The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t. I believe that there are seven continents because it would be odd for the media, geographers, and historians throughout recorded history to lie about the existence of other continents. It would have to be an elaborate scheme to bring about some unimaginable, convoluted end. Because I see no reason why professionals and a good deal of the human population would lie about such a thing, I assume they are being honest when they say they’ve explored other continents, though I have not. Now, do you consider my conclusion that there are other continents reasonable, even though I haven’t experienced them?

ok, so lets apply this to the argument in the OP, you trust other peoples invalid conclusions to support your invalid conclusions? i mean, say that if we forget the physical evidence of other continents, for you to say antartica exists, by basing it on the assumptions of others, do you really have any evidence that antartica exists? not really, if they dont have any evidence, then neither do you. in the same way other people lack the information necessary to make valid conclusions about the about the morality of G-d so using that as a basis results in the exact same problem, a lack of the necessary information.

We? No my friend… I DON’T (I’m not shouting, just emphasizing) have the information necessary with your standards, since I haven’t examined the evidence myself. I haven’t visited other continents, nor have I been around long enough for the World Wars or to know for certain what the year is. I’ve learned these things in school, and I trust the authorities who provide me this information. Is it reasonable for me to draw these conclusions, even though I haven’t scrutinized the evidence? If not, then we might as well do away with schooling, since kids should have to experience things firsthand according to your standards, else they might be placing their trust in lies.

in the analogy your using here, there is physcal evidence that someone has, in the case of G-ds morality, no one has the relevant information, so though you can accept that antartica exists by trusting the sources who have seen it, you cannot trust the same sources in the matter of G-ds morality because they too suffer from the argument in the OP. its an apples and oranges situation.

It’s not necessarily relevant, I just wanted to know if you can answer the question as you claim.

yes i can, its been how we do so for a number of centuries, you could simply google it, or look it up in the summa. but i still decline too go of thread here, thats another thread all by itself. one i am happy to explore, but not until this issue is settled. especially because it isnt relevant to the thread.

Well, there’s a funny thing called induction…You see, if you misunderstand me once, then do it again immediately after the first offense, then again, and again, I can safely assume that it will occur the next time. And (surprise!) you’ve again attributed my arguments to fallacious reasoning, when no such fallacy was used. It is not fallacious to call you a hypocrite. It would be fallacious for me to say, “You’re a hypocrite, therefore your argument is invalid.” but I haven’t said such a thing. Not all insults are ad hominems, only those used as arguments are. And my intention wasn’t even to insult you, really.

You can shout “Ad hominem!” all day, but until you know more about those arguments (namely, that they must be arguments, which you seem to be unaware of), the majority of your accusations are laughable.

ok then, specifically why do you say i am a hypocrite?

 

[Oreoracle]

ok, so lets apply this to the argument in the OP, you trust other peoples invalid conclusions to support your invalid conclusions? i mean, say that if we forget the physical evidence of other continents, for you to say antartica exists, by basing it on the assumptions of others, do you really have any evidence that antartica exists?

I don’t have any definitive evidence now. You act as though it matters that others know Antarctica exists, but I can’t be certain that they aren’t simply lying. How can I know that others possess knowledge or that they have experienced something?

From my perspective, it seems you would believe the claim that there are seven continents is unfounded, since I haven’t experienced the continents firsthand and have no way of knowing if others are lying about their experiences. I’m sorry, but the skepticism you are preaching demands that we either experience something firsthand or place our trust in nothing. So much for schooling.

in the analogy your using here, there is physcal evidence that someone has, in the case of G-ds morality, no one has the relevant information, so though you can accept that antartica exists by trusting the sources who have seen it, you cannot trust the same sources in the matter of G-ds morality because they too suffer from the argument in the OP. its an apples and oranges situation.

How does one determine what information is relevant? Isn’t this a matter of opinion? To me, the fact that God could prevent suffering (because he is omnipotent) but doesn’t proves he is evil. As I stated on the last post a page ago (I think you might have missed it, since we posted at nearly the same time), the only time that it would be necessary for God to cause suffering is when causing suffering was his goal. That’s all the info I need to consider him evil.

yes i can, its been how we do so for a number of centuries, you could simply google it, or look it up in the summa. but i still decline too go of thread here, thats another thread all by itself. one i am happy to explore, but not until this issue is settled. especially because it isnt relevant to the thread.

No offense, but I think Aquinas’ writings are either unintelligible or filled with too many assumptions to count. I’m not a Christian, so it is difficult for me to wade through the Christian lingo. If you could present the argument in layman’s terms for me sometime, that would be excellent.

ok then, specifically why do you say i am a hypocrite?

