tactic of making an assertion and backing off when asked if you adhere to your own arguments, which you claim are logical. If we don’t have enough information to determine God’s moral worth, neither of us can say that God is good or bad. If I’m wrong, prove it.

the argument is about drawing valid conclusions on limited information, not my personal beliefs.

Our information is always limited. Should we give up drawing conclusions?

The sad truth is, you’re right: I don’t have enough information to definitively prove that anyone fits my definition of “bad.” So what? Should we give up on ethics because of our limitations, or should we continue and strive to improve? (Ironically, this question is, in itself, ethical.)

why couldnt he then? how can he act against himself? but again, this isnt integral to the argument.

Your meaning continues to escape me. I don’t know what it means to exercise free will, much less to do so rationally. I’ve never heard of any doctrine that fully explains free will, though many assert it and take it for granted.

then maybe you shouldnt have mentioned the faults of the faithful, as though faults are magnified in those regimes.

Listen guy, I’m not here to be lectured on etiquette by someone such as yourself. This is merely a case of you walking off with your tail between your legs after I’ve called you out on misrepresenting me.

you claimed He couldnt think or feel,

Nope, just that you can’t prove he does.

go ahead, if you assign G-d responsibility for all events, that includes you.

What?

ok, then you tell me what your definition is under the conditions you just set.

I equate goodness with happiness and badness with suffering.

i smell blood in the water…your betraying the weakness of your position, confidence doesnt result in insults, fear does.

It was no insult, it was how I see you conveying yourself. I’m sorry that you’re displeased with your own image.

1. omnibenevolence is inferred from the same maximal qualities as all the other omnis’. if you dont know why we believe G-d is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, then i will explain at the appropriate time.

Why omnibenevolence? Why not omni-malevolence? That’s considered maximal too, right? It’s just in the opposite direction (infinitely).

 

[grannymh]

It’s a direct question, Petey–every person whose serious about ethics should answer it. Are ethics objective, or subjective? Do they reside in reality, or form in one’s mind?

Hey Oreoracle,

The joys of technology. Here I am trying to catch up with this thread and end up, somehow, in the middle. And there you are with the same question we were working with before that thread closed.

This possibility would surely be problematic to any intellectually honest person who believed they could prove that God must exist and is good. I mean, he can’t be good if he doesn’t have intentions, right?

Obviously, I have no clue about the problematic possibility, but I can’t resist a direct question. right? Answer: God is Spirit and doesn’t need intentions.

Ethics can’t be proven wrong. They’re subjective. And to me, the axiom is self-evident,

Ah, the subjective/objective definitions. Seems to me that I was seeing those definitions in reverse order.

Dang, I better do things right and reread the beginning. Not sure what I can contribute. I gave up modern philosophy when the author I was reading couldn’t figure out if he existed. So he tried to figure out if he at least existed in someone else’s imagination. Personally, I like some of the old philosophers who knew which end was up.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**The sad truth is, you’re right: I don’t have enough information **to definitively prove that anyone fits my definition of “bad.”

kudos to you, on atheist forums, i get flamed for a few hundred posts on the subject, and then they just run off, when i dont get distracted from the argument.

So what?

it means that the POE doesnt exist, its just opinion.

 

[grannymh]

it means that the POE doesnt exist, its just opinion.

Pardon me, but after reading the OP, it seems to me that the problem is one of evaluation or judgment call on the part of humans. Or as you say, “It means that the POE doesn’t exist, it’s just opinion.”

I think the OP is right from the human point of view which is usually trying to figure out what God did wrong. We don’t even know all the human circumstances and here we are trying to see a particular evil (in our eyes) from God’s point of view.

Did somebody say that evil exists independently of our evaluation?

Also, I did have trouble with the OP link. My unfriendly computer, missed its morning Pepsi, came up with “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.” Not sure where I should go from here.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m trying to help you out by pointing to any hypocrisy you may possess. I suspect that you have lots of it. You’d be eager to share your point of view if your own skeptical argument didn’t undermine it.

as ive pointed out a couple of time, my position on the objective, subjective dichotomy of morality has nothing to do with the lack of information that kills the POE.

and as ive pointed out before, maximal qualities are inferred from the maximal state of being. you cant make a tu qouque argument because i dont depend on my own information to judge the moral quality of G-ds actions. but as youve already admitted that lack of information, and such distractions no longer matter. my position is that what G-d does is good from that inference of the omnis.

