A simple but difficult dilemma of evil in the world
I am obviously not religious or god-fearing, but here's one dilemma for Christians.
Four basic premises present in Christian dogma give rise to this argument:
1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists.
The argument:
1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil.
2. The devil (Satan) is god-made. Humans can't create angels. Satan is a transformed angel.
3. Angels are not humans; they have no free will.
4. The devil has never had free will.
5. Therefore the devil's existence can only be explained by its creation by god. (Via a transfromation of it from regular angel status.)
QED evil (some evil) has been created by god directily.
Four basic premises present in Christian dogma give rise to this argument:
1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists.
The argument:
1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil.
2. The devil (Satan) is god-made. Humans can't create angels. Satan is a transformed angel.
3. Angels are not humans; they have no free will.
4. The devil has never had free will.
5. Therefore the devil's existence can only be explained by its creation by god. (Via a transfromation of it from regular angel status.)
QED evil (some evil) has been created by god directily.
Comments (102)
2.) Evility was not "created" rather something greater than good or evil "freedom" or "choice" was created and so evility is merely one of many by-products of a creation that while detested is of no greater significance than any of the many others.
3.) See 2.)
4.) In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings and possesses nothing special other than "being attractive" and apparently being able to convince others and gain power and influence that way..
Again, the average reader will see us as debating whether Santa Claus prefers to be called "Nick" or "Mr. Claus" but for what it's worth these are the facts of the chosen topic.
Quoting god must be atheist
Sez who, where?
Quoting god must be atheist
Humans are free to choose God, any of the other gods, or Satan. They didn't create anything.
Quoting god must be atheist
According to Genesis, the serpent existed, back in Eden. It is reputed to have been an incarnation of Lucifer, who shows up much later in the bible, but the serpent of Eden is just a clever snake when God curses him to be the enemy of woman.
But it's by no means a solid foundation.
Quoting god must be atheist
According to one version of the myth and several versions in later religious tradition. In fact, the probability is that Satan has many precedents in Middle Eastern and European folklore. He can - with little stretch of the imagination - be identified with a number of pre-existing malevolent entities.
Quoting god must be atheist
That's a direct contradiction - without any scriptural foundation afaik - of the previous statement. He wouldn't have been "transformed" - Christians prefer 'fallen' - unless he made a very bad decision - i.e. to stand against God in an armed uprising. You don't get will much freer than that!
Quoting god must be atheist
Indirectly, if his ex-creature made it. Directly, only if he put it into the world on purpose. There is nothing the big book to indicate which.
* Why? Where does the other evil come from?
The argument might be simplified to:
1. god created everything.
2. therefore, god created evil.
...and since theists have great difficultly in denying the assumption, they will have to squirm about explaining why God is not culpable for creating evil. But theists would much rather give up on logic than god, so the replies will be - have been - shall we say unphilosophical?
Usually they scream 'free will' at you like so many overwrought Randian neophytes.
yep, second post:
Quoting Outlander
But this bit leaves one wanting to see the film...
Quoting Outlander
Mainstream? That'll be the folk with "I break for angels" bumper stickers.
How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid?
Then there's this - Quoting Vera Mont
So there are things that god does not do on purpose? Unforeseen consequences to his acts? He's not omnipotent, or he's not omniscient?
Faith is indeed an amazing thing, with its capacity to reach beyond mere reason into gullibility.
In my limited experiences I've found there is an unspoken elephant in the room regarding humanity's origins and past, known colloquially as Original Sin. Things can get pretty Sci-Fi from that point on in casual theist-athiest compatible thought experiments.
But back to theist-compatible science, simple. Man was given instruction to produce children in a sacred covenant of marriage and to live simply without extravagance. We chose (someone and enough did somewhere up the line) to overproduce, to try to become gods of this planet with machines and technology that produce all kinds of lethal and harmful things to us ie. hazardous byproducts, radiation, air contaminants, you name it, wage war on others for worldly purposes and visit places we were not meant to be (could be radioactive land, places at risk for natural disasters, etc), as well as change the way man was meant to live by social practices whose effects on society are still largely unknown (some people are on the computer or the XBOX staring at a screen for days or even weeks on end without seeing another soul- that can't be good?)
How the bloody hell does that even begin to be an argument? No wonder you find my arguments confusing if you think that is one! It's just a series of random claims with a therefore bunged in.
