The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Oreoracle]

Are you saying that everything which is subjectively experienced is not real?

…Everything is subjectively experienced. Aren’t you a subject?

We have no way of knowing if what we’re experiencing is real. Our experiences are real, of course, but they do not necessarily relate information from the outside world, and certainly not with perfect accuracy.

The point is that we have imaginations, and can easily devise ethical systems ourselves–no fantastical universal laws attached. Speaking of universal moral laws, the term has not yet been defined. Any takers? What’s a moral law?

 

[Oreoracle]

indeed it should, if you dont have a rational reason for your position then you only have an emotive postion, which frankly doesnt carry any weight with me.

I guess I shouldn’t be allowed to have a favorite color then, or a favorite book, movie, etc.

a child is not free to act as he wishes, for a man to be free he must.

This is an interesting defense. Not because it’s effective, mind you, but because it reveals a lot about your ideology and its adherents. Why do we need to be “men,” in the sense that you use it? Would you prefer the world as it is over a world with no suffering that only has children? I sense an inferiority complex; you’ll cling to any ideology telling you that you don’t have to sacrifice yourself for the herd. It’s reminiscient of the typical teenager who desperately wants to become an adult because they feel weak. You seem to think being an adult possesses some sort of inherent value, which leads me to believe that you don’t understand how rational children can be and how irrational adults can be.

children are not free, nor should they be until they are capable of acting rationally.

I’m glad you agree. But surely the same should apply for irrational adults? Why only kids? Because God said?

The rest of your post consists of you mindlessly slamming communism, being totally oblivious to the fact that “communist nations” in the past either (a) weren’t really communist, but merely claimed to be, or (b) failed for reasons other than communism. Firstly, the nations that adopted communism were usually dirt-poor to begin with, and I admit that evenly distributing wealth when a country doesn’t have much to begin with is a bad idea. The U.S. doesn’t suffer from this problem. In fact, these poor nations usually became poor because, you guessed it, they were warring nations. They used communism to boost their economy so that they could make war more often. You and I both know that unsuccessful warfare is one of the most efficient ways to drain even the best of economies. Again, the U.S. doesn’t typically suffer from this problem. We’re not exactly a moral nation overall, but we aren’t war-mongering.

You also ignore the fact that nearly every tribal village throughout history had communistic systems. They were successful because they realized that they had to share in order to survive. In this country, no such necessity exists, and so people can be greedy as they please.

All things considered, at least communism has a chance of being successful. Capitalism is successful for a while, but always–I repeat, ALWAYS–causes a nation to become dominated by monopolies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is nothing in its system to prevent this from happening.

 

[grannymh]

…Everything is subjectively experienced. Aren’t you a subject?

It is exactly at this point, that the 427 ways to use the word families, subjective and object, get more mixed up than the Hatfields and the McCoys. Any one being refered to as a “you” is actually an object because you exist independently of me. You are not the same as me. You have been born after me. And you are definitely cuter and smarter than me. You are an object especially if I kick you in your sore leg.

We have no way of knowing if what we’re experiencing is real. Our experiences are real, of course, but they do not necessarily relate information from the outside world, and certainly not with perfect accuracy.

The “we have no way of knowing if what we’re experiencing is real” bit takes me back in time to when my phone number consisted of three digits and humans answered.

While I did pass my survey of philosophy course back in the dark ages, I had spaced out certain fellows because they were spending their time figuring out if they existed in someone else’s imagination in one of the possible worlds. That is somewhat an idiotic exaggeration not far from the truth; nonetheless, my youthful dismissal of their wandering writings made real life easier.

I would think that with all the advances of technology (there are now 10 digits to my phone number) people would have a better understanding of human nature. But no.
By reading from the originals of Descartes to Kant, one can trace the line from Cartesian dualism to 21st century materialism and relativism both of which distorts human nature. This distortion extends to the 427 ways subjective and objective can be mixed up in ethical/moral/good/evil discussions. (427 is an estimate of the number of threads devoted to these discussions since CAF began.)

Perhaps the only thing participants can agree on is the OP basic premise.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I guess I shouldn’t be allowed to have a favorite color then, or a favorite book, movie, etc.

no, go ahead and have a favorite, just realize that your preference doesnt impact rational debate any more than you would be convinced of theism by someones emotional response to it.

