thats what im arguing, in this case 'allowing to happen' rather than perform act oneself.
see my earlier example about seeing someone preach hate speech on the sidewalk. It could be seen as evil, indifferent, callous etc by not doing anything, but a moral imperative overrides any lower level, personal motive to silence him-respecting his right to freedom of speech.
|
-
03-19-2013, 04:08 AM #181
-
03-19-2013, 04:31 AM #182
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 6,733
- Rep Power: 10260
Good morning sawoobly, I want to thank you for your detailed reply. Didn't have an opportunity to answer the whole thing yesterday.
I find a contradiction in the idea of a perfect deity making a flawed creation.
I believe a lot of apologetics is about defending this contradiction and trying to justify why a deity who is all-seeing, all-powerful, and all-loving would create a world filled with agony, suffering, and grief.
In this thread I have not been arguing strongly against theism as much. (Though I have a little.)
What I have been arguing is that all of the doctrine surrounding what we think God or gods might be are very likely wrong. Apologetics and doctrine (in my opinion of course) seem to be centered around justifying the immoral, callous, and cruel acts of a supposedly loving deity. I have not been pressing any case against some kind of first cause or deistic creator who put the universe into motion. I have been centering on our ideas characterizing god and how they are likely wrong.
Why did God send a tsunami do destroy Banda Aceh province in Indonesia in 2004?
I find the idea of a omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent deity justifying death and destruction as part of the greater good and part of the mysterious plan as just making an excuse.
Another option is that God is capricious and cruel. The angry deity of the ancient Hebrews is still with us, sending meteor strikes and earthquakes. I reject this as well.
What I think is going on is the universe is not controlled by a conscious will. The doctrine that answers the question of evil is making excuses for a god that doesn't exist.
-
03-19-2013, 08:01 AM #183
-
03-19-2013, 09:36 AM #184
- Join Date: Jul 2004
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 15,274
- Rep Power: 6729
I interpret this as prioritizing an act that a person ought to be able to do, over and above an act that a person is doing, but without really addressing anything to do with the 'intention' bit of the other person. It could still be the case here that you could still view the preacher as inherently evil or as having evil intentions but are just personally not acting to do anything about it due to deeming the ability to speak freely as more important.
It might be that I'm wrongly assuming that we're using the same kind of moral framework when it might not be the case, so just a few quick questions I'd like to put to you first to clear up any misunderstandings on my part if you don't mind answering them:
* Do you agree that people themselves as individuals can be considered to be evil; that evil people can be said to exist?
* Do you agree that viewing a person as evil can be distinctly different from viewing a specific act as being evil?
* Do you think that a person can ever be considered to have evil intentions before an evil act is committed by them?
* When you judge what is evil, do you judge it purely on the favourableness of an actual outcome as opposed to any intended outcome? (A good example here being your previous example of a man shooting at random and because of the fact that he shot a terrorist then he can rightfully be considered good and not evil)
* Finally: If a man traveling in Africa encourages a friend to swim in a pond after seeing other tourists having fun there, would you say that he is to blame for that friend being bitten by a mosquito and contracting malaria?
Not trying to put you on the spot or anything here though and you don't have to answer, just trying to get a better perspective of where we're both at.
-
-
03-19-2013, 09:52 AM #185
-
03-19-2013, 01:44 PM #186
The problem with your example is that you are not god. An omnipotent god would be able to stop the suicide bomber without need to kill him. He'd just poof the bomb out of existence or something. The human examples are flawed because we HAVE to choose the "lesser evil". An omnipotent god doesn't.
Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
-
03-19-2013, 02:12 PM #187
-
03-20-2013, 05:58 AM #188
- Join Date: Jul 2004
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 15,274
- Rep Power: 6729
Disregard the questions in my previous post OP, I think I do understand where you're coming from now after re-reading your posts.
In which case I'll just leave this:
Either a beings intentions are what defines that being as being considered to be benevolent/evil.
Or
Contextual situations are what defines a being as being considered to be benevolent/evil.