An argument extracts the implications of its premises. Here are some argument forms that you can use:
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3.Therefore Q
1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P
1. If P, then Q
2. If Q, then T
3. Therefore, if P then T.
1. P
2. Q
3.Therefore P and Q
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
Can you express your point using those argument forms?
From the King James Bible (OT):
[quote=Isaiah 45:7]I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.[/quote]
Also, read the Book of Job. The "free will" theidiocy amounts to nothing more than vacuous and vicious blame-shifting doubletalk. :pray: :naughty:
:up:
Quoting Outlander
What is that paragraph? An apology? A prayer? A curse? Certainly not an argument.
No I didn't.
I was merely suggesting the possibility that all things have an explanation, rather that we can both "be right" about certain things as opposed to live forever in disagreement due to one of us not considering the other's possibility of which we both agree the other has no way of knowing.
To the point, "how does freewill explain
Am I saying it's that simple, I'm right, and that explains everything? No, I am saying that it is a possibility that passes all of the reasonably assumed prerequisites of your inquiry.
Well, "god did it" will explain anything and everything, and hence is useless. If nothing is ruled out, nothing is actually explained.
For the rest, your writing is beyond my understanding.
Somewhat disappointing. The book is better.
Quoting Banno
Huh. I made no claims for or against God. I countered a claim with an if-then argument. Quoting Tom Storm
Yes. You can take him in his proper context as the god of a patriarchal tribe of herdsmen in the middle east of 1500BCE. They had a rough living to make among other rough peoples; they sure could not afford a genteel god.
Quoting Outlander
Not in the version I read:
That chapter is largely neglected, as Christians prefer the second version.
Quoting Outlander
It's not supposed to, not directly. Original sin does, to the extent that eating the fruit resulted in 1. man's ability to identify evil and do evil and 2. his expulsion from the make-believe garden; forced to live in the real world of disease, hardship, sorrow and pain. (Gen 3:15-19)
How is "evility" different than "evil?"
But I've also asked myself the question - which may or may not be applicable to religion - why is evil a problem specifically?
Perhaps God doesn't consider evil what we call evil, regardless of how horrific it may look to us. Either this option "dissolves" the problem or, just what you mentioned, we postulate the devil.
But then what do we postulate for those acts that are neutral, not good, not evil? We'd need a third God for that...
This is true where god is fiction and just an enlargement of human tendencies, a wish fulfillment fantasy with all the sins of its creators, hence, genocide, rape, slavery as part of the divine plan. :wink: The result is a god, which like humans, is perfectly compatible with evil and tyranny.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
The irony here is that realism is that remnant of Christian religious faith which motivates the scientistic accusation of religious faith as being unreasonable and illogical.
Please see this and internalize its meaning:
Quoting god must be atheist
Evility is a noun. Evil is an adjective. Evil is used as a noun because the English language lacks a noun form of evil. Hence the neologism evility.
I think early religionists feared to give the almighty any negative qualities. This later evolved into annointing god only with positive qualities and leaving him bereft of negatives. Hence, the evility is impossible to be god-created.
Good question.
Evil is an intentional harm done. For harm's sake, for the pleasure of the harmer.
Tsetse flies and cancer: according to Christian dogma, god created them. So no human free will is involved in the harm, but god's intentional doing in the works of creation. You're right, Banno, I agree, the evility lies with god in these instances and have nothing to do with free will of humans.
"Evil" is both a noun and an adjective and works very well as either.
You are right; I have no arguments against that. I am just saying I am not happy with that arrangement, and I created a neologism to circumvent this use of the same word for both.
Making up new words when there are already perfectly good ones is one of the reasons people don't take philosophy seriously.
On the other hand, the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons. Best not to avoid philosophy just because of the bad apples.
Tell that to Heidegger...
Quoting Tom Storm
Hes one of those who does it for good reasons.
Maybe.... Making up new words is certainly needed for technical and scientific writing, but some people seem to think that making up a new word means they've had a new thought.
Quoting Tom Storm
:grin:
Quoting Joshs
And the worst for perfectly bad reasons. Despite it being a commonplace around this forum, making shit up does not make one a good philosopher.
Quoting Vera Mont
A fruit tree made me do it.
I doubt you comprehend how pathetic your argument here is.
ThinkOfOne, one supposes.