Because I don’t think you know anything more about God than I do. This is to be expected when the human race has yet to prove the existence of a deity. Christians can define their deity and enumerate his qualities 'til the cows come home, but until you’ve discovered him, I will regard it as mere speculation.

 

[redhen]

I’m sorry, but the skepticism you are preaching demands that we either experience something firsthand or place our trust in nothing. So much for schooling.

Skepticism is ok, in fact it is valuable, but it shouldn’t be it’s own ends. There are very few “proofs” except in mathematics. So we are dealing (at all times) in probabilities.

So, what is the probability that Antarctica exists? I think that’s a better question.

 

[Doug50]

The Problem of Evil for the Atheist/Materialist:

The Problem of Evil makes the assumption that evil does in fact exist. However, if evil is true then it logically follows that a True morality exists in the meta-ethical relm; Moral Truth is real. It means morality must be Objective and Moral Relativism/Subjectivism must be false.

Your metaphysical beliefs must be compatible with your meta-ethical beliefs. But that is the very mistake that athiests (secular humanists) make. If evil is a fact of reality, of human interaction, then it rationally follows that materialism is factually false.

Here’s why: Secularism holds to the metaphysical belief that the nature of reality is materialism/naturalism and the only way to understand this nature is through science. What is the science for factual evils? There isn’t any. In this world view moral codes are not universal (god given) moral laws but artifacts of culturals - cultural relativism. What’s unethical in one culture can be ethcial in another. Moral codes can change within a culture as time passes (the acceptence of slavery to the unacceptence of slavery). Since materialism is only compatible with moral relativism/subjectivism the notion of moral progress is meaningless since there could not be even one objective moral fact by which to measure any progress against - cultural moral codes are deemed arbitrary because life/existence deemed to have no True meaning or purpose. The meta-ethical term for this is moral anti-realism.

Humanism, OTOH, assumes that there is a universal morality - Human Rights - by which all cultures moral codes are subordinate to. Each culture is obligated to discover these moral facts and then adjust their codes to reflect these Moral Truths or Rights. The discovery of thiese rights is how moral progress is factually made. Ergo all humans posses unalienable human rights. Humanism simply stops short of trying to define the source of these right. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident.” The meta-ethical term for humanism is moral realism.

That’s a long winded way to getting to the the following: Secular humanism is an ethical oxymoran simply because the nature of morality can NOT be both moral realism and moral anti-realism at the same time. Your metaphysical beliefs must be compatible with your meta-ethical beliefs. Materialism (the metaphysic) is not compatible with humanism (the meta-ethic).

So for the athiest, if human rights are real (meta ethically), and not some new madeup methology, it logically follows that his materialism is false (metaphysically).

If you can internalize the above phylosophical arguments (better yet teach it to your kids), you can beat the c___p out of any liberal college professon in an ethical debate, Richard Dawkins being only one of those profs. You only need to hold their feet to the fire and make them stick within the problems created by moral relativism…ie. if moral relativism is true then the “Problem of Evil” cannot exist since Evil cannot exist in any factual since.

Most people confuse relativism with Situtational Ethics. Relativism is subjective. Situational ethics is dictated by the objective facts created by the situtation in question.

For the Christian the paradox is: without God and His moral Truths Evil could not exist.

 

[hatsoff]

The Problem of Evil for the Atheist/Materialist:

The Problem of Evil makes the assumption that evil does in fact exist.

This is a surprisingly common misconception.

A brief summary of the problem of evil is as follows:

1. There is suffering in the world.
2. An omnibenevolent being with omnipotence and omniscience would not allow suffering in the world.
3. Therefore, no omnibenevolent being with omnipotence and omniscience exists.

Notice that we have nothing about transcendent or inherent evil in this argument.

That’s a long winded way to getting to the the following: Secular humanism is an ethical oxymoran simply because the nature of morality can NOT be both moral realism and moral anti-realism at the same time.

People talk about morality differently from context to context, but the respective meanings of their words are not contradictory, in many cases. For example, I am perfectly willing to talk about an “objective morality” in the sense that there are factual issues at stake involving the satisfaction of agreed social values. Yet, in a different context, I will insist that morality is ultimately subjective, since morality depends on the value systems of human beings. Both of these statements are true, and the meanings of the terms shift with context.