This is an interesting defense. Not because it’s effective, mind you, but because it reveals a lot about your ideology and its adherents. Why do we need to be “men,” in the sense that you use it? Would you prefer the world as it is over a world with no suffering that only has children?

what are you talking about a world with only children and no suffering, dont think switching language works, your talking about a world where everyone is a slave to the state.

I sense an inferiority complex; you’ll cling to any ideology telling you that you don’t have to sacrifice yourself for the herd.

you sense your self being backed into a corner, every time we do instead of accepting rational ideas you jump to less than subtle insults.

It’s reminiscient of the typical teenager who desperately wants to become an adult because they feel weak

is that how you feel? i havent been a teenager in a couple decades.

You seem to think being an adult possesses some sort of inherent value, which leads me to believe that you don’t understand how rational children can be and how irrational adults can be.

nor is there some inherent value to one person over another, rather its about maturity and rational behavior, and yes irrational adults arent free either, they are in prison.

I’m glad you agree. But surely the same should apply for irrational adults? Why only kids? Because God said?

they do, we take away their freedom when they show an inability to act rationally, either prison or mental hospitals, or developementally disabled group homes.

The rest of your post consists of you mindlessly slamming communism, being totally oblivious to the fact that “communist nations” in the past either (a) weren’t really communist, but merely claimed to be, or (b) failed for reasons other than communism.

its easy to claim after the fact they werent communist, but the fact is they were. trying the one true scotsman fallacy flies in the face of the historical evidence.

They used communism to boost their economy so that they could make war more often.

what are you talking about? evidence of this? capitalism provides the funds for more warfare. check out what happened to the soviet military, or the source of funding for the increases in the chinese military budget.

You also ignore the fact that nearly every tribal village throughout history had communistic systems. They were successful because they realized that they had to share in order to survive. In this country, no such necessity exists, and so people can be greedy as they please.

tribal villages werent conmmunist, people recieved goods and services on political, familial basis’ thats not technical communism. the chief handed out to the warriors and then they to the others in most cases.

All things considered, at least communism has a chance of being successful. Capitalism is successful for a while, but always–I repeat, ALWAYS–causes a nation to become dominated by monopolies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is nothing in its system to prevent this from happening.

what are you talking about?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Enforcement_of_United_States_Antitrust_Law

fact is 230 some odd years of American capitalism have lead us to prosperity unheard of anywhere else on this scale. every attempt at communism has failed. there is no utopia for communism it just doesnt work in practice. its a been there done that situation.

you cant win that argument, its like arguing the sky is red. again, stop listening to profs that never had to be in the real world. your aligning yourself with a group of mass murderers and human rights violators.

can you remember the era of communism? do you know people who lived in communist countries during that time? its obvious you arent old enough to remember real communism, so why dont you talk to some russians over 40, cubans in miami, chinese at tianeman square.

 

[Doug50]

I take issue with some of the phrasing, here, but I do agree that moral values have no ultimate universal basis. So, in that sense, they are indeed arbitrary.

However, this in no way deters me from encouraging others to adopt my personal moral values, so that we can share similar moral codes, if that is what I desire to do. So, you are incorrect to assert that moral arguments are “pointless” just because moral values are arbitrary.

If the universe has no purpose, if there’s no meaning to life, then it is ultimately pointless to aruge over which moral code should be adopted by all cultures…just as it’s ultimately pointless for you to argue over which sided of the plate you feel everyone’s fork, spoon, and knife belongs on. You might have you preferences but so what?

If there are no universal moral laws then everyone’s moral preferences are equally viable. It doesn’t matter whether those codes are yours, the pope’s, the Church’s, or Osama’s. To argue otherwise is to imply an objective bases for one code’s preference over another…the implication being life has a universal meaning and a purpose.

To put it another way: why should I care about you moral preferences when mine will always be the equal to yours no matter what my preferences are founded upon?

 

[redhen]

If there are no universal moral laws then everyone’s moral preferences are equally viable. It doesn’t matter whether those codes are yours, the pope’s, the Church’s, or Osama’s.

That’s quite right. And your statement hints at the reason, it’s culturally based, So your normative values are a factor of your geography. I would bet money, that if you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim.

 

[grannymh]

That’s quite right. And your statement hints at the reason, it’s culturally based, So your normative values are a factor of your geography. I would bet money, that if you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim.