Quoting Banno
The great idealist and theist Kant was the founder of modern realism.
The Critique of pure Reason is the founding document of realism and to the present-day Kants discussion of realism has shaped the theoretical landscape of the debates over realism. Kant not only invents the now common philosophical term realism. He also lays out the theoretical topography of the forms of realism that still frames our understanding of philosophical questions concerning reality. (Kant and the forms of realism, Dietmar Heidemann)
I doubt you comprehend that my clarification of the theological position is not an argument for or against anything.
I said that, according to the story in the Christians' reference book, evil is not caused by free will itself, but that man's suffering and free will both arise from the original sin.
The potential for natural evils already exists in the world. But man was sheltered from all natural suffering like disease, predators, parasites, falling off cliffs, getting stung by nettles, having to work for a living and growing old, as long as he was inside the divine garden. Because he ate the fruit, he was tossed out of the garden, and no longer protected from natural dangers.
Nor did I say the fruit compelled him to do evil; I said that it enabled him to distinguish between good and evil and choose which way to act.
(Adam's feeble excuse was "The woman gave me to eat" and so Eve got tossed out, plus extra punishment.
Nobody claimed this was fair; it was simply the prerogative of a miffed deity, just as Job's tribulations were the prerogative of deity making a wager with his rival.
:fire:
:clap: :naughty:
Well, what else can they be?
Quoting god must be atheist
If mythology is any indication, the early ones were fine with it. They made up entire deities to personify not only their own faults but larger concepts like death, war, deception, chaos, as well as destructive weather phenomena. In primitive religions, the line between benevolent and malevolent supernatural entities is not at all clearly drawn. And, of course, those spirits are limited in both power and intellect, so that a human can often get the better of them, or reason with them, or appease them.
As far as I know it was Christianity that apportioned both traits and jurisdictions so strictly; banished all bad stuff to hell and raised all good stuff to heaven, even as it magnified and exaggerated the deities themselves.
I'm guessing this was part of civilization's (most effectively, the Roman Empire's) denial and banishment of nature from all belief systems, just as they did from the cities. And it was enthusiastically taken up by Western mercantile, expansionist societies, spreading Christianity and business to the heathen parts of the world.
All this does depend on which Christian you speak too. I've met plenty of reverends, priests and nuns who do not believe in original sin and see this, and many of the Bible stories, as allegories and myths expressing a broader truth. Christians, like all religious folk, take a book and a practice and render it meaningful through subjective or intersubjective interpretations.
American Bishop John Shelby Spong (Episcopalian) put it rather well -
Quoting Vera Mont
Indeed but some consider them facts.
What the book says doesn't depend on their interpretation. I was referring to the book itself. If Christians don't believe it, so much the better.... unless they replace it with the weird shit televangelists are spewing.
So, he's got no use for either testament? Cool.
And this is the entire point. The book itself is contradictory and messy, and it can't speak. There is no interpretation free account of the Bible, or any book when it comes to that. Can you point to a church or an individual who, in your judgement, has exactly the right interpretation? Even determining this would require subjective preference, surely?
[quote=John Shelby Spong]We are not a little lower than the angels. We're a little higher than the apes. It's a very different perspective.[/quote]
:fire: :monkey:
:up:
I only pointed to one cause-effect relationship in one story in a book with thousands of stories. Quoting Tom Storm
Of course not! That's why I never consult religionists, or anyone with a vested interest in a particular interpretation. Myths speak for themselves, and they comment on some aspect of human thought, social development or relationships. My own interpretation is the only one I feel either competent or authorized to report.
I would maintain that myths do not speak for themselves - they do not 'speak' until someone gives them a voice by deriving a meaning from them - whether that be a pauper, a professor, or the Pope. If a myth seems to comment on human life, it is because someone hearing or reading it has determined the commentary. Interpretation.
Incidentally, in relation to Christianity it is interesting how interpretation has evolved over time. The idea that the Bible can be read as some kind of positivist text is a recent one.
- Mary Midgley
Didn't someone have to tell, sing or write it first? If so, they presumably did that to communicate something to someone else.
Quoting Tom Storm
Of course. (Keeping in mind that The Bible isn't a single book but many and most of them were unavailable to the Catholic laity until recently. So they depended on the New Testament and whatever the priest told them, while the conservative Protestant sect leaders leaned heavily on the Old Testament for their fire-and-brimstone revivals.)
