Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument for the Immorality of God

Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 1:29:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Similar to the Problem of evil, I am representing an argument that outlines the immorality of a God, if it can be assumed that;
Axiom- God Exists.
Axiom- God is the Creator of the Universe
Axiom- God is at least powerful enough to create a world morally better than our own, by human rights standard.

Assuming the above, you have the traditional Problem of Evil arguments;
Suffering exists, why? Suffering is the result of human imperfection.
Evil exists, why? Evil is the absence of Good, not in itself a feature of reality.
Etc etc…

However, I find that all of these arguments (and counter-arguments) are held within a narrow spectrum of reality. This reality. My argument is instead and argument of opportunity;

The way I see it (and arguably the way that the whole concept of God is argued) is;
God came first, our world came soon after.

Why do we philosophise then, with the idea that:
We came first, and now we must explain Gods justification for this specific world?

If I may give you an analogy:
-Imagine a brilliant inventor, who could create the most perfect of things. His scale of greatness was unmatched, and his limits far greater than any other mans. Imagine then, that he was proposed by another to make a machine that would give its user a feeling of absolute bliss. A personal heaven for anyone lucky enough to experience it. The challenge was accepted, and the inventor worked for months building this masterpiece. Eventually it was created, and as a thank you to the guy who came up with the idea, he allowed the man to use the machine first. Before beginning, however, he warned;
"I am afraid you must go through a terrible amount of pain before this machine can work."
The man was shocked! Surely the inventor could create a machine that would not require such suffering! Surely a machine that did not require such suffering could be made by this man! When this very idea was proposed, there was no answer.
This rather terrible analogy illustrates two points:
Firstly, how do you justify on a moral level the existence of suffering, when it's fundamental existence can be removed by an extremely powerful world maker? The existence of suffering, it is argued, is only necessary because God made it so. Why so, I ask? Just like the sceptic in the analogy so asked.
Secondly, using the above as a basis for deeper thinking, could it be said that all theological arguments supporting the existence of imperfection are unnecessary, meaningless and ultimately cruel?

Simply: If God is powerful enough to create a world that requires necessary evil, then what prevents him from creating a world that does not require necessary evil, if not immorality, or incapability?

Conclusions: Either;
-God is not powerful enough to create a more moral world.
-God is immoral to our perception, and therefore anyone who has this philosophical opinion will be in no ethical position to worship.
-? Your own conclusions?

Cheers,
Nick Walker

Sorry, just out of curiosity, please tell me if this argument has already been presented before. It's not the first time I'll feel like I've discovered the wheel, only to walk past a motorway… metaphorically. Bloody Hard Determinists!
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 1:45:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Uh...if you grant that some evil is necessary then it follows that there will be evil in any world God creates. That would imply that even in the best possible world there is some evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 1:49:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 1:45:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Uh...if you grant that some evil is necessary then it follows that there will be evil in any world God creates. That would imply that even in the best possible world there is some evil.

I dont think you understood my argument. I am questioning the very foundation of the necessity of the existance of suffering, and ergo, evil.
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 1:49:05 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
I dont think you understood my argument. I am questioning the very foundation of the necessity of the existance of suffering, and ergo, evil.

Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.
Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:35:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.

Why did God make suffering a necessity in the first place then? In the example you gave, that cannot be justified. What's the point in including suffering at all?

My entire argument is based on thinking outside the traditional view of the problem of Evil. If suffering is necessary, then God is immoral, because God thus created both suffering and its necessity.
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why did God make suffering a necessity in the first place then? In the example you gave, that cannot be justified. What's the point in including suffering at all?

My entire argument is based on thinking outside the traditional view of the problem of Evil. If suffering is necessary, then God is immoral, because God thus created both suffering and its necessity.

Suffering is a necessity of this world like gravity is a necessity of space-time. This world is created for those living beings who choose not to serve God. It is a negative world. Heaven (God's abode) is the positive reality. Heaven is eternal, blissful and conscious. This world is the opposite - it is temporary, has suffering and is not conscious. Like darkness is the absence of light and not a thing of itself - just the absence of a light, this world is the absence of God.

This world is created for us - because we choose it, not for God. Free will is not true freedom if you do not have the option to choose the wrong thing. So we have chosen the wrong thing and we are suffering because of our choices.

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 12:10:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:35:44 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.

Why did God make suffering a necessity in the first place then? In the example you gave, that cannot be justified. What's the point in including suffering at all?

