Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God's allowance of free will and "bad"

tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is foxes to love you, or a person of legit loves you?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is forced to love you, or a person of legit loves you?

Fixd.

Screw iPad spell check.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:33:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"All things must needs be a compound in one; … no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility" 2 Nephi 2:11

"they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" 2 Nephi 2:23
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:33:29 PM, tyler90az wrote:
"All things must needs be a compound in one; … no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility" 2 Nephi 2:11

"they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" 2 Nephi 2:23

...yeah, because those who see this as a problem always accept the authority of the Bible...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:46:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.

In order for there to be a positive, there must be a negative.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:46:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.

In order for there to be a positive, there must be a negative.

Ober, I agree that there must be a conceptual "negative". But you've made a false conclusion that the opposite of good is evil (and therefore vice versa). The opposite of good is not-good. I do not see a reason to define not-good as evil. But even then, the important thing is that a) you can have a conceptual negative, but not an actual negative, and b) there can be a reduced level of evil in the world while retaining free will.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 4:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is foxes to love you, or a person of legit loves you?

Except if the person DOESN'T legit love you, they get to suffer horribly for it.

There really is no such thing as free will under Christianity: there's the illusion that God wants you to freely choose him: but the thing is is that, options weighed, there is no alternative to suffering BUT to love Him.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:50:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:46:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.

In order for there to be a positive, there must be a negative.

Ober, I agree that there must be a conceptual "negative". But you've made a false conclusion that the opposite of good is evil (and therefore vice versa). The opposite of good is not-good. I do not see a reason to define not-good as evil. But even then, the important thing is that a) you can have a conceptual negative, but not an actual negative, and b) there can be a reduced level of evil in the world while retaining free will.

What is not-good to you? The not-good your referring to is what I refer to as evil.

Also how can you experience happiness without unhappiness? What shows you what happiness is, if you have not experienced the opposite? If there was happiness, without unhappiness, happiness would be our normal, it would not be happiness. How would you know what bitter is without sweet? It is the same concept...

The bad created by free will I am referring to is interactions with each other. The only "bad" not created by humans is what you stated, natural disasters.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:07:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:14:00 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:50:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:46:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.

In order for there to be a positive, there must be a negative.

Ober, I agree that there must be a conceptual "negative". But you've made a false conclusion that the opposite of good is evil (and therefore vice versa). The opposite of good is not-good. I do not see a reason to define not-good as evil. But even then, the important thing is that a) you can have a conceptual negative, but not an actual negative, and b) there can be a reduced level of evil in the world while retaining free will.


What is not-good to you? The not-good your referring to is what I refer to as evil.
Not-good is neutral. Not-evil is neutral. If an object is not-green, it doesn't make it blue. If an object is not-good, doesn't make it evil.

Also how can you experience happiness without unhappiness?
You don't need to experience unhappiness to know what it is. I don't know what pregnancy is like, I've never experienced it, I never will (unless some magical event happens that makes men pregnant). That doesn't mean I don't know what pregnancy is. I know of it through concept, not through experience.
What shows you what happiness is, if you have not experienced the opposite?
Concept, not experience, is a valid way of knowing what is good/evil, what is right/wrong, what is pregnant/not-pregnant, what is fire/ice, etc. etc. etc.

If there was happiness, without unhappiness, happiness would be our normal, it would not be happiness.
No, because you are saying our A would be ~A. That breaks the law of non-contradiction. Happiness would remain happy. And I still have no idea what your argument is for showing happiness is the direct opposite is unhappiness.

How would you know what bitter is without sweet? It is the same concept...
Truthfully, I have a poor sense of taste: I know what is sour, and I know what is hot, but that's about it when it comes to giving a name to a taste. Even when I am tasting it, I cannot say unless it is hot/sour. The point of that long winded story was this: How should I know bitter with sweet? I get around this problem when I am with foodies by quickly asking the waiter of a restaurant what the food tastes like, or making a mental note of what these foods taste like. In the same respect, I learn of injustice/unhappiness/evil through what others tell me it tastes like.

But how do you know? From my knowledge, people simply "know" that certain groups of food taste a specific way, that is, they can tell whether something is sour or not, regardless of their knowledge of the word. In the same way, people "know" what they enjoy before having to be told they enjoy it from intuitionist ideas.