You know this, yet you continue this sort of hit and run tactic of making an assertion and backing off when asked if you adhere to your own arguments, which you claim are logical. If we don’t have enough information to determine God’s moral worth, neither of us can say that God is good or bad. If I’m wrong, prove it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pardon me, but after reading the OP, it seems to me that the problem is one of evaluation or judgment call on the part of humans. Or as you say, “It means that the POE doesn’t exist, it’s just opinion.”

I think the OP is right from the human point of view which is usually trying to figure out what God did wrong. We don’t even know all the human circumstances and here we are trying to see a particular evil (in our eyes) from God’s point of view.

thats it in a nutshell, but now we have a strong argument to defeat atheism based on morals.

Did somebody say that evil exists independently of our evaluation?

not yet.

Also, I did have trouble with the OP link. My unfriendly computer, missed its morning Pepsi, came up with “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.” Not sure where I should go from here.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

it just worked for me, maybe you should feed that thing a coke

 

[Oreoracle]

as ive pointed out a couple of time, my position on the objective, subjective dichotomy of morality has nothing to do with the lack of information that kills the POE.

and as ive pointed out before, maximal qualities are inferred from the maximal state of being. you cant make a tu qouque argument because i dont depend on my own information to judge the moral quality of G-ds actions. but as youve already admitted that lack of information, and such distractions no longer matter. my position is that what G-d does is good from that inference of the omnis.

sure, i dont use limited information to infer the maximal qualities so i can say G-d is good from them.

Congrats. You’ve successfully referenced an argument to defend yourself multiple times without ever presenting it. I’m sure whatever audience we have realizes how absurd this tactic is. Since you’ll claim that the argument is irrelevant to the thread, I’ve sent a PM so that we can carry out this debate in privacy.

if you cant draw a valid conclusion, whats the point of making one?

And that is for the individual to answer, as only they can. I, for one, will not give up on ethics just so I can waste away my days waiting to have perfect knowledge. It’s not gonna happen, my friend.

its simply the ability to choose the course of ones own actions. to do so rationally, means to do so seeking the greatest benefit.

This is much more complex than it sounds. You see, the idea of free will is used against determinists who claim that all of our actions are determined by the qualities of our bodies, such as genes, instincts, preferences, etc., and of the environment. But what is the faculty of free will? Does it possess qualities? If it does, it is no different than the other factors that determine our actions. If it doesn’t, how could we hope to use it? If something doesn’t have qualities, it doesn’t exist.

Can you explain how you go about making a choice, and what this tells us about free will?

And obviously, we disagree on what is beneficial, meaning that it’s subjective.

indeed i did not, you tried to assert a loaded language fallacy and got cut short. as youve admitted my argument above, the tail tucking is all on you.

Oh yes, the ever present “loaded language” fallacy. This is just another way of saying that you don’t like how I write. Since language has inherently subjective aspects, the only option is for you to suck it up and accept that language will sound loaded from time to time.

see, i equate goodness with G-ds omnibenevolence, or perfect goodness, while i equate badness with whatever may violate His omnibenevolent will.

That’s your opinion, and I can tolerate that as long as it’s presented as an opinion and not a fact.

yet more blood in the water…a lack of confidence.

It was an honest opinion and a suitable analogy. If you don’t agree, fine, but don’t act like I’m lying.

because that would be a lack in moral perfection. not then an omni.

If I said that maximal evil is a perfection, how would you prove me wrong? Clearly, your preference of goodness is just that: a preference.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If I said that maximal evil is a perfection, how would you prove me wrong? Clearly, your preference of goodness is just that: a preference.

Are we judging God according to the Christian concept of Good, or are we Judging God according to your concept?

 

[Oreoracle]

Are we judging God according to the Christian concept of Good, or are we Judging God according to your concept?

Your conception, of course. Why use the words of others? The question is: why should goodness be desirable, objectively? What is your definition of perfect? How is this definition not arbitrary?

If you could answer, it would be very helpful.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Your conception, of course. Why use the words of others? The question is: why should goodness be desirable, objectively? What is your definition of perfect? How is this definition not arbitrary?

If you could answer, it would be very helpful.