Living religion, like any other aspect of culture, is never static. The interpretation of religious texts (or narratives and traditions that have been adopted by religionists) always changes with the need of the institution. There' no point sticking to old dogma if the congregation wanders off looking for a more user-friendly doctrine... because there is always a hedge-priest or prophet to give it them... unless you can engineer a fundamentalist revival through a revolution or political shift. There is a shift in America now toward Orthodoxy in Judaism, at the same time it's declining in Christianity and Islam (after an upsurge of both in the last decades of the 20th century).
None of that influences the stories of ancient mythology, any more than the use of mangoes in chutney influences the nature of mangoes.
Some of the assumptions here - 1) that authors always have a specific intention and can convey it; 2) that an author doesn't want a range of interpretive possibilities; 3) that it is possible for people to arrive at a single interpretation based on a single authorial intention. None of these seem demonstrable.
And finally, whatever an author's intention, what happens is interpretation. As someone who wrote journalism for many years, I would say it's also the case that authors are not always clear in what they are saying. The finished story may not reflect the author's intention. And how do you demonstrate what the author's intention is? Again, interpretation.
I made no assumption about an author's intentions, abilities or desires. I only presumed that they meant to communicate something to other humans. If they made up a story just to entertain themselves, it wouldn't be written down, and if nobody liked it, it wouldn't have been passed on and recorded.
Quoting Tom Storm
I could have sworn that's what I said I was doing. Quoting Vera Mont
This is what I am addressing. 'Communicate something' means open ended interpretive possibilities from the author to us. Which is fine. It leads to a multiplicity of potential meanings.
Quoting Vera Mont
That's fair. So you are saying subjective interpretations of myth are all that matter? I thought you were saying there was a true version of any myth - the author's intention? If you're not saying that, then we're good to go. :wink:
Does it, when you're placing a dinner order? Or giving instructions to an employee, or explaining to your wife over the phone where to look for the file you forgot and need her to bring to a meeting? Verbal communication normally has a message that is expected - or at least intended - to convey information from the speaker to the hearer. It's normally that way in written communications, as well. The more open-ended it is the less communication takes place. If they can read into it whatever they like, why bother writing at all? Let 'em write their own!
Quoting Tom Storm
I didn't say what matters; only what I'm qualified to report on. Matter - to whom?
To someone with a vested interest in one particular interpretation, it matters greatly that theirs prevail. Preachers seem to put a lot of effort into convincing their congregations that their version is the right one, rather than encouraging them each to make a subjective guess as to the meaning of scripture. To a scholar, an interpretation is worthless unless it sheds light on some aspect of anthropology - and it can't do that if it doesn't correspond to known facts about the period and people in question; if it doesn't add to a body of accumulating knowledge. Radical interpretations must be supported by other evidence. But mine is mundane secular anthropology, nothing noteworthy.
Quoting Tom Storm
I didn't even posit a particular author or intention for this story - it's far too old. Every story must have been told by someone before it could be heard and interpreted by anyone else, that's all. This one probably goes back to long before there were identifiable Hebrews, to the Sumerian culture (The Akkadian one is more violent.)
You can see the echoes coming down a millennium or so, and the notion is further supported by the prominence of rivers in the Genesis creation myth What physical record of that literature remains is fragmented, and obviously, other influences must also have entered the oral tradition of nomadic peoples like the Jews, who came into contact with many nations before they occupied Jericho and settled there, so I don't think it's possible to trace any of the stories to a single definitive source.
I don't think authorship or author's intention really enters into the assessment of myths. The stories of ancients peoples were told and retold from memory, embellished, adapted, combined, translated many hundreds or thousands of times before anybody wrote them down. But they all had to begin with a human being attempting to communicate ideas to another human being.
Sure, and then interpretation. And around we go. :razz:
You can. I won't.
A problem with Zoroastrianism is the mass filled it full of superstitious notions that ruined the original wisdom of the religion and the same happens to Christianity. The religion is all broken up with different interpretations. It is a problem that caused Constantnoble to fall because they weakened themselves by dividing and making war on each other. One side promoting superstition and the other side taking a stand against religious icons that promote superstition.
Personally, I think the best way to understand Christianity is to study all religions and mythologies that influenced Christianity. Here is a link to Zoroastrianism.