If intentions define a beings moral character (benevolent/evil), then god can be said to be a benevolent being who intends good things, but only in the case that his intending to allow evil can be overridden by a more benevolent intention. This is where my argument comes in that if you can personally reason that god has a more benevolent intention for allowing bad things to happen, then you should also be able to personally reason that people who are often considered to be evil for intending to do bad things, can also have their bad intentions overridden by more benevolent intentions so that they too can be viewed as being benevolent beings. In which case every single being can potentially be viewed as being benevolent which contrasts with the concept of evil.
However if contextual situations are what defines a beings moral character (benevolent/evil), then it means that contextual situations are what defines gods character, and if contextual situations defines gods character rather than his intent, then he cannot be considered to be an omnibenevolent being or even omnipotent since contextual situations would presumably have to be acting outside of his intent and control in order for you to form that judgement of whether he's a benevolent being or not.
-
-
03-20-2013, 07:28 AM #189
-
03-20-2013, 07:36 AM #190'On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White' - Rochelle Gutierrez, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Illinois.
-
03-20-2013, 07:43 AM #191
His actions are dependent on what he wants to do. He is not limited. He acts when and how he wants to act for his own purposes.
You cannot make the comparison between God and man. God's good intentions ultimately lead to the desired outcome since he has all power, knowledge and knows the future. Intentions are not the only thing that determine if someone is good. Results matter also.
What do you mean by contextual situations?Last edited by sawoobley; 03-20-2013 at 07:51 AM.
-
03-20-2013, 07:44 AM #192
-
-
03-20-2013, 07:50 AM #193'On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White' - Rochelle Gutierrez, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Illinois.
-
03-20-2013, 08:08 AM #194
Busy as fuark with engineering senior project but it's coming along slowly.
It's legit, there was a whole thread where he defended the idea.
I don't think the problem of evil does anything in terms of disproving god's existence, I don't know why people use it in an attempt to do that.
Yeah that's fine, it's probably not a full blown proof but it definitely puts kinks in the absolute morality armor that god's usually dressed up in IMO.'Prior to the Department of Education, there was no illiteracy'
- Stizzel
-
03-20-2013, 08:26 AM #195
-
03-20-2013, 08:39 AM #196
The 'logic' of the OP is sorely wanting.
Free will is not god's get out of jail free card.
There are no morally sufficient reasons to allow things like the holocaust.
The free will of evil people is being honored over the free will of good people in such instances.
This is why your god is not worth worshiping even if he does exist.'Prior to the Department of Education, there was no illiteracy'
- Stizzel
-
-
03-20-2013, 09:00 AM #197
^^^^ does not grasp the OP.
The OP is dealing with the logical scaffolding of the problem of evil. Binary logic, no possible 'third option'. Even a logical possibility is not an option if the problem of evil is sound.
All I need to do is introduce the logical possibility of a third option and the binary logic collapses-God exists, and evil exists can both be true.
Calling into question the veracity of this third option, is another argument altogether.
-
03-20-2013, 09:09 AM #198
^^^^^^Not grasping my argument.
I did grasp the option, I used to think like you when I was a theist.
I never said God can't exist if evil exists. God can exists and there can still be evil. God can exist and he can be evil (or just not have morals, what use does a perfect being have for morality?)'Prior to the Department of Education, there was no illiteracy'
- Stizzel
-
03-20-2013, 09:14 AM #199
-
03-20-2013, 09:26 AM #200
-
-
03-20-2013, 01:10 PM #201
- Join Date: Jul 2004
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 15,274
- Rep Power: 6729
It's specifically about the reasoning process that's used to justify gods allowance of evil more than anything. You would first though have to be accepting of the notion that the reasoning away of what can be seen as gods bad intention (the allowance of evil), through the creation of more supposed benevolent intentions that overrides that one, is in itself subjectively derived by yourself (or whoever happens to reason it). If you can agree with this then you could also agree that the reasoning process that enabled you to do that could also be applied to people, that for example; for somebody who you think intended to murder an innocent person, that it could be reasoned that that person actually intended to murder with a much more benevolent intention in mind thus making that person seem like a more benevolent person. The form of reasoning can be applied to both god and to people so there's no basis that I can see on which the reasoning for god deserves any exceptional privilege.