This follows on from the idea that there is a "good, neutral, evil" idea rather than a "good, evil" idea. Let me give an example: if you are asleep, say, asleep for a week. Say you're in the 4th day in to that week sleeping. Would it be good or evil? It obviously isn't good; unless you can give a reason why this would entail good, then I hold that it is not-good. However, you claimed that if it is not-good, then it is evil. I would reject this also. This leaves us with a neutrality. To make it a syllogism:

P1) A complete state of doing nothing is not good / does not make you happy.
P2) A complete state of doing nothing is not evil / does not make you unhappy.
C1) Therefore, there is a neutral, apathetic grounds.
P3) There is a difference between neutrality and good.
C2) Therefore, one can experience happiness and non-happiness with evil not existing.

The bad created by free will I am referring to is interactions with each other. The only "bad" not created by humans is what you stated, natural disasters.

So you concede that evil happens outside the will of human beings? I understand this as being a gratuitous evil, a grave threat to any omni-triad deity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 6:16:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 6:07:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:14:00 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:50:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:46:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:43:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:40:27 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:36:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?
Yes.

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?
Yes.

Without bad is there good?
Yes.

The problem is null. As long as there is a theoretical "good" and "evil", then there does not need to be a practical one. And even then, there is debate whether we need evil for there to be good. There is a meme which expresses this very clearly:

http://www.debate.org...

Or more obviously:

http://www.debate.org...

You don't need "evil" to the scale that the world has. You don't need "evil" to the level that people live in extreme pain, under oppressive regimes, when in other countries people live full and happy lives all the time. The inequality of good to evil is the argument I usually use to clarify this, but the point is still clear.

That is all a result of free will, not of God. If God decided the level of 'bad' in the world, free will would cease. Furthermore, if free will did not exist, happiness would not exist. For what is happiness without unhappiness? It is not possible, for without experiencing both, neither exist.

Again, I reject the idea that happiness requires unhappiness on a practical level. Again, I reject the false dichotomy that it is either free will as we have now, or no free will at all (imagine a world without Schadenfreude - an inbuilt psychological feature - and that is a world better). Also, you can replace oppressive government with lands of desert, no food, and sandstorms killing people. Or massive tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes which kill millions. These are not the result of free will.

In order for there to be a positive, there must be a negative.

Ober, I agree that there must be a conceptual "negative". But you've made a false conclusion that the opposite of good is evil (and therefore vice versa). The opposite of good is not-good. I do not see a reason to define not-good as evil. But even then, the important thing is that a) you can have a conceptual negative, but not an actual negative, and b) there can be a reduced level of evil in the world while retaining free will.


What is not-good to you? The not-good your referring to is what I refer to as evil.
Not-good is neutral. Not-evil is neutral. If an object is not-green, it doesn't make it blue. If an object is not-good, doesn't make it evil.

Also how can you experience happiness without unhappiness?
You don't need to experience unhappiness to know what it is. I don't know what pregnancy is like, I've never experienced it, I never will (unless some magical event happens that makes men pregnant). That doesn't mean I don't know what pregnancy is. I know of it through concept, not through experience.
What shows you what happiness is, if you have not experienced the opposite?
Concept, not experience, is a valid way of knowing what is good/evil, what is right/wrong, what is pregnant/not-pregnant, what is fire/ice, etc. etc. etc.

If there was happiness, without unhappiness, happiness would be our normal, it would not be happiness.
No, because you are saying our A would be ~A. That breaks the law of non-contradiction. Happiness would remain happy. And I still have no idea what your argument is for showing happiness is the direct opposite is unhappiness.

How would you know what bitter is without sweet? It is the same concept...
Truthfully, I have a poor sense of taste: I know what is sour, and I know what is hot, but that's about it when it comes to giving a name to a taste. Even when I am tasting it, I cannot say unless it is hot/sour. The point of that long winded story was this: How should I know bitter with sweet? I get around this problem when I am with foodies by quickly asking the waiter of a restaurant what the food tastes like, or making a mental note of what these foods taste like. In the same respect, I learn of injustice/unhappiness/evil through what others tell me it tastes like.

But how do you know? From my knowledge, people simply "know" that certain groups of food taste a specific way, that is, they can tell whether something is sour or not, regardless of their knowledge of the word. In the same way, people "know" what they enjoy before having to be told they enjoy it from intuitionist ideas.