This is a good example of materialistic relativism which is based on subjective reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

But this is all irrelevant to God’s case, since Christians claim that he is omnipotent. Therefore, it is not necessary for any suffering to be produced by his actions. This, of course, is assuming that you believe suffering is evil.

You are right. It is not necessary for any suffering to be produced by God’s actions. He could create an incalculable number of universes which contain no suffering - but would they be preferable to the one we inhabit?

There are two classes of suffering: psychological and physical. Both are caused by failure, frustration, interference, conflict or imperfection. How is it possible to ensure there is no suffering whatsoever as a result of these causes in a universe where there are sentient individuals pursuing different goals? The “Problem” of Evil ceases to be a problem until this question is answered…

 

[hatsoff]

If the universe has no purpose, if there’s no meaning to life, then it is ultimately pointless to aruge over which moral code should be adopted by all cultures…just as it’s ultimately pointless for you to argue over which sided of the plate you feel everyone’s fork, spoon, and knife belongs on. You might have you preferences but so what?

If there are no universal moral laws then everyone’s moral preferences are equally viable. It doesn’t matter whether those codes are yours, the pope’s, the Church’s, or Osama’s. To argue otherwise is to imply an objective bases for one code’s preference over another…the implication being life has a universal meaning and a purpose.

To put it another way: why should I care about you moral preferences when mine will always be the equal to yours no matter what my preferences are founded upon?

You mustn’t conclude that just because something doesn’t ultimately matter, therefore it doesn’t matter at all. As I have said before, regardless of whether or not we have divine, universal purpose, we certainly have our own temporary, human purposes.

 

[Oreoracle]

Hey, Pete. I can only respond to part of your post for now, since it occurs to me that I need my World History teacher to fill in some specifics for me. Asking a teacher is better than using the internet when it comes to politics.

no, go ahead and have a favorite, just realize that your preference doesnt impact rational debate any more than you would be convinced of theism by someones emotional response to it.

And since ethics are mostly just preferences…well, you do the math.

what are you talking about a world with only children and no suffering, dont think switching language works, your talking about a world where everyone is a slave to the state.

As you state below, an irrational person is “in prison.”. To you, being a child (since they’re sooo irrational ) is like being a slave, or at least like being a prisoner. Given that, my analogy was spot on.

you sense your self being backed into a corner, every time we do instead of accepting rational ideas you jump to less than subtle insults.

A person who withholds their obligations to society on the grounds that they have rights is nothing more than an uncooperative sheep in the herd who doesn’t want to acknowledge the fact that they are but one part in the whole. If you want to allow celebrities and various business-owners to possess hundreds to thousands of times the money you’ve made in your life just so they can have their “rights” then of course I’ll argue with you.

is that how you feel? i havent been a teenager in a couple decades.

Nope. I do know several teens who feel this way, however. It’s not at all uncommon.

nor is there some inherent value to one person over another, rather its about maturity and rational behavior, and yes irrational adults arent free either, they are in prison.

Can we agree, then, that it is sometimes acceptable to control another and negate their free will? If there’s nothing wrong with us doing it (and if we have a moral obligation to do so), why shouldn’t God?

its easy to claim after the fact they werent communist, but the fact is they were. trying the one true scotsman fallacy flies in the face of the historical evidence.

Did the countries you have in mind distribute wealth even somewhat equally, or did they never get to that part? I was always taught that they never fully enacted communism, they simply used “communist” as their “good guy badge,” if you will. It was an attempt to use the label of a good idea to justify a nefarious scheme very unlike what the label implied…kinda like covering manure with flowers.

what are you talking about? evidence of this? capitalism provides the funds for more warfare. check out what happened to the soviet military, or the source of funding for the increases in the chinese military budget.

I’ll look into this. I was taught that communism was great for jump-starting economies, but was usually put to poor use after that.

tribal villages werent conmmunist, people recieved goods and services on political, familial basis’ thats not technical communism. the chief handed out to the warriors and then they to the others in most cases.

“Technically” being the key word here. You get the point. The only major difference seems to be that the warchief provided doles on an individual basis, and that this method of distribution was not involuntary (it was not legally required for resources to be distributed a particular way). Am I right?

what are you talking about?