Of course, there are people out there who hold contradictory beliefs regarding morality. Yet we must be careful not to judge too harshly, given that there is often no universally accepted way to phrase our ideas on the subject.

 

[redhen]

The Problem of Evil makes the assumption that evil does in fact exist. However, if evil is true then it logically follows that a True morality exists in the meta-ethical relm; Moral Truth is real.

This addresses the question of moral evil, but does not adequately respond to natural evils; tsumanis, earthquakes, famine, ebola and other nasty organisms, and genetic diseases and defects.

Bart Ehrman talking about theodicy, referencing his book on the topic: God’s Problem.

youtube.com/watch?v=y7cmUCjnCgE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uctv.tv%2Fsearch-details.aspx%3FshowID%3D14693&feature=player_embedded

 

[Jorg]

the POE doesnt exist because its an assumption that there is no further relevant information for any given event than what the estimator knows.

What a nice and roundabout way to commit the flallacy of appealing to ignorance!

/thread

 

[Jorg]

you apparently didnt read all of what a tu quoque argument is. its a sub-class of an ad hominem fallacy, an attack on the person. which you are clearly doing by calling me a hypocrite.
so you are making a tu quoque.

I cannot let this idiocy pass. Calling you a hypocrite and an idiot is NOT an ad hominem argument. Claiming that you are a hypocrite and an idiot and using that as a basis to prove that you are incorrect is. Nobody is doing that, however. Your hypocrisy is a separate beast from your lack of logical consistency and overuse of informal fallacies, but should be noted nevertheless.

 

[redhen]

Funny. I never watched that particular Bart Ehrman video before. There’s a Q&A at the end of the lecture, and a woman announces she is a atheist and revolutionary communist, and then gives kudos to Ehrman. Then I heard the words “emancipating humanity”. I have to admit I got a real **gut **reaction when I listened to that part.

 

[Doug50]

This is a surprisingly common misconception.

A brief summary of the problem of evil is as follows:

 

[Doug50]

This addresses the question of moral evil, but does not adequately respond to natural evils; tsumanis, earthquakes, famine, ebola and other nasty organisms, and genetic diseases and defects.

Bart Ehrman talking about theodicy, referencing his book on the topic: God’s Problem.

youtube.com/watch?v=y7cmUCjnCgE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uctv.tv%2Fsearch-details.aspx%3FshowID%3D14693&feature=player_embedded

This begs the question: are tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, ebola, “nasty” organisms, and genetic diseases and defects true evils?

Because if they are the paradox is materialism is shot in the…Because if they are an evil the implications are that some sort of an Objective moral quality is somehow relevant to those events…irregardless of an subjective opion one might have about those events.

 

[Doug50]

You getting this, guys/gals? The Problem of Evil makes no sense…at all…unless you assume evil in all its forms is real …R-E-A-L.

So before you even begin to talk about God’s nature relavant to the “Problem of Evil” you HAVE to all agree Evil is real.

But by the very act of assuming evil is a reality you inadvertantly assume materialism can’t possibly be true…that the nature of realtiy must be, in some way, dualistic as opposed to the monistic belief inherent in metaphysical materialism.

For materialism/naturalism good and evil are not real and doesn’t exist

 

[Jorg]

You getting this, guys/gals? The Problem of Evil makes no sense…at all…unless you assume evil in all its forms is real …R-E-A-L.

So before you even begin to talk about God’s nature relavant to the “Problem of Evil” you HAVE to all agree Evil is real.

But by the very act of assuming evil is a reality you inadvertantly assume materialism can’t possibly be true…that the nature of realtiy must be, in some way, dualistic as opposed to the monistic belief inherent in metaphysical materialism.

For materialism/naturalism good and evil are not real and doesn’t exist

Nope. We have to agree that suffering should be avoided. And we agree on that only because the majority of sufferers feel this way (excluding masochists) there is no need to assume the objectivity of morals.

Granted, in a sense, the PoE only makes sense if we assume the reality of both suffering and of God. That is called a hypothetical proposition. What part of “if” is so unclear?

 

[Shike]

I disagree with the OP, the “Problem of Evil” does exist in the sense that it does trip up a lot of people

Doug50, you’ve made some really great comments that deserve a thorough refutation by the opposing side.

And the problem of suffering argument (to paraphrase):

1. there exists suffering.
2. if there was a god there wouldn’t be suffering.
3. Therefore there is no god.

…is almost completely ridiculous. I say almost because at least the form of the argument is correct. Basically, premise 2 is one giant logical leap for mankind, meaning it’s a stretch.