This follows on from the idea that there is a "good, neutral, evil" idea rather than a "good, evil" idea. Let me give an example: if you are asleep, say, asleep for a week. Say you're in the 4th day in to that week sleeping. Would it be good or evil? It obviously isn't good; unless you can give a reason why this would entail good, then I hold that it is not-good. However, you claimed that if it is not-good, then it is evil. I would reject this also. This leaves us with a neutrality. To make it a syllogism:

P1) A complete state of doing nothing is not good / does not make you happy.
P2) A complete state of doing nothing is not evil / does not make you unhappy.
C1) Therefore, there is a neutral, apathetic grounds.
P3) There is a difference between neutrality and good.
C2) Therefore, one can experience happiness and non-happiness with evil not existing.

The bad created by free will I am referring to is interactions with each other. The only "bad" not created by humans is what you stated, natural disasters.

So you concede that evil happens outside the will of human beings? I understand this as being a gratuitous evil, a grave threat to any omni-triad deity.

The Fool: so you understand now the difference between a word and its IDEA
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 7:58:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

What is not-good to you? The not-good your referring to is what I refer to as evil.
Not-good is neutral. Not-evil is neutral. If an object is not-green, it doesn't make it blue. If an object is not-good, doesn't make it evil.

This is rather pointless, the point was that you can't tell what is good if you don't know bad. More so, you can't correctly discern what is good without bad.

Trying to prove your opinion by saying not-green is not blue makes no sense. You are giving an example with more then one option. There is really only one other option if something is not good, it is bad. Therefore, the opposite of good is bad. Similar to how the opposite of up is down, the opposite of left is right, etc.

Alsohow can you experience happiness without unhappiness?
You don't need to experience unhappiness to know what it is. I don't know what pregnancy is like, I've never experienced it, I never will (unless some magical event happens that makes men pregnant). That doesn't mean I don't know what pregnancy is. I know of it through concept, not through experience.

That is the point you don't know it through experience. Surely I can know the concept of anything, but experience is more important.

What shows you what happiness is, if you have not experienced the opposite?
Concept, not experience, is a valid way of knowing what is good/evil, what is right/wrong, what is pregnant/not-pregnant, what is fire/ice, etc. etc. etc.

You don't know what is wrong without knowing what is right. That experience is vital...

If there was happiness, without unhappiness, happiness would be our normal, it would not be happiness.
No, because you are saying our A would be ~A. That breaks the law of non-contradiction. Happiness would remain happy. And I still have no idea what your argument is for showing happiness is the direct opposite is unhappiness.

You are right we would technically be happy. However, would we truly be happy without experiencing unhappiness. When is rest the best? It is off course after working a long day. If you rest all day without work, it is not as good.

How would you know what bitter is without sweet? It is the same concept...
Truthfully, I have a poor sense of taste: I know what is sour, and I know what is hot, but that's about it when it comes to giving a name to a taste. Even when I am tasting it, I cannot say unless it is hot/sour. The point of that long winded story was this: How should I know bitter with sweet? I get around this problem when I am with foodies by quickly asking the waiter of a restaurant what the food tastes like, or making a mental note of what these foods taste like. In the same respect, I learn of injustice/unhappiness/evil through what others tell me it tastes like.
But how do you know? From my knowledge, people simply "know" that certain groups of food taste a specific way, that is, they can tell whether something is sour or not, regardless of their knowledge of the word. In the same way, people "know" what they enjoy before having to be told they enjoy it from intuitionist ideas.

That is irrelevant to the argument, because if there was no bad, nobody would have experienced it. Therefore, there is nobody to ask.

This follows on from the idea that there is a "good, neutral, evil" idea rather than a "good, evil" idea. Let me give an example: if you are asleep, say, asleep for a week. Say you're in the 4th day in to that week sleeping. Would it be good or evil? It obviously isn't good; unless you can give a reason why this would entail good, then I hold that it is not-good. However, you claimed that if it is not-good, then it is evil. I would reject this also. This leaves us with a neutrality. To make it a syllogism:

P1) A complete state of doing nothing is not good / does not make you happy.
P2) A complete state of doing nothing is not evil / does not make you unhappy.
C1) Therefore, there is a neutral, apathetic grounds.
P3) There is a difference between neutrality and good.
C2) Therefore, one can experience happiness and non-happiness with evil not existing.