For the point on defining benevolence: normally when somebody ascribes moral character such as describing a being as benevolent (god), they're doing so on the assumption that he is responsible for good things happening by acting deliberately through good intentions. It's often assumed that the good intentions are the prime mover for good things happening. That a good intention precedes a good outcome is the basis upon which you feel justified in affirming that the being has a benevolent moral character, a 'good god' etc. This is one way of attributing moral character.
The alternative way is what I mean by the 'contextual situations' approach. It's just a different style of attributing a beings moral character to that of what's often employed above. In this instance, rather than viewing a good intent preceding a good outcome as being the basis of justification for a good moral character, this would instead be taking a certain situation or outcome, such as one person killing a criminal, and then taking the feelings that you would have towards that particular situation or outcome (someone killing a criminal - which you view as 'good'), causally determining the being that can be said to be most responsible for it's occurrence (the killer), and then attributing those feelings that you have towards the situation/outcome itself, to the moral character of that person viewed to be responsible for bringing it about. In effect you're brushing aside the relationship between the intent of the person deemed to be responsible for the situation; to that of its causing the outcome, as the primary means of justification for coming to a judgement about a beings moral character.
-
03-20-2013, 05:59 PM #202
If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I don't, you are applying a variant of the "god's divine plan" argument. That is, as long as god does or allows what seems like evil for a higher purpose, then that evil isn't evil any more. Again I have to point out that this reasoning doesn't keep in mind god is all-good. If he allowed or did some evil, even the lesser of 2 evils, or evil for a good cause, he'd still be doing evil. So he wouldn't be all-good, he'd be pretty-good. Also, god is omnipotent, he can have his cake and eat it too. He doesn't need to do an evil act for a good goal, he can get that goal in another way that doesn't include the evil act.
For the point on defining benevolence: normally when somebody ascribes moral character such as describing a being as benevolent (god), they're doing so on the assumption that he is responsible for good things happening by acting deliberately through good intentions. It's often assumed that the good intentions are the prime mover for good things happening. That a good intention precedes a good outcome is the basis upon which you feel justified in affirming that the being has a benevolent moral character, a 'good god' etc. This is one way of attributing moral character.Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
-
03-20-2013, 10:58 PM #203
-
03-21-2013, 09:45 AM #204
If "good" is impossible for us to understand, then god isn't all-good. He's all-"something". When people have a discussion, they obviously use terms that they can understand and relate to. If "good" is a human term, and god is something else, then god isn't good. Again, sorry but the Problem of Evil argument is that good for a reason. It really does cover all basis.
Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
-
-
03-21-2013, 11:28 AM #205
- Join Date: Jul 2004
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 15,274
- Rep Power: 6729
Yes but I am not so much applying it myself here, this is just what I'm assuming needs to be reasoned in order to justify gods perfect moral character and in which case I'm then saying that for whoever does reason like this, that the exact same kind of reasoning can also apply to normal people to also excuse their acts of 'evil' and their perceived 'evil' intents.
I would definitely agree with your point though, somebody who uses this reasoning must do so on the basis of initially dismissing the view of god as being all-good. It is reasoning in an attempt to justify gods moral character based on the acceptance of the apparent existence of evil in the world and the acceptance of this evil arising through gods intentions. So to even employ this reasoning in the first place is acknowledgement that doing so does in itself contradicts the view of god as being all-good. I'm not sure if this is how you meant it but it does make good point lol.
This aside though, if it were to be accepted that he is all-good (always does good acts through good intent) so as to discredit the need for this type of reasoning, then how do you reconcile him being all-good with evil things happening in the world which are assumedly arising through his intentions?
Agree with this first part too, this is why if you're unable to change your perspective of evil actions or events to that of not being evil through the reasoning that god has more benovolent intentions for doing/allowing those 'evil' things, then it's the case that evil things can be said to happen and that assumedly they arise from gods evil intentions which means that god cannot be all-good, that he isn't omnibenevolent.
For the assuming omnipotence: why then would he do/allow evil if his true goal for doing/allowing that evil could easily be fulfilled in another way that doesn't require the doing or allowance of evil things?
Do you mean this in the sense that the ascribing of a beings moral character only applies to limited humans?
I'm not so sure what I'm saying here will be of much relevance for you in this instance then.