My entire argument is based on thinking outside the traditional view of the problem of Evil. If suffering is necessary, then God is immoral, because God thus created both suffering and its necessity.

i don't think thats outside the realm of the problem of evil at all, although your last statement seems at odds with it. then again, your last statement essentially translates to: "if god can't create a contradiction, then he is evil"

i think the common view is that the "necessity" of evil comes from the essential attributes of the rest of god's creation, not anything added by him purposely. a byproduct if you will. i'm not sure you're grasping the concept of necessity as its generally used in philosophy.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 12:38:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 12:10:18 AM, belle wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:35:44 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.

Why did God make suffering a necessity in the first place then? In the example you gave, that cannot be justified. What's the point in including suffering at all?

My entire argument is based on thinking outside the traditional view of the problem of Evil. If suffering is necessary, then God is immoral, because God thus created both suffering and its necessity.

i don't think thats outside the realm of the problem of evil at all, although your last statement seems at odds with it. then again, your last statement essentially translates to: "if god can't create a contradiction, then he is evil"

i think the common view is that the "necessity" of evil comes from the essential attributes of the rest of god's creation, not anything added by him purposely. a byproduct if you will. i'm not sure you're grasping the concept of necessity as its generally used in philosophy.

Yeah, this. I basically just wanted to avoid going into some - probably fruitless, most likely tedious - process of asking what he means by necessity and what kind (physical, metaphysical, logical, etc). I would assume it's implicitly meant in the metaphysical sense but then that's like asking why God can't create a ball that's wholly red and wholly green all over.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 5:10:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 1:29:02 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
Similar to the Problem of evil, I am representing an argument that outlines the immorality of a God, if it can be assumed that;
Axiom- God Exists.
Axiom- God is the Creator of the Universe
Axiom- God is at least powerful enough to create a world morally better than our own, by human rights standard.

Assuming the above, you have the traditional Problem of Evil arguments;
Suffering exists, why? Suffering is the result of human imperfection.
Evil exists, why? Evil is the absence of Good, not in itself a feature of reality.
Etc etc…

However, I find that all of these arguments (and counter-arguments) are held within a narrow spectrum of reality. This reality. My argument is instead and argument of opportunity;

The way I see it (and arguably the way that the whole concept of God is argued) is;
God came first, our world came soon after.

Why do we philosophise then, with the idea that:
We came first, and now we must explain Gods justification for this specific world?

If I may give you an analogy:
-Imagine a brilliant inventor, who could create the most perfect of things. His scale of greatness was unmatched, and his limits far greater than any other mans. Imagine then, that he was proposed by another to make a machine that would give its user a feeling of absolute bliss. A personal heaven for anyone lucky enough to experience it. The challenge was accepted, and the inventor worked for months building this masterpiece. Eventually it was created, and as a thank you to the guy who came up with the idea, he allowed the man to use the machine first. Before beginning, however, he warned;
"I am afraid you must go through a terrible amount of pain before this machine can work."
The man was shocked! Surely the inventor could create a machine that would not require such suffering! Surely a machine that did not require such suffering could be made by this man! When this very idea was proposed, there was no answer.
This rather terrible analogy illustrates two points:
Firstly, how do you justify on a moral level the existence of suffering, when it's fundamental existence can be removed by an extremely powerful world maker? The existence of suffering, it is argued, is only necessary because God made it so. Why so, I ask? Just like the sceptic in the analogy so asked.
Secondly, using the above as a basis for deeper thinking, could it be said that all theological arguments supporting the existence of imperfection are unnecessary, meaningless and ultimately cruel?

Simply: If God is powerful enough to create a world that requires necessary evil, then what prevents him from creating a world that does not require necessary evil, if not immorality, or incapability?

Conclusions: Either;
-God is not powerful enough to create a more moral world.
-God is immoral to our perception, and therefore anyone who has this philosophical opinion will be in no ethical position to worship.
-? Your own conclusions?

Cheers,
Nick Walker

Sorry, just out of curiosity, please tell me if this argument has already been presented before. It's not the first time I'll feel like I've discovered the wheel, only to walk past a motorway… metaphorically. Bloody Hard Determinists!

No, Evil PROVES the goodness of God: HOW could He possibly give humanity free-will unless an intelligence UTTERLY opposed to God and His purpose existed?

We CHOSE evil AGAINST God's EXPRESS command.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:44:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Im afraid you are all missing the original point. Let me give you a slightly different analogy;

A man can create a place where all are happy. He is so powerful that he can create it now without any need for any more suffering, and defy the laws of nature and make free-will possible without sin.