That is irrelevant to the debate. I am simply stating, that without good you can not know bad, or vice verse. Rather there is neutral or not is the same idea, you would not know good, bad or neutral. However, most people think in good and bad terms.

The bad created by free will I am referring to is interactions with each other. The only "bad" not created by humans is what you stated, natural disasters.

So you concede that evil happens outside the will of human beings? I understand this as being a gratuitous evil, a grave threat to any omni-triad deity.

How is that a threat to omniscient deity?

What foot said, do you understand the difference between a word and an idea?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would point out and echo Tyler's point, there is a Theological dichotomy concerning Good and Evil. It is not a false dichotomy.

Evil is by definition absence of good. There is no middle or neutral ground.
For example: is playing video games good or evil? since it is an absence of good then by theological definition it is evil.

Axiom examples, "when good people do nothing, they are evil".

We also recognize there are other definitions of evil like a philosophical one evil = suffering/pain. However, the theological definition creates the dichotomy, to not act for good is to act for evil.

That is why when we say their is no middle ground for the atheist, there is a dichotomy to "No God" vs. "A God". The atheist does not have a middle ground to hide in. There cannot be a claim to neutrality to oppose the assertion.

A claim of non belief is to assert "No God".
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:38:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?:

All that means is in relation to perspective. Light is still light without darkness, and it doesn't explain why there needs to be "bad" things.

If an Eskimo doesn't know life without snow, and an Amazionian tribesman doesn't know life with snow, snow is still snow. It just means one has knowledge of it and the other doesn't.

I'm sure you thought you were being really clever here, but all this means is that things can be contrasted with other things. Not exactly worthy of an epiphany moment
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:40:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is foxes to love you, or a person of legit loves you?:

Here's a test for you: Would you rather love someone who threatens you with eternal damnation for not loving them back, or would you rather love someone who loves you for who you are?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:38:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?:

All that means is in relation to perspective. Light is still light without darkness, and it doesn't explain why there needs to be "bad" things.

That is irrelevant to the debate, we are talking about experiencing something and not experiencing.

If an Eskimo doesn't know life without snow, and an Amazionian tribesman doesn't know life with snow, snow is still snow. It just means one has knowledge of it and the other doesn't.

That is exactly the point, you can not know what is good without bad or happiness without unhappiness. Although you may know unhappiness exists, you have not experienced it. When is rest the best? Off course it is after a hard days work. Similar thinking would say, happiness is the best after experience unhappiness. If you have not experienced unhappiness, happiness is just the norm.

I'm sure you thought you were being really clever here, but all this means is that things can be contrasted with other things. Not exactly worthy of an epiphany moment

Drawing conclusions by saying it was n epiphany moment! This is Latter-day Saint doctrine I have known for awhile.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
2 Nephi 2:11

39 And it must needs be that the adevil should btempt the children of men, or they could not be cagents unto themselves; for if they never should have dbitter they could not know the sweet—
D&C 29:39
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:40:28 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is foxes to love you, or a person of legit loves you?:

Here's a test for you: Would you rather love someone who threatens you with eternal damnation for not loving them back, or would you rather love someone who loves you for who you are?

God loves everyone no matter what. In addition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in eternal damnation(the way your thinking).
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:52:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:33:29 PM, tyler90az wrote:
"All things must needs be a compound in one; … no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility" 2 Nephi 2:11

"they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" 2 Nephi 2:23
Quoting your preferred Story book is supposed to do what for your claims?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is irrelevant to the debate, we are talking about experiencing something and not experiencing.:

It's not irrelevant. If you lived in constant sunlight, whether or not you understood what darkness was doesn't negate that fact.

If an Eskimo doesn't know life without snow, and an Amazionian tribesman doesn't know life with snow, snow is still snow. It just means one has knowledge of it and the other doesn't.

That is exactly the point, you can not know what is good without bad or happiness without unhappiness.:

Sure you can. You just wouldn't contrast it with anything else. Happiness would simply be an ordinary state or condition.

