Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gratuitous evil is impossible to prove

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 1:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Well, the suffering in that situation would still be gratuitous, even in light of this "pay back". If a lightening bolt strikes a man in a jungle, and he suffers for hours before finally dying a horrible death, then it's still gratuitous suffering even if he is offered a life in heaven. This is because, he would have gotten this life in heaven most likely anyway even if this never happened. It would still be without a good reason in my opinion.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:03:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:22:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Well, the suffering in that situation would still be gratuitous, even in light of this "pay back". If a lightening bolt strikes a man in a jungle, and he suffers for hours before finally dying a horrible death, then it's still gratuitous suffering even if he is offered a life in heaven. This is because, he would have gotten this life in heaven most likely anyway even if this never happened. It would still be without a good reason in my opinion.

Unless God had a reason to allow evil on earth. His paying it back would make it justified and the reason would make it not gratuitous.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assertion.

Meant to say assertion,
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 11:25:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Thought this may help answer some questions.

Intro to Hate:
It has been popular amongst those who make claims of some form of social righteousness that actions, sanctions, or aggressions should be made against those that Hate. And there is an often a good reason because Hate is the emotion of Evil. With what justification should I say such things? You should always be asking me. And I as anybody should be forced to give a rational argument for my CLAIMS.

1. The Proof of Hate in itself:
For hate in itself is nothing more than the emotion of anger/dislike. Emotion stems from the conception of MOTION. E as in internal motion. Aka MOTIVATION. That is anger is the motivation to ‘harm'. This one is easiest conception to grasp because all you have to is picture the world devoid of this this emotion and you will not be able to formulate the idea. Therefore Hate is anger and so by necessity The Hater is the angry person.

2. The argument of Hate as evil:
As I said earlier Hate is the evil emotion, why? Because it is the only emotion which HURTS the person that feels it and the ones they hates. It is also the necessary condition of the INTENTIONAL harm of others.
Even worse, the satisfaction of this emotion is Schadenfreude. A word only in German.

That is the pleasure from the satisfaction of anger(its abolition) is pleasure of the suffering of someone else. I call it appropriately in English The devils pleasure. Hey we don't have one yet So that is official. Straight from the Hill!. Why call it this? Because it's a contradiction of utility, it can only give pleasure at the suffering of others which thus never having the possibly of being Good in itself.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 11:29:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit.
E as in endo- as in inside/internal.

Like how endorphines means internal Morphine. They work on the same receptors alleviating pain. Anyways it based on the etymology. . where the conceptions come from.
"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
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 6:21:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:22:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Well, the suffering in that situation would still be gratuitous, even in light of this "pay back". If a lightening bolt strikes a man in a jungle, and he suffers for hours before finally dying a horrible death, then it's still gratuitous suffering even if he is offered a life in heaven. This is because, he would have gotten this life in heaven most likely anyway even if this never happened. It would still be without a good reason in my opinion.

That would be more inscrutable evil. You even said, "That would still be without a good reason in my opinion." But the theist would claim you could not know it is gratuitous, which means it is only inscrutable.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 6:23:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

Having evil caused by free will may be better than no evil and no free will. If true, that is one reason God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:05:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 6:23:04 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

Having evil caused by free will may be better than no evil and no free will. If true, that is one reason God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.

Agreed. I don't believe that's it's true. If I was given the choice between having free will and almost inevitably choosing evil, thus being corrupt and condemned; and not having free will. I would have chosen the latter.

What I find interesting is, given the high value supposedly attributed to Free Will, so much that it justifies all of the sufferring in the world, that I wasn't given this simple choice. I didn't have Free Will regarding my Free Will. I was denied the most important choice I could have been given.

Another thing, why does Free Will guarantee evil? Can't a person, of their own Free Will, choose to always do good?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:43:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 6:23:04 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

Having evil caused by free will may be better than no evil and no free will. If true, that is one reason God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.

The Fool: free will is not a cause. Its a lack of one. Free=0 nonexistence. Pay back is just as evil. Being in pain or death does'nt pay anything it just creates more suffering. People should actually pay back with contrabution to the society they took from. That is in some form of work. Make them a slave for society(with some human rights/dignity) This gives them a chance to give back. A chance to think about long and hard about what they did. And is an actual paying back. Not a metaphysical notion. The worse the crime the longer and more paying back. This give a chance for people to earn there way back into society.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:45:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:27:39 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assertion.

Meant to say assertion,

The Fool: its pretty clear, and well founded. and rationa. why have it at all? If evil bad then its never good. Because that would contradict what it is. So why not have no bad, then have to have double the badness. Its as rational as it gets.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:47:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

The Fool: this not so much in line with the rationality of you last claims. LOL!. You might as well go back on their team.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:48:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 8:47:21 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

The Fool: this not so much in line with the rationality of you last claims. LOL!. You might as well go back on their team.

What are you gibbering about?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 9:06:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 8:48:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 8:47:21 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

The Fool: this not so much in line with the rationality of you last claims. LOL!. You might as well go back on their team.

What are you gibbering about?

The Fool: If you were really interested you would know, my english is clear in these particular messages. What was perceived as gibber what that I was backing you up on your first claim.

'Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.'

The Fool: good and well founded rational argument.

'As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.'
"And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom."

The Fool: this one not so good. You might as well make God an axiom, we dont really make axioms, but we recognize and discover them. If they are the only choice like in logic. They are not assumptions. You dont have a choice in assuming them. Well not more the choice of choosing to insane. They are "justified" because they are the only choice. The only axioms that we have is the necessary axioms.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:41:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 6:23:04 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

Having evil caused by free will may be better than no evil and no free will. If true, that is one reason God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.