The point I'm raising mainly only applies to the reasoning process that's used to reach a particular judgement about god and so without acknowledging that that reasoning process is itself subjective and then placing it into a kind of 'mental spotlight' so to speak for scrutiny, then I think we just will never see eye-to-eye on this.
I do want to ask though that if it's impossible to comprehend the intentions of god, how then can you think that he has a benevolent moral character? If it's the case that you can only base his moral character on assumptions, then how can you be sure that those assumptions are true and that it's not a case of something similar to that of a woman idolizing her husband and assuming that he's a good person with good intentions, eventhough really this isn't the case and that he regularly beats her with a belt buckle just for fun every weekend? How can you be sure you're not akin to the wife and are being duped by your own faulty assumptions of another beings good intent?
-
03-21-2013, 12:40 PM #206
For people, we consider the intention in addition to the actual action because being limited in power and knowledge, our actions don't always achieve our intentions. We used this in the judicial system too, when we discriminate between accidental killing and intentional murder. This cannot apply to god because he doesn't have the excuse of not knowing something, or not having the power to do something, or doing anything accidentally. Therefore good intentions can't be used to mitigate god's evil deeds.
Other examples people bring up are that if a kid is sick, he may have to go through painful surgery to get better, and therefore inflicting that surgery isn't evil. That's only valid if we don't know of any other way of making that kid better other than the painful surgery. But now imagine if the doctor had anesthetic but decided to operate the kid live. He's curing the kid, but the suffering isn't necessary any more, just cruel. The end doesn't justify the means any more. God is omnipotent therefore he can get whatever good outcome he wants without suffering. Every suffering god inflicts is by definition unnecessary because he's omnipotent.
So the answer to your question is that IMO we can ascribe moral character to both people and god, but that the mitigating circumstances that apply to people cannot apply to god.Follow my 2018 competition prep here:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=175566421&p=1547462721#post1547462721
-
03-21-2013, 06:54 PM #207
- Join Date: Jul 2004
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 15,274
- Rep Power: 6729
Ahh yeah I think I see now, thanks.
Just to reaffirm though:
People having limited power and limited knowledge means that the result of their actions does not always have to be a definite effect of their intentions. Because the result of their actions cannot be said to always be a definite effect of their intentions, then it is the case that peoples intentions can be used to determine the extent of whether the result of their actions are evil or not.
God having unlimited power and unlimited knowledge means that the result of his actions must always have to be a definite effect of his intentions. Because the result of his actions can be said to always be a definite result of his intentions, then it is the case that gods intentions cannot be used to determine the extent of whether the result of his actions are evil or not.
Would this be accurate in your view?
-
03-21-2013, 07:27 PM #208
-
-
03-21-2013, 07:57 PM #209
-
03-22-2013, 12:47 AM #210
Wre you even paying attention to the OP? The OP demonstrates that binary logic cannot substantiate a problem of evil argument i.e Evil existing cannot, by itself, disprove a moral God because it employs faulty logic. The scenario is not amenable to binary logic by virtue of the fact a logically possible third alternative is introduced. If it is logically possible that in the original argument "a moral God exists" and " evil exists" can both be true, the argument completely collapses.
to further clarify, here are some examples of binary logic arguments employing the law of non-contradiction whereby demonstrating the truth of one automatically falsifies the other due to complete occupation of the logical space between them.
It is true that J is a male
Therefore it is false that J is a female.
It is true that it is currently daytime.
Therefore it is false that is currently nighttime.
It is true that I exist.
Therefore it is false that I do not exist.
See the pattern/logic? In each argument a third alternative which would potentiate both statements being true or false at the same time is impossible. Thats the nature of the logic-I cant even introduce a logically possible third alternative without talking nonsense. For the problem of evil, that is not so.
Now if you would like to contest the veracity of "God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil", go right ahead......but this is another argument entirely.
Similar Threads
-
I still don't understand how Christians can idolize a being who invented Hell
By SnausagesDog in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 108Last Post: 03-05-2012, 04:22 PM -
Attention Atheists: this is why i feel God is the most rational choice
By Malodrax in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 335Last Post: 01-27-2010, 12:48 AM -
Do you believe that there's at least one person in hell?
By adimare in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 244Last Post: 11-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Bookmarks