Drawing conclusions by saying it was n epiphany moment! This is Latter-day Saint doctrine I have known for awhile.:

This is a dispensationalist doctrine used by apologists for a long time, and they use because they think they're making some grand point that is gonna make people say, "Wow!" But it fails to do that on so many levels.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:30:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:21:12 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
That is irrelevant to the debate, we are talking about experiencing something and not experiencing.:

It's not irrelevant. If you lived in constant sunlight, whether or not you understood what darkness was doesn't negate that fact.

If an Eskimo doesn't know life without snow, and an Amazionian tribesman doesn't know life with snow, snow is still snow. It just means one has knowledge of it and the other doesn't.

That is exactly the point, you can not know what is good without bad or happiness without unhappiness.:

Sure you can. You just wouldn't contrast it with anything else. Happiness would simply be an ordinary state or condition.

Exactly, you it the nail on the head! It would be an ordinary state or condition, it would not be happiness as we know it. There would be no happiness, just an ordinary state or condition.

Drawing conclusions by saying it was n epiphany moment! This is Latter-day Saint doctrine I have known for awhile.:

This is a dispensationalist doctrine used by apologists for a long time, and they use because they think they're making some grand point that is gonna make people say, "Wow!" But it fails to do that on so many levels.

Might I ask how does it fail?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:45:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exactly, you it the nail on the head! It would be an ordinary state or condition, it would not be happiness as we know it. There would be no happiness, just an ordinary state or condition.:

So happiness is not really happiness in heaven. Resolved. Unless of course you think there's this abundance of evil in heaven making it possible to enjoy happiness.

Might I ask how does it fail?:

Because happiness is still happiness, even if there is nothing to contrast it with. Darkness still exists without light, and vice versa. What you really mean to say is that we would not be able to appreciate good if it were not possible to know bad. But as we know from scripture, the intent was to insulate man in a state of perpetual goodness, was it not? If that was the motivation all along, he could at any time made that possible. But he didn't.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

yes

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

yes

Without bad is there good?

yes

You are forgetting that there isn't just good and bad, there are neutral things.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:30:49 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Also, it's the free will. Almost like a test.

I don't want to worship a God who creates me exactly as I am and then feels the need to test me.

I mean, would you rather love a robot, that is foxes to love you, or a person of legit loves you?

Someone who loves you sends you to burn for eternity if you don't do as he says?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:33:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

If God is all powerful, could he not have created happiness without having to have unhappiness? Are you saying that God is so impotent that he couldn't even create a universe where happiness is possible without unhappiness? By asking if it's possible, you basically are questioning God's ability

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Once again you are questioning your own God's ability. If you believe in an all powerful God, then he could have created a universe where happiness was possible without unhappiness.

Without bad is there good?

Maybe this is a good point regarding the universe we live in and how the human psychi works to balance itself out, but you keep denying your own God's abilities. If God wanted to, could he not have created a world where happiness was possible without unhappiness? Or do you believe he is just sadistic?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:36:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?

For this to be an argument, you essentially have to infer that god is a petty douche; that he is one of those individuals that measures his happiness by other's suffering.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:06:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 12:36:39 AM, Physik wrote:
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?

For this to be an argument, you essentially have to infer that god is a petty douche; that he is one of those individuals that measures his happiness by other's suffering.

judwhfhijdjaq
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 5:52:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 4:29:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
A lot of people don't understand why God would allow free will or "bad" in the world. I will pose questions for everyone to think about.

Is happiness possible without unhappiness?

Without the right to choose bad things which lead to unhappiness, can there be happiness?

Without bad is there good?

Also, how can you make a nice hot bubble bath any nicer than it already is?

By coming in from outdoors where it's freezing and raining and you're wet-through..

The same with heaven; because of this life, eternal life will be ALL the sweeter!

The final chapter of Johns gospel (21) has the perfect illustration of this: Peter and the disciples go out fishing at night but catch nothing.. as dawn breaks Jesus stands on the shore and shouts for them to 'fish on the other side of the boat'.. they do so and catch a huge haul..

As they arrive on shore the see Jesus with a fire of burning coals with fish and bread on it and Jesus says 'Come, and have breakfast!'..

So, the long fruitless night represents this life of toil and disappointment, and the shore and fire and food represent heaven and the breaking of the fast (breakfast) from God!
The Cross.. the Cross.