Free-will defence is bull-sh!t. It assumes moral free-will wouldn't exist if God got rid of evil.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:51:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:05:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

The Problem of Evil is unapologetically inductive. It relies on the assumption that when we see something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we call it a duck. Essentially, you can hold that this position stands (the more commonly known response of Unknown Purpose Defence): it's just simple: do you believe that when you see a child getting raped, is there a more morally efficient solution? Or when you saw the boxing day tsunami, was this the most moral event possible?
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...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:07:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:51:33 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:07:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

I think that's a good point.

What I think is a better point is that the PoE attempts to blame God for something that humans introduced and maintain.

One way of looking at it is that God presented creation with unlimited potential, meaning that even things He would disagree with are possible. With the introduction of free will, these possibilities came to fruition as soon as they were incentivized to man.

What the Problem of Evil is really suggesting is that a maximally great God would have never created anything, because He pervades everything, and given He already exists, everything was already there before He could have created it Himself (in other words, that there is no distinction between creation and God, and thus, that God could not have created Creation, as it existed from the moment He did).

The only way that creation could be distinct from God is if it were different.

The only way for it to be different is for it to contain or have the capacity for evil.

It's a brilliantly specious argument.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:09:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:07:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:51:33 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.

I thought I made it clear. It's cancelled out in terms of retribution.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:21:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:09:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 11:07:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:51:33 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.

I thought I made it clear. It's cancelled out in terms of retribution.

Retribution doesn't undo the sufferring that was initially caused. Only going back in time and preventing the event can do that.

If someone's child was murdered, the parents may lament that there isn't punishment sufficient enough to do the crime justice, but I'm sure if you gave them a choice to have the murdered punished to their satisfaction, or to never have had their child murdered to begin with, they're going to choose the latter option.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:30:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:21:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 11:09:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 11:07:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:51:33 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:42:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.

I thought I made it clear. It's cancelled out in terms of retribution.

Retribution doesn't undo the sufferring that was initially caused. Only going back in time and preventing the event can do that.

Retribution satisfies justice.

If someone's child was murdered, the parents may lament that there isn't punishment sufficient enough to do the crime justice, but I'm sure if you gave them a choice to have the murdered punished to their satisfaction, or to never have had their child murdered to begin with, they're going to choose the latter option.

I'm not saying for the murderer to be punished. I'm saying the evil initiated against the murdered would be payed back in the next life. And the same goes for the parents. An omnipotent God could make the persons more than content with the evil suffered against them.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:35:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:30:57 AM, phantom wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.

I thought I made it clear. It's cancelled out in terms of retribution.

Retribution doesn't undo the sufferring that was initially caused. Only going back in time and preventing the event can do that.

Retribution satisfies justice.

And what does satisfying justice have to do with the topic at hand?


If someone's child was murdered, the parents may lament that there isn't punishment sufficient enough to do the crime justice, but I'm sure if you gave them a choice to have the murdered punished to their satisfaction, or to never have had their child murdered to begin with, they're going to choose the latter option.

I'm not saying for the murderer to be punished. I'm saying the evil initiated against the murdered would be payed back in the next life. And the same goes for the parents. An omnipotent God could make the persons more than content with the evil suffered against them.

Then why aren't they? And how is that better than the child not being murdered in the first place?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:40:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:34:11 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:51:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/29/2012 10:17:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/29/2012 1:15:08 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm getting more skeptical about the effectiveness of the PoE. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an argument from ignorance that can only operate from a prima-facie likelihood. How on earth can we know gratuitous evil exists? What if God pays back everything that happens on earth and all evil is cancelled out? We have no way of knowing.

Thoughts?

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

What this boils down to is that the victims suffers until the crime is repaid, then he stops suffering. Either way, suffering was experienced, and that can't ever be countered. The suffering is itself what shouldn't occur....retributive justice doesn't meet this end.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:42:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:35:23 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/30/2012 11:30:57 AM, phantom wrote:

Not having evil to begin with is better than having evil and paying it back.

A rather unfounded assumption.

As stated, sure. However, paying back evil doesn't undo the suffering cause by it, which I think is foundation enough for that assertion.

And even if it wasn't, I'll take it as an axiom.

Yes it does, basically. When I say pay back, I mean all evil that occured to a person would be payed back to the extent that the individual would not even care about the suffering he experienced.

Ok. He wouldn't care about it. But he still would have experienced suffering.

But if it's all canceled out, does it really matter?

I don't understand how it's "cancelled out." The sufferring still happened.

I thought I made it clear. It's cancelled out in terms of retribution.

Retribution doesn't undo the sufferring that was initially caused. Only going back in time and preventing the event can do that.

Retribution satisfies justice.

And what does satisfying justice have to do with the topic at hand?

It means God is justified by allowing evil to ravage earth. I'd say that's quite rellevant to the PoE.


If someone's child was murdered, the parents may lament that there isn't punishment sufficient enough to do the crime justice, but I'm sure if you gave them a choice to have the murdered punished to their satisfaction, or to never have had their child murdered to begin with, they're going to choose the latter option.

I'm not saying for the murderer to be punished. I'm saying the evil initiated against the murdered would be payed back in the next life. And the same goes for the parents. An omnipotent God could make the persons more than content with the evil suffered against them.

Then why aren't they?

Why aren't they content? You don't have much faith in an all-powerful God if you don't believe he could make them content with the evil suffered against them in the next life.

And how is that better than the child not being murdered in the first place?

Now your delving further into arguing from ignorance. How do we know if it's better or not? We can't know why God would allow evil which is why gratuitous evil is impossible to prove. So yes, maybe it is better for the evil to take place rather than not take place.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)