Can you call this man moral if he instead created something which allows for evil?

ALTERNATIVELY:
Ignore the word "necessity", simply think about the following. If God created everything, then he could have made computers work like sheep, he could make jumpers the fabric of the universe, he could make time a banana. He could create a world that is made within a speaker system, and he could make it work.

He could completely redefine the world we know. Oxygen doesn't have to even exist if God willed it to be. If God is limitless, then any claim of "evil is a by-product" or "evil allows for good and free-will" is redundant. It's a terrible excuse. Why? Because that is only a reason because God made it so. A God with the potential for greatness, and instead allows for the mass suffering of innocent people. If God is all-powerful, then you have to morally justify this one world, out of infinite others. And I am afraid, that is entirely impossible.

Thus, a moral God (by human standards) does not exist.

I will claim once again, every argument made on this topic thinks about humans first, God second. Oh sure, if you look at humans first, you can (sort of) justify the existence of suffering. It is a very part of our nature. HOWEVER, It must be the other way round. God came first, God created all things, God created the very existence of morality. This is a disgustingly perverse God, if you simply imagine the possibilities.

Remember, if you even have access to the internet, your part of the extremely small lucky minority. 6 billion people, all of the dead before that, and 4.54 billion years of death, destruction, suffering and agonising pain. And that is only Earth.
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:47:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM, hotdog wrote:

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.

Unless atheists go to heaven... indeed unless we are all in heaven right now... God can't exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:00:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:47:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM, hotdog wrote:

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.

Unless atheists go to heaven... indeed unless we are all in heaven right now... God can't exist.

See this is really hard to grasp for me. Why would heaven matter only if it depended on sycophants? Does not an atheist by any other name still smell like a human, created in the same divine mold? Even if we are wayyy off on what or who we think is God, shouldn't you at least expect more than just a petty creature on an ego trip?
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:38:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:47:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM, hotdog wrote:

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.

Unless atheists go to heaven... indeed unless we are all in heaven right now... God can't exist.

I can't see how you make this logical assumption. But to clarify what i was trying to say ... In the ultimate view, we are in heaven - there is nothing outside of God and heaven, but we can't see it. Our attitude is like a cloud that covers the sun. The sun is still there, but we cant see it. I wasn't saying god hates atheists or anything, only that if you know you are in heaven, you know for sure god exists. God defines heaven ie heaven is god's abode, or the presence of god is heaven. The absence of god is where we are - we cant see him although he does still exist.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:42:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:00:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:47:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM, hotdog wrote:

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.

Unless atheists go to heaven... indeed unless we are all in heaven right now... God can't exist.

See this is really hard to grasp for me. Why would heaven matter only if it depended on sycophants? Does not an atheist by any other name still smell like a human, created in the same divine mold? Even if we are wayyy off on what or who we think is God, shouldn't you at least expect more than just a petty creature on an ego trip?

Heaven is defined as god's abode ie where god is. Its not about being a sycophant, its about accepting the reality that in comparison to god you are a servant. As an analogy, in comparison to you, your dog is your servant. Its not that you expect fido to flatter you, its just a law of nature that you are in control due to your superior nature. God loves the atheists just as much as the theist. Actually I personally think he would like some of them alot better than some theists. Depends on your attitude more than your conclusion.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:51:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see your point, though I think it would be better translated if you stated it as negative vs.positive instead of evil vs. good.

Free will is pure consciousness. Balance is God. God always changes finitely and never changes infinitely. Life is just another piece of God infinite. You are piece of God asking about itself. Each piece being individual as a piece, yet a part of the collective whole. Negative energy (aka evil or suffering) is just another choice and does not really exist at all except in your own creation through free will or the acceptance of another piece's creation.

God is just God. God as a whole did not specifically create anything which can be defined as evil, suffering, or negative. God just is. You or another part of God created such a thing, and you or another part of God choose the perception to accept or deny the definition of such a thing as you desire.

Reality is shaped through the free will choices of perception. Good and evil, happiness and suffering, negative and positive all fall under the law of free will.

Understand these words and you may find you answer.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:11:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 1:29:02 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
Similar to the Problem of evil, I am representing an argument that outlines the immorality of a God, if it can be assumed that;
Axiom- God Exists.
Axiom- God is the Creator of the Universe
Axiom- God is at least powerful enough to create a world morally better than our own, by human rights standard.