Maybe someone can explain to me why premise 2 is true; I don’t see how the consequent follows from the antecedant. But it’s kinda funny, in a way, because when I examine the grounds of premise 2 I want to make the knee-jerk reaction that “because suffering is evil, that’s why!!” But even if that were the case that this new premise is true (note we’re back into the problem of evil), it simply does not follow that God wouldn’t allow evil.

Yes, there is a lot of suffering in the world. We should talk about it over coffee and see what we can do to help each other out. Perhaps even asking God, if He’s out there, to help you with all your problems and sufferings would be a good idea… you know, to exaust all the possibilities.

 

[Shike]

Nope. We have to agree that suffering should be avoided.

What is this statement other than an objective moral claim?

 

[hatsoff]

1. you assume suffering is objective and not subjective.

I do no such thing.

1. your “omnipotence and omniscience would not allow suffering in the world” also assume an objective moral fact.

Again, I do no such thing.

And 3 your logical sylogism makes no since unless there objective moral facts are assumed.

Sure it does. Why on earth would I need to assume the existence of objective moral facts, whatever that would mean?

And here you make the common mistake of switching from, and equating, normative ethics to meta/universal ethics.

This is just not true. My point is that a failure to recognize when a person is discussing morality from varying approaches (e.g. normative vs. meta) may result in misinterpretation. And indeed, it seems you have misinterpreted my statements just now–which is precisely what I have attempted to caution you against!

And BTW whose social values? yours? If morality is ultimately subjective this debate is ultimately pointless since the quality Evil (like Thor the entity) would merely be the stuff of myth making.

This sort of all-or-nothing approach is inappropriate. Morality lacks divine, permanent meaning, but it nevertheless retains temporary, human meaning.

So what? I does not matter if you’re correct that morality is subjective. Arguing over which moral code should be used is like arguing over which flavor of ice cream every should prefer.

So, I am making sure you understand that I am not attempting to defend every fool’s idea of what is morality.

And here it is…the part were you contridict yourself. Your claiming that “*we must *be careful not to judge…” is an objective moral statement to the belief in a universal moral princple you believe everyone else should adhear to. It begs the question: Why must we? Because it promotes tolerence?

That in and of itself assume tolerence is an Objective moral principal. What if you come from a culture that doesn’t adhere to tolerence of other moral beliefs?

On the contrary, I am not assuming any objective moral values at all. I am assuming that you’re interested in truth. If that is the case, then in order to satisfy your interest you must be careful not to judge a person’s language (note: not his morals) too harshly. For as we have seen, it is quite easy to misinterpret statements regarding morality.

Of course, if you’re not interested in truth, then feel free to disregard my suggestions.

 

[Shike]

Nope. We have to agree that suffering should be avoided. And we agree on that only because the majority of sufferers feel this way (excluding masochists) there is no need to assume the objectivity of morals.

Besides the objective moral claim that you are sneaking in through the back door, where on earth do you get your evidence about the majority of sufferers?

You are only saying this about the majority because you observe that humans share a common nature.

 

[Jorg]

What is this statement other than an objective moral claim?

How is it objective? I appeal to the sentiments of the individuals that are suffering. I know I do not enjoy suffering and would avoid it if I could. I also know that the majority of other people who suffer will make the same claim. I also know that in this Universe, materialistic as it is, there is no qualitative difference between me and other people. we are all “meat-machines” all with our individual desires and goals, and it is only logical to assume that if I want to avoid suffering I can only make such a claim valid by accepting the validity of the others’ claims. That is, I can expect to be left alone to live my life in peace if I leave others alone to leave their lives in peace. No objectivity of evil or moral principles in general is required; strictly speaking I can arrive at “suffering is a bad thing for everyone” position from essentially selfish considerations.

And by suffering I do not mean those events that it can be argued the individual brought upon herself, but the natural kind: famines, earthquakes, etc. If you do not think that the deaths and suffering of millions of people in such events constitute suffering at all, there isn’t much we can say to each other.

 

[Jorg]

Besides the objective moral claim that you are sneaking in through the back door, where on earth do you get your evidence about the majority of sufferers?

You are only saying this about the majority because you observe that humans share a common nature.

Oy vey, do I have to point out that humans are evolved biological machines sharing a specific genome, and hence we all do have common nature? See above for the invalidity of your “objective claim” statement.

 

[Shike]

This sort of all-or-nothing approach is inappropriate. Morality lacks divine, permanent meaning, but it nevertheless retains temporary, human meaning.

Please argue how murder could ever be okay.