Quoting Jezel Luna
Is life a continuum of good and evil or is it dualistic? I don't know if we should use the word "bad" or "evil" because the word evil implies a supernatural force. The idea that Christianity is opposed to superstitions is nuts! In the past, people feared Satan and demons as well as the jealous, revengeful, and punishing God. Today most Christians seem to be in complete denial of the evil forces, other than a quilt trip for being less than perfect and believing we need to be saved by a supernatural force.
True.
Everything about Christianity depends on whcih Christian you speak to.
I converesed with Christians on this forum who thought they were the only christians in this great, wide world.
Furthermore I argued with a person here who insisted on very strict interpretations of the Holy Books, and when I put it to him, he denied he was a Christian, or even a god-fearing person.
This has not much to do with the original topic, other than some christians can't accept that god has any bad or negative qualities, and some others can.
Quoting god must be atheist
You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"
If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable.
ex. Night isn't created, night is lack of light.
There is no special celestial object which would shine night like there is Sun which shines light.
Thus the devil wasn't created but become so due to lack of good.
In this sense evil is a natural and avoidable opposite created simultaneously with good. After all how can we know what is evil without good? If everything was utopian we would have no concept of evil it would be meaningless.
Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here?
:sweat:
Welcome to the forum, Matt.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist
In this context, you can see how my robust question was entirely in keeping with the tone that he had already set.
Second, focus on the argument, not the arguer. Note in that post I helpfully explained how God must be an atheist's 'argument' is just a list of random claims and then provided some useful examples of valid argument forms.
Third, how the bloody hell is it an argument?
I am afraid I can't accept your definition.
There are things in the world which are neither good nor bad. They are neutral.
Since your proposition depended on the aforementioned definition, I can't accept the proposition either.
I'm forceful, but Bartricks is screamingly and obviously:
- rude
- illogical
- spews nonsense
- argumentative
- and in my opinion should have been ousted from this forum a long time ago.
His best quality is the choice of words with which he berates others. Other than that, please do ignore his opinions; they are of no consequence.
Please don't feel pressured to accept my opinion about Bartricks. Look at what he wrote about me. Draw your conclusions.
One word of advice: if you angage him in an argument, it will go on forever, and will only end because of an escalation of mutual anger, due to tempers rising. Adhering to the expression "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL" is the best and most useful way of dealing with him.
But first and foremost, please dont' feel discouraged by his remarks.
He is not singling you out. Please feel free to see his remakrs / posts in all discussions, and immediately you will see an underlying motive there. Click on his username, until you see his profile, and then read his remarks.
It's that easy.
Brilliant, my dear Watson.
You're correct. I did create that word, as well as "evility". I don't have a problem with that; ultimately, all words in the English langauge were created. "In the beginning there was the Word", and that was all. Other words came along by creation by man. (By men and women.)
If word creation had ever been a problem, we'd still not have a language.
Some words do get created and then discarded by lack of use. I won't take offence if that happens to "evility" and to "displestitude".
How is that an argument?
Because there are more or less good or more or less bad things doesn't make bad = ~good false.
ex. darkness is absence of light is false because dawn exists which is false.
related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse
No matey, you're just rude:
Quoting Bartricks
Those were opening comments of yours.
This: Quoting Bartricks
is forceful.
Quoting god must be atheist
I am not illogical. Your OP does not contain an argument. I don't think you know what one is. That's why everything I say sounds weird to you. You can't see, for instance, that this is an argument:
1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore q
Which is understandable given that you think this is an argument:
1. P
2. Elephant
3. Therefore a cake.
Now, I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say in the OP. Not a clue. Are you trying to raise the problem of evil?
Most of the people on this forum are not so cantankerous as Bartricks, and in general if you post a decent opening post you will get a critical, but not rude, response. Tempers sometimes boil over, but excessive flaming is discouraged, and continual flaming is grounds for being banned. Unfortunately, Bartricks actually does post some good, if misguided arguments, and generally stays substantive, even if he is acrimonious at times.
edit: it helps to have a thick skin, however, because disagreements over certain things have a tendency to be inflammatory, such as discussions around politics. And the standard for academic criticism kind of goes out the window when you spew dogma, like nos4atu, who people have speculated to be mentally ill/stupid/etc. for his unwavering Trump support.
SpaceDweller, please don't glide over the following; it is of utmost importance that you read, and understand the following.