Assuming the above, you have the traditional Problem of Evil arguments;
Suffering exists, why? Suffering is the result of human imperfection.
Evil exists, why? Evil is the absence of Good, not in itself a feature of reality.
Etc etc…

However, I find that all of these arguments (and counter-arguments) are held within a narrow spectrum of reality. This reality. My argument is instead and argument of opportunity;

The way I see it (and arguably the way that the whole concept of God is argued) is;
God came first, our world came soon after.

Why do we philosophise then, with the idea that:
We came first, and now we must explain Gods justification for this specific world?

If I may give you an analogy:
-Imagine a brilliant inventor, who could create the most perfect of things. His scale of greatness was unmatched, and his limits far greater than any other mans. Imagine then, that he was proposed by another to make a machine that would give its user a feeling of absolute bliss. A personal heaven for anyone lucky enough to experience it. The challenge was accepted, and the inventor worked for months building this masterpiece. Eventually it was created, and as a thank you to the guy who came up with the idea, he allowed the man to use the machine first. Before beginning, however, he warned;
"I am afraid you must go through a terrible amount of pain before this machine can work."
The man was shocked! Surely the inventor could create a machine that would not require such suffering! Surely a machine that did not require such suffering could be made by this man! When this very idea was proposed, there was no answer.
This rather terrible analogy illustrates two points:
Firstly, how do you justify on a moral level the existence of suffering, when it's fundamental existence can be removed by an extremely powerful world maker? The existence of suffering, it is argued, is only necessary because God made it so. Why so, I ask? Just like the sceptic in the analogy so asked.
Secondly, using the above as a basis for deeper thinking, could it be said that all theological arguments supporting the existence of imperfection are unnecessary, meaningless and ultimately cruel?

Simply: If God is powerful enough to create a world that requires necessary evil, then what prevents him from creating a world that does not require necessary evil, if not immorality, or incapability?

Conclusions: Either;
-God is not powerful enough to create a more moral world.
-God is immoral to our perception, and therefore anyone who has this philosophical opinion will be in no ethical position to worship.
-? Your own conclusions?

Cheers,
Nick Walker

Sorry, just out of curiosity, please tell me if this argument has already been presented before. It's not the first time I'll feel like I've discovered the wheel, only to walk past a motorway… metaphorically. Bloody Hard Determinists!

You don't sell vacations in Hawaii to the residents of Pensacola. If you want a real sale, go to Alaska!

God wants man to choose heaven. That being the case, why would he give us heaven on Earth?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:18:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:38:16 PM, hotdog wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:47:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 12:04:32 AM, hotdog wrote:

God has created that blissful machine you speak of - heaven. But if you live in heaven you cannot have any doubt that God exists. There are no atheists in heaven. Its just not possible.

Unless atheists go to heaven... indeed unless we are all in heaven right now... God can't exist.

I can't see how you make this logical assumption. But to clarify what i was trying to say ... In the ultimate view, we are in heaven - there is nothing outside of God and heaven, but we can't see it. Our attitude is like a cloud that covers the sun. The sun is still there, but we cant see it. I wasn't saying god hates atheists or anything, only that if you know you are in heaven, you know for sure god exists. God defines heaven ie heaven is god's abode, or the presence of god is heaven. The absence of god is where we are - we cant see him although he does still exist.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. He has full power, full knowledge and is unable to do anything but that which is most benevolent. Everything that occurs, be it joy, sadness, cancer... must be the most beneficient thing that could possibly occur.

Otherwise God by definition does not exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 8:56:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. He has full power, full knowledge and is unable to do anything but that which is most benevolent. Everything that occurs, be it joy, sadness, cancer... must be the most beneficient thing that could possibly occur.

Otherwise God by definition does not exist.

I can't follow your logic. What's your definition of God?

God is not constrained in any way. He's unlimited. He's under no obligation to do the most benevolent thing. He does whatever he damn well likes. He's God.
Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 5:58:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God wants man to choose heaven. That being the case, why would he give us heaven on Earth?

Prove that first statement. And then, the better question is why wouldn't God give us heaven on Earth? Why did (hypothetically) God create this biblical story that made us bad in the first place, and as a reusult brought unhappiness and pain into reality?
--------------------------------------------
Heaven is defined as god's abode ie where god is. Its not about being a sycophant, its about accepting the reality that in comparison to god you are a servant. As an analogy, in comparison to you, your dog is your servant. Its not that you expect fido to flatter you, its just a law of nature that you are in control due to your superior nature. God loves the atheists just as much as the theist. Actually I personally think he would like some of them alot better than some theists. Depends on your attitude more than your conclusion.