I don’t see how I could possibly be wrong here. It’s common knowledge that when you allow an economy to progress on its own with no limitations or guidance, the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will get poorer, thus leading to monopolies (no Mom and Pop stores anymore!). There is nothing in pure capitalism (laissez faire?) that can be used to level the playing field. In short, if you let a ball roll down a slope without any way of stopping it, you can only stick around to hear the resonating crash. BANG!

your aligning yourself with a group of mass murderers and human rights violators.

I know you don’t agree with me, but do you think that I really intend to represent mass murderers? Does communism tell us that we should commit these atrocities (Marxism might, given certain interpretations, but not communism itself.)? This a combination of an ad hominem and a red herring.

As for rights, well, everyone violates those. It’s impossible not to. Take abortion, for example. The right to one’s own body and the right to life sound great when we speak of them separately, right? But if we include both in the same system, we see the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, and neither side is wrong, given that prevailing ethical systems support both rights. If you say that the right to life is more important than the right to one’s own body, then I’ll counter by pointing out that these rights couldn’t possibly be absolute, then. They would be hierarchal, with the value of one right being relative to the value of others.

can you remember the era of communism? do you know people who lived in communist countries during that time? its obvious you arent old enough to remember real communism, so why dont you talk to some russians over 40, cubans in miami, chinese at tianeman square.

I’m 16, so no, I wasn’t around to watch communism unfold, if it ever truly did.

 

[tonyrey]

You mustn’t conclude that just because something doesn’t ultimately matter, therefore it doesn’t matter at all. As I have said before, regardless of whether or not we have divine, universal purpose, we certainly have our own temporary, human purposes.

What enables you to establish your own purposes? Or do you have no choice in the matter? Are they programmed for you?

 

[tonyrey]

That’s quite right. And your statement hints at the reason, it’s culturally based, So your normative values are a factor of your geography. I would bet money, that if you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim.

Are your normative values **entirely **a factor of your geography?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s quite right. And your statement hints at the reason, it’s culturally based, So your normative values are a factor of your geography. I would bet money, that if you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim.

she wouldnt have much of a choice would she?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christians_in_the_world.png

seems like it has less to do with culture and more to do with exposure to Christianity. notice that the vast majority of places with low numbers of Christains are places that dont allow religion or conversion can be a death sentence.

 

[grannymh]

I’ll look into this. I was taught that communism was great for jump-starting economies, but was usually put to poor use after that.

And I was taught that communism was a materialistic philosophy which was traced back to Descartes. Maybe that is the real reason it was put to poor use after jump-starting economies. Seems to me, that many modern philosophies, like communism, depend on subjective reasoning so maybe that is contributing to “poor use .”

 

[hatsoff]

What enables you to establish your own purposes? Or do you have no choice in the matter? Are they programmed for you?

I’m not sure I understand your question. We have brains, and we can think. We have desires, and we act on them. We use our intelligence to set long-term goals and plans. Does that help?

 

[redhen]

Are your normative values **entirely **a factor of your geography?

No of course not. Your life events and situations obviously play a role. For example, if you were raised in isolation or by non-human animals, your normative values would be very primitive/primal.

feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0

I don’t want to throw this thread completely offtrack with that last url, but it does show there is no “Problem Of Evil” in nature, only cold indifference.

 

[redhen]

How is it possible to ensure there is no suffering whatsoever as a result of these causes in a universe where there are sentient individuals pursuing different goals? The “Problem” of Evil ceases to be a problem until this question is answered…

Are the angels and spiritual beings not sentient? Will we not be sentient in heaven?

Problem remains.

 

[redhen]

seems like it has less to do with culture and more to do with exposure to Christianity. notice that the vast majority of places with low numbers of Christains are places that dont allow religion or conversion can be a death sentence.

Hmm, that exposure to Christianity did quite a number on indigenous religions. I still would bet money that if you were born and raised as an aborigine in a rural setting, chances are you would hold to some indigenous religion. Unless that area was *exposed *to Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

Are the angels and spiritual beings not sentient? Will we not be sentient in heaven?Problem remains.

You are assuming there is no suffering in heaven. If you believed in God don’t you think He would be moved by the suffering of others?

 

[tonyrey]

No of course not. Your life events and situations obviously play a role. For example, if you were raised in isolation or by non-human animals, your normative values would be very primitive/primal.

But are we responsible in any way for our normative values? If so, how can we transcend our environment?