Is there goodness in a neutral state?
There are only two scenarios: yes, there is, and the other is, no, there isn't.
If there is, then it's not neutral, since evilness can't balance it out; evilness is lack of good, and the premise states that there is goodness in neutral. If there is goodness in neutral, then the state is not neutral, since it's good.
If, however, neutral state does not contain goodness, then it's not evil; and yet it lacks goodness.
Therefore "lack of goodness is evil" is not an acceptable definitioin, since neutrality lacks goodness, and yet it's not evil.
You have a point, but isn't your reasoning based upon that "neutral" is a state which could be put into same category as good and evil?
is neutral of same "type" so to speak, as good and evil?
Can you give a real world example of neutral which would imply something that excludes both good and evil?
Examples:
I bought a quart / a litre of milk today.
You must always check the blind spot before changing lanes.
Don't worry; be happy.
When we talked about good and evil here, we use the terms in religious senses.
good for you.
Quoting god must be atheist
good advices.
my argument is that something is either good or evil, in shades ofc. not absolute good or absolute evil. but no such thing as complete absence of both good and evil.
Quoting god must be atheist
in religious sense "neutral" doesn't really exist.
in Christianity for ex. it's called "indifference" which is slightly evil, for ex. seeing an injured person on the street and not helping, you're indifferent (or neutral) by not helping but that's slightly evil, in religious or moral sense.
What do you call it when you buy a loaf of bread or you look out the window in religious terms?
I always thought, because I have been told, that an act is good in Christianity when it pleases god; our act pleases god when we act according to his will, expressed in the scriptures as required behaviour. On the contrary, an acti is evil, when it goes against god's will, which is a plan for us which we ought to follow.
Did god plan for us to idly look out the window, or to buy a loaf of bread?
If god planned for us to look out the window, and we don't, are we evil? Or are we evil when we can bind up a broken man and yet we don't?
I don't think anyone has confessed at the confession box that they looked out the window. They confess sins, which are well defined in the ten commandments.
Is it evil, and therefore a sin, that you buy a loaf of bread at three o'clock when god had planned for you to purchase it at seven o'clock?
Quoting SpaceDweller
I accept of course that that is your view, but you have to prove it in case you want me to accept it, and therefore to accept your definition of evil, which you said is a lack of good.
if you guys are too chicken to tell him, I'll do it.
What's his phone number?
You're right, if you accept that definition. And you obviously do.
You must have a neat explanation how Satan had come into existence without being created. If you like, please write it down here. If you don't, then obviously your definition is false (since evility exists, in the created form of Satan.)
How do you define good, or goodness, in religious terms, SpaceDweller? This would be helpful in knowing how evil is created. If you accept my definition, then not following god's will is NOT always evil. Sinning is; but there are myriads of ways of not following god's will without committing a sin at the same time.
That's A. B. is that lack of goodness is evil as you say; but evil does encompass a quality of causing harm. Harm to the self, to another self, or to god. Why do we call non-harmful behaviour evil? It is your categorical claim, that no other human wants to accept. However, it follows from your definition. Would your definition be incorrect?
C is this dilemma: how do you take goodness out of an act, which has had it? If it never has, if no ill will or harmful things have ever been done, then goodness was taken out. Humans took goodness out? Humans only do what they do. They don't go to an act and take out goodness out of it. How does an act become void of goodness?
I know I answered this based on my own beliefs,, but I don't know what your beliefs are, SpaceDweller. You must have the clear idea how goodness gets taken away from an otherwise good deed for it to become an evil deed.
There is a third problem. If evility is a lack of goodness, then there is no gradation of goodness. Everything that has no goodness is evil. You can't say "this nothing has more something missing than that nothing." If goodness is missing, then how much of it is missing? That is a silly question. Therefore all evil deeds are equal in magnitude of evility. yet you insist that they are graded for magnitude.
This doesn't make sense, you're missing a context, it depends a lot on purpose, for what purpose does one look out of a window or buy bread?
I think genesis 1:3-4 is one good example:
So using your logic one could say "light" is neutral, but it's not, at least not in this context.
Quoting god must be atheist
it is certainly god's plan to for us to live life, that's good, looking out a window is living life but it depends on context.
perhaps the window is from your house which you earned with your own hands so you enjoy your hard work, it's god's plan that you work and earn for house and now enjoy your hard work, that's good not evil.