Again, this does not logically follow. For a start you cannot prove that your interpretation of God is the right one, and if it is it still fails to answer my question. Why is there suffering when it is, by the claimed nature of God, un-necessary?
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 8:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/22/2011 1:49:05 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
I dont think you understood my argument. I am questioning the very foundation of the necessity of the existance of suffering, and ergo, evil.

Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.

This argument, the Morally Sufficient Reason, fails. If free will were in fact the MSR, it would follow that suffering is a necessary evil for the propagation of free will. But free will frequently is the *cause* of suffering. But then we have a real problem on our hands...

First, if free will causes suffering, then suffering cannot be a necessary prerequisite for free will, because the will could chose not to make others suffer.

And second, free will does not explain natural evils that the Problem of Evil addresses - i.e. God could have made the world without tsunamis and active volcanoes.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 1:29:02 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
Similar to the Problem of evil, I am representing an argument that outlines the immorality of a God, if it can be assumed that;
Axiom- God Exists.
Axiom- God is the Creator of the Universe
Axiom- God is at least powerful enough to create a world morally better than our own, by human rights standard.

Assuming the above, you have the traditional Problem of Evil arguments;
Suffering exists, why? Suffering is the result of human imperfection.
Evil exists, why? Evil is the absence of Good, not in itself a feature of reality.
Etc etc…

However, I find that all of these arguments (and counter-arguments) are held within a narrow spectrum of reality. This reality. My argument is instead and argument of opportunity;

The way I see it (and arguably the way that the whole concept of God is argued) is;
God came first, our world came soon after.

Why do we philosophise then, with the idea that:
We came first, and now we must explain Gods justification for this specific world?

If I may give you an analogy:
-Imagine a brilliant inventor, who could create the most perfect of things. His scale of greatness was unmatched, and his limits far greater than any other mans. Imagine then, that he was proposed by another to make a machine that would give its user a feeling of absolute bliss. A personal heaven for anyone lucky enough to experience it. The challenge was accepted, and the inventor worked for months building this masterpiece. Eventually it was created, and as a thank you to the guy who came up with the idea, he allowed the man to use the machine first. Before beginning, however, he warned;
"I am afraid you must go through a terrible amount of pain before this machine can work."
The man was shocked! Surely the inventor could create a machine that would not require such suffering! Surely a machine that did not require such suffering could be made by this man! When this very idea was proposed, there was no answer.
This rather terrible analogy illustrates two points:
Firstly, how do you justify on a moral level the existence of suffering, when it's fundamental existence can be removed by an extremely powerful world maker? The existence of suffering, it is argued, is only necessary because God made it so. Why so, I ask? Just like the sceptic in the analogy so asked.
Secondly, using the above as a basis for deeper thinking, could it be said that all theological arguments supporting the existence of imperfection are unnecessary, meaningless and ultimately cruel?

Simply: If God is powerful enough to create a world that requires necessary evil, then what prevents him from creating a world that does not require necessary evil, if not immorality, or incapability?

Conclusions: Either;
-God is not powerful enough to create a more moral world.
-God is immoral to our perception, and therefore anyone who has this philosophical opinion will be in no ethical position to worship.
-? Your own conclusions?

Cheers,
Nick Walker

Sorry, just out of curiosity, please tell me if this argument has already been presented before. It's not the first time I'll feel like I've discovered the wheel, only to walk past a motorway… metaphorically. Bloody Hard Determinists!

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation. As such, what is moral and immoral can only be according to the standards in which Allah has created, in acccordance to the system and purpose within creation. Within that system, Allah has created humans with the ability to do evil or good by the choices in which they decide. Surely, Allah can make humans without evil and a world without evil. However, according to who's standards is making a creation with the ability to choose good or evil an immoral act? Allah did not create evil, but made humans with the ability to choose good or evil because the purpose of life is for humankind to be judged off of their merit and behavior. So within the system of life in which Allah created, immorality is when a someone chooses evil, thus Allah is not immoral because he did not choose evil. He only created an existence in which people have an ability to choose evil. The evil that a person chooses is therefore a creation of themself, not Allah.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 5:22:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 8:12:16 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/22/2011 3:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/22/2011 1:49:05 PM, Nickwalker12 wrote:
I dont think you understood my argument. I am questioning the very foundation of the necessity of the existance of suffering, and ergo, evil.

Sure it's possible that in the best possible world there is no suffering. But on the other hand, evil might be a necessary consequence of another beneficial thing, such as free will. It would therefore be logically impossible for God to create a world with both free will and no suffering, and God apparently chose free will over suffering.