Evil is a privation of Good; its an absence of good in the sense that something that ought to be there is absent. Its not an actual being and thus you cannot say that it exists perfectly. To have Perfection is to lack any imperfection. In terms of personal being and personal act “evil” is an imperfection; its an imperfect act. Evil means to act against the greatest good.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Congrats. You’ve successfully referenced an argument to defend yourself multiple times without ever presenting it. I’m sure whatever audience we have realizes how absurd this tactic is. Since you’ll claim that the argument is irrelevant to the thread, I’ve sent a PM so that we can carry out this debate in privacy.

really? the premise of the argument is that you lack sufficient information to draw valid conclusions concerning the morality of G-d. your attempt at a tu qouque argument wouldnt validate such conclusions even if you could prove it because if i am wrong i assigning good to G-d, you are still unable to draw valid conclusions.

so it is irrelevant. im happy yo make the argument on another thread, since it cannot change the outcome off this argument, i refuse to be distracted.

And that is for the individual to answer, as only they can. I, for one, will not give up on ethics just so I can waste away my days waiting to have perfect knowledge. It’s not gonna happen, my friend.

so you should just keep on drawing invalid conclusions? thats hardly a search for truth. you dont have to give it up, we will be sure to point it out.

This is much more complex than it sounds. You see, the idea of free will is used against determinists who claim that all of our actions are determined by the qualities of our bodies, such as genes, instincts, preferences, etc., and of the environment. But what is the faculty of free will? Does it possess qualities? If it does, it is no different than the other factors that determine our actions. If it doesn’t, how could we hope to use it? If something doesn’t have qualities, it doesn’t exist.

what does this have to do with the premise?

Can you explain how you go about making a choice, and what this tells us about free will?

And obviously, we disagree on what is beneficial, meaning that it’s subjective.

no, im not going to be distracted from the premise, if you want a free will discussion thats another thread.

Oh yes, the ever present “loaded language” fallacy. This is just another way of saying that you don’t like how I write. Since language has inherently subjective aspects, the only option is for you to suck it up and accept that language will sound loaded from time to time.

oh, i admit the line can be fuzzy, because its all about intent.

That’s your opinion, and I can tolerate that as long as it’s presented as an opinion and not a fact.

its a fact that will become quite evident when we discuss the maximal qualities.

It was an honest opinion and a suitable analogy. If you don’t agree, fine, but don’t act like I’m lying.

it was an attempt at an insult. a poor one, and now you cant back off of it

If I said that maximal evil is a perfection, how would you prove me wrong? Clearly, your preference of goodness is just that: a preference.

because evil is the absence of good, its a lack, therefore it cant be an omni.

you have already admitted the premise above if i must repost it i will. if you wish to discuss other issues unrelated to the ppremise, thats fine but im not interested in distracting from the premise that defeats the POE on this thread.

 

[grannymh]

no, im not going to be distracted from the premise, if you want a free will discussion thats another thread.

I was sincerely disappointed when a thread was closed for being off topic, so you are making a valid point. Since the previous post in general is on topic, if Oreoracle decides to take the few comments regarding free will to another thread, I will answer there. Just let me know where.

because evil is the absence of good, its a lack,

The above comment is taken out of context; however, I have often heard that the definition of evil is the absence of good. I understand that the problem of evil can cease to be a problem from the point of human judgment. Obviously, we lack complete knowledge of all the ins and outs.
Is this considered a philosophical approach?
And is there a worldly or a material approach in addition? What I mean by worldly or material is that we are surrounded by matter and physical elements of the universe. Our actions take place in this environment. It seems to me that evil or good can be adjectives to describe a particular action. Does an actual action fit into your premise?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[Oreoracle]

so you should just keep on drawing invalid conclusions? thats hardly a search for truth. you dont have to give it up, we will be sure to point it out.

What’s the point in searching for truth? According to you, we shouldn’t be able to apply knowledge until we have all of it. We’ll never have all of it. I’m content with putting my limited knowledge to use, since it’s all I’ll ever have.

no, im not going to be distracted from the premise, if you want a free will discussion thats another thread.

I definitely notice a trend, here. You’re alright with off-topic discussions until you run into questions you can’t answer, then you back off. You entertained my questions about free will until I asked more difficult questions, then you fled. Tsk tsk.

its a fact that will become quite evident when we discuss the maximal qualities.

I eagerly await the thread discussing this. I’ll see you then.

it was an attempt at an insult. a poor one, and now you cant back off of it

I’m not trying to back off of anything. I’ll say it again: you’re defending an abusive parent–a common bully.

because evil is the absence of good, its a lack, therefore it cant be an omni.