Quoting god must be atheist
we all know satan was created by god with free will. and it choose to defy god.
but you're trying to prove that god created evil being which is not true.
Quoting god must be atheist
I don't have a definition but I would certainly not limit good to morally right since the bible ie. mentions good things which don't necessarily deal with morality.
Quoting god must be atheist
I'm no longer religious even though it difficult to get rid of old values.
and I don't think good deeds can become evil by simply taking good out of them, deeds are either good or not.
Quoting god must be atheist
but we know that not all good deeds or things are not equally good and same is true for evil things.
evil lacks all shades of good and consist of one shade of evil.
problem with your reasoning I think is that you compare good and evil with 0 and 1, but 0 and 1 don't have shades.
If you accept this, then you accept that evility is MORE than just a lack of goodness. Your definition was:Quoting SpaceDweller
You have to choose between the two. Either you accept your own definition, or you reject your own opinion on evility.
Of course you don't have to do this for yourself, but you have to do this for the sake of your OWN argument. You can't say that something is all red and the next minute say that that thing is all green. You can't say that evility is the lack of goodness, and you can't say that there are degrees of lacking. It lacks only if it isn't there.
I showed this to you right away, and you kept insisting that your definition was okay. Now that you got caught on the horn of your own dilemma, now we are at the same spot as eons ago. How long will this go on? Quo usque tandem abutere Cataline, pacientia nostra?
Quoting SpaceDweller
Quoting SpaceDweller
these two clearly show that you haven't noticed the Aristotle-defined fallacy in argument you have in your own mind, the fallacy of equivocation. Two things, two different condepts have the same word, and the speaker treats the two concepts as one.
Quoting SpaceDweller
The problem is differnt. You can't see that if one has 3 goodnesses, or 6 or 93848 goodnesses, those are different. But their lack, can only be 0 or zero goodness. This is not negotiable; if something is missing, then it does not matter how much of it is missing, it is not there, period.
Therefore I may accept that goodness can be great or little, but evility can only be on value, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION. Keep in mind that I use YOUR defintion to disprove your argument, not any other definition, since you are compelled to accept your own -- otherwise you would not make it if you did not believe it, would you.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Is it in the scriptures that Satan had free will, or you made that up along with the people whose values you still embrace? Please tell me the book and line number where it is explicitly stated that Satan had free will.
In my readings I encountered that the christian god gave man (humans, men and women), and man only, free will. No other creature has free will. Now all of a sudden Satan has it-- this is suspect that you only say that to prove your point, without any substantiation but hearsay which serves the skewed version of the true logic that your argument so stubbornly (but unsuccessfully) keeps on trying to defy.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist
OK, I got it, my definition excludes degrees of evil
I'm not sure what other definition could be made.
Quoting god must be atheist
in the book of Enoch trough parables for ex. a lot can be found.
what I found in the book of Enoch is that angels are able to sin, and we know to sin one needs free will.
2 Timothy 2:26 states satan has will (not god's will but his own will)
I could find better matches than this with additional research for sure, for ex:
https://www.gotquestions.org/angels-free-will.html
This, however, opens up another can of worms. I claim that the ultimate responsibility for sin and evil lies with god. Not that he had created it; but he created a venue in which it was possible to create evil.
God gave (and therefore first created) free will to man and to angels; and god knew it will lead to evil doings, but he still created it. He pre-knew about evil, and that it's inevitably going to happen. He created the thing that made it possible for it to happen, nevertheless.
Therefore your argument in OP should be reformulated to:
1. Free will may lead to evil
2. God gave free will
3. God let his creation (humans and angels) do evil
Which doesn't imply that:
A) God is evil
B) God allows evil
C) God created evil
Because:
A) Giving free will is good, taking it away is evil
B) We know god doesn't allow or tolerate evil
C) Beings with free will create evil
Which doesn't make god evil character.
I agree with the first two sets of claims/assumptions. In that sense, like I said, God is the only one responsible (but not the committer) of evil.
In law, sometimes the responsible person is just as guilty as the committer. For instance, a woman may hire a hired gun to kill her husband. She is not guilty of murder, but she is just as responsible for his death as the assassin.
Your third set is false in the A part. "Free will is good, taking away free will is bad." Without free will there is no evil; therefore the lack of free will is desireable.
There is no good use of free will.