This argument, the Morally Sufficient Reason, fails. If free will were in fact the MSR, it would follow that suffering is a necessary evil for the propagation of free will. But free will frequently is the *cause* of suffering. But then we have a real problem on our hands...

First, if free will causes suffering, then suffering cannot be a necessary prerequisite for free will, because the will could chose not to make others suffer.

This is erroneous as having free will does not entail knowing which choices are evil (and liable to cause suffering) and which are good. (and won't)

And second, free will does not explain natural evils that the Problem of Evil addresses - i.e. God could have made the world without tsunamis and active volcanoes.

As the Bible clearly teaches, dominion of ALL creation was given to man, when man fell creation fell with him because:

Romans 8:19-22
New International Version (NIV)

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:57:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. You can't handwave away his culpability for evil because it is the direct result of his actions or his omissions.

If I put a bulldog and a five year old together in a play pit and the dog kills the child I can't say to the court that I am innocent, I merely allowed the dog free will.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:03:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:57:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. You can't handwave away his culpability for evil because it is the direct result of his actions or his omissions.

If I put a bulldog and a five year old together in a play pit and the dog kills the child I can't say to the court that I am innocent, I merely allowed the dog free will.

Response: Your decision is innocent if your intent was not to hurt the child. However, the decision was foolish, but you are still innocent based on your intent. You are only not innocent if your intent was to hurt the child.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:11:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:03:13 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:57:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. You can't handwave away his culpability for evil because it is the direct result of his actions or his omissions.

If I put a bulldog and a five year old together in a play pit and the dog kills the child I can't say to the court that I am innocent, I merely allowed the dog free will.

Response: Your decision is innocent if your intent was not to hurt the child. However, the decision was foolish, but you are still innocent based on your intent. You are only not innocent if your intent was to hurt the child.

A criminal court would hold me liable due to the reasonable consequences of my acts and omissions. God has full knowledge of his acts and omissions, how does he avoid culpability?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:11:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:03:13 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:57:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. You can't handwave away his culpability for evil because it is the direct result of his actions or his omissions.

If I put a bulldog and a five year old together in a play pit and the dog kills the child I can't say to the court that I am innocent, I merely allowed the dog free will.

Response: Your decision is innocent if your intent was not to hurt the child. However, the decision was foolish, but you are still innocent based on your intent. You are only not innocent if your intent was to hurt the child.

A criminal court would hold me liable due to the reasonable consequences of my acts and omissions. God has full knowledge of his acts and omissions, how does he avoid culpability?

Response: What a criminal court will do and will not do has no relation to Allah. Liability and evil are not synonymous terms. I'm speaking in terms of whether someone is evil, not liable. Allah judges deds by intent, and none of the actions of Allah is done with evil intent. Therefore, his actions are not evil.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:19:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:11:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:03:13 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:57:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:54:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:58:35 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/29/2011 11:49:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: The difficulty in such an argument is that Allah(God) is the originator of nature and all of creation... Allah did not create evil...

Where did evil come from if Allah made all of creation, but did not make evil?

Response: The evil comes from whomever commits it. Evil is judged by intent. It's not evil if I kill someone in self-defense, but it's evil if I kill someone because I don't like them. Same act, but different intent. Similarly, Allah created humans who have the ability to choose evil, but has also brought guidance and a religion to guide humans to good. Therefore, Allah is not evil, because his intent is not to cause evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. You can't handwave away his culpability for evil because it is the direct result of his actions or his omissions.

If I put a bulldog and a five year old together in a play pit and the dog kills the child I can't say to the court that I am innocent, I merely allowed the dog free will.

Response: Your decision is innocent if your intent was not to hurt the child. However, the decision was foolish, but you are still innocent based on your intent. You are only not innocent if your intent was to hurt the child.

A criminal court would hold me liable due to the reasonable consequences of my acts and omissions. God has full knowledge of his acts and omissions, how does he avoid culpability?

Response: What a criminal court will do and will not do has no relation to Allah. Liability and evil are not synonymous terms. I'm speaking in terms of whether someone is evil, not liable. Allah judges deeds by intent, and none of the actions of Allah is done with evil intent. Therefore, his actions are not evil.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:17:54 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: What a criminal court will do and will not do has no relation to Allah. Liability and evil are not synonymous terms. I'm speaking in terms of whether someone is evil, not liable. Allah judges deds by intent, and none of the actions of Allah is done with evil intent. Therefore, his actions are not evil.

Have you ever had a rational thought in your entire life?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.