I beg to differ, since I see a distinction between not doing good and doing bad. Isn’t there a difference between not donating to a charity to save someone’s life, and thus allowing them to die, and killing someone directly? In one case, you didn’t do something good; in another, you did something bad. Do you honestly not see any difference?

you have already admitted the premise above if i must repost it i will. if you wish to discuss other issues unrelated to the ppremise, thats fine but im not interested in distracting from the premise that defeats the POE on this thread.

I admit that you’re right, but your argument is still ridiculous because it is overly skeptical. It defeats all ethical positions equally. All you’re saying is, “If you aren’t 100% certain, don’t dedicate yourself to anything!” This is impractical, and no one will listen to you…not even yourself, apparently.

 

[Oreoracle]

Evil is a privation of Good; its an absence of good in the sense that something that ought to be there is absent. Its not an actual being and thus you cannot say that it exists perfectly.

See my comment to Petey, above. I see a distinct difference between not doing good and doing bad, which leads me to believe that badness is considered a thing in itself. Tell me: is there a difference between allowing someone to die (say, by failing to donate to help starving children in India) and killing them (say, by breaking into their home and stabbing them to death)? How can inaction rightfully be equated to an action, in this case?

To have Perfection is to lack any imperfection.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is this considered a philosophical approach?

i wouldnt suggest so. the best way to understand it is to google info-gap decision theory, and find the link i posted to the criticism i used to demonstrate my point.

And is there a worldly or a material approach in addition? What I mean by worldly or material is that we are surrounded by matter and physical elements of the universe. Our actions take place in this environment. It seems to me that evil or good can be adjectives to describe a particular action. Does an actual action fit into your premise?

this part i dont understand. the premise is a refutation to a property called robustness in information theory. it isnt reliant on any material entity. is that what your asking? im not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What’s the point in searching for truth? According to you, we shouldn’t be able to apply knowledge until we have all of it. We’ll never have all of it. I’m content with putting my limited knowledge to use, since it’s all I’ll ever have.

if you cant have a valid conclusion, then you really dont have anything but opinion, the flaw in the POE. so you cant declaim the existence of G-d as moral atheists typically do.

I definitely notice a trend, here. You’re alright with off-topic discussions until you run into questions you can’t answer, then you back off. You entertained my questions about free will until I asked more difficult questions, then you fled. Tsk tsk.

i havent seen a question that i cant answer. please point out which one you are refering too. i probably thought it wasnt germane to the issue of the premise. but lets see.

I’m not trying to back off of anything. I’ll say it again: you’re defending an abusive parent–a common bully.

you were attempting to insult me. your tagline belies your motivation, only im not humbled by greater arrogance. thats a weakness i dont possess among my many other faults.

I beg to differ, since I see a distinction between not doing good and doing bad. Isn’t there a difference between not donating to a charity to save someone’s life, and thus allowing them to die, and killing someone directly? In one case, you didn’t do something good; in another, you did something bad. Do you honestly not see any difference?

i dont see the distinction, either way the person is dead. if you pass by a dying man, that is as evil as the person who injured him.

I admit that you’re right, but your argument is still ridiculous because it is overly skeptical. It defeats all ethical positions equally.

yet it doesnt, you draw G-ds morality from your observation. which we know are limited. we draw our conclusions from the maximal qualities. 2 different approaches.

so what kills the POE doesnt kill omnibenevolence.

All you’re saying is, “If you aren’t 100% certain, don’t dedicate yourself to anything!” This is impractical, and no one will listen to you…not even yourself, apparently

that is not what im saying at all, what i am saying is that you cant call G-d evil from any event because you cant have all the relevant information, i have an audience willing to listen in billions of theists. i dont expect immediate acceptance, but i do think i killed the POE dead. its now just a matter of time.

 

[Ignatius]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow .

Step one of any thorough analysis is to define terms, which you have not done.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Step one of any thorough analysis is to define terms, which you have not done.

i assume everyone knows the Problem of Evil. but your right. which terms do you need a definition of?

 

[hatsoff]

really? the premise of the argument is that you lack sufficient information to draw valid conclusions concerning the morality of G-d.

Don’t you mean to say that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God which conflict with your conclusions?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t you mean to say that we don’t have enough information to draw conclusions about the morality of God which conflict with your conclusions?

nope, read the thread, the tu qouque has already been tried.