Therefore I don't agree with the A part of the third set.
The B part is even more false.God allows evil in the world. That is blindingly obvious. And he tolerates it, too. This B part is not good. God PUNISHES (according to the scriptures) evil, but he does not stand in the way of evil deeds. Where did you get that?
C is questionable. In the thrid section. For a creation, evil is a noun. But humans, the ones with free will, do not create an object of evility. Thay act in evil ways. Evil is not a physical entity. Creating it is not a creation of something physical.
Keeping true to this thread, you may say that evil is a concept, an abstraction, that humans create. True. But not by being evil, not by their free will. Evil as a concept is created to describe evil deeds. The very essence of evil is not an entity, but its descriptor is an entity.
how is lack of free will desireable?
without free will we would be 100% slaves, no freedom no nothing.
Quoting god must be atheist
because otherwise it would violate our free will.
We would still have thoughts, and pleasure; we'd all live in harmony; no evil. Isn't that what the Christian ideal of Heaven is? Free will is responsible for Evil. Isn't your idea of a good world to live without evil?
Maybe. But that still does not negate the obvious, that god allows evil to happen, something you claimed falsely.
isn't slavery evil? But no free will, no evil. You were adamant about that.
And there is no free will in that hypothetical world. That's one of your claims. How can evil exist without evil existing?
Now you have to decide whether life without free will is evil, or evil only exists in a world where there is free will.
would you like to sing songs to god all day, wash feet of poor people, give your wealth to the poor, go to church and all this stuff without the right to complain and so all day and every day until your death?
I think this sucks so bad, I prefer free will and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.
Quoting god must be atheist
slavery is evil and god would be an evil god if it gave us no free will but instead enslaved us to do only as god wants.
You have no concept of evil. Suffering. If it's suffering, it's evil. So stop complaining about the lack of free will. There are no negatives in a world that lacks free will. You can't deny that. Because all suffering is the consequence of free will.
I think you are losing it. God is evil BECAUSE it gave us free will. He is the alpha and the omega; his creation of free will results directly in evil.
Because slavery is evil, and all evil things are the result of free will.
you would be a slave of god.
just go out ask 10 random people "would you like your free will to be taken away from you?"
but we're on right track, free will is closely related to evil and good:
https://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-give-us-free-will.html
And the god that is claimed to be all benevolent, good and graceful... why would being a slave to him be bad? You've never had it so good as being a slave to god.
But if it's bad, then it's god that is evil.
They would say "no, I don't want it taken away from me", but if I explain to them that a world of love, harmony, pleasure, abundance of good things and happiness is possible and everlasting in that world, then I'm sure they will say "sure, take that thing away from me."
god which gives free will is more benevolent than god which doesn't give free will.
thus god which gives free will is superior to god which doesn't.
and god is a superior being.
you must substantiate this. You haven't convinced me yet that a world full of evil is better than a world with no evil.
Please substantiate the above claim.
perfectly benevolent god and evil world is better than less perfect or evil god and good world.
one reason why is that if there is imperfect god then this means there exists god which is superior thus leading again to god which gives free will, a good god.
A.. maybe. B. try "benevolent god and benevolent world." You left out this permutation, for no reason at all, but maybe? in order to be able to maintain a modicum of reasonable argument.
Maybe in your traditional upbringing it was imperative to think that, but when logic and everyone you ask says no, becasue a world with people who have no free will is the better one, then you incredulously reject all arguments, since your upbringing indeluably imprinted this free-will love for your.
Believe me, there is nothing good in free will, when in a world in which free will is the only source of evil.
it's simple because you need to start from god or definition of god.
god is perfect and not inferior in anything (otherwise it's inferior god and thus not god)
god which gives free will is more benevolent than one which doesn't.
then the rest follows based on that premise.
is therefore not logically possible in this context.
Only if you insist on free will as unavoidable. Whereas free will is unnecessary, creates evil, and it is the worst thing that had befallen on man.
Well, the Bible says lots of things.
This part isn't quite right:
Quoting Outlander
Non-Christians did and do outnumber Christians; Christians were and are outnumbered by detractors. The Biblical Yahweh somehow forgot to properly inform the majority of humanity. Instead, some were somehow informed by Dreamtime, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, etc, and some weren't. (These days, it seems commonly said that Allah informed Gabriel informed Muhammad informed ... or something.)