The problem of evil

Daylight63 said:
SO let's take one of the "classics" of the PoE: the concept of an infant with an aggressive and vicious cancer. The question is "how could an all-loving God allow that to exist?"

By your reasoning it is an active behavior of God to keep people from getting cancers. That's about the only way for this concept of "evil as the absence of good" to work.

Like your example of "heat" vs absence of heat. So by your reasoning the Problem of Evil is simply turning it into the question: "How could an all-loving omnipotent God withhold the beneficence to keep the child from suffering?
Click to expand...
This classic argument attempting to prove there is no god or gods fails. It is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.

Now to answer others that might be confused by you:

Why does God allow corruption in the world? See the Bible. It has an answer there. It has the reason that Jesus Christ came to this world to be sacrificed to save it.

Corruption has entered the world by the choice Adam made. This brings death into the world as well. This also brings the knowledge of good and evil into the world. In other words, 'evil' is that which contradicts God. 'Good' is that which conforms to God. Adam was created by God and is therefore 'good'. God gave Adam the choice to remain as created, or to enter a world of corruption to gain the knowledge of good and evil, as God has that knowlege. It is part of the plan of God to allow us to experience all the world has to offer, INCLUDING corruption and death. It is ALSO part of the plan of God to allow a path to be resurrected and achieve a perfect state once again.

Now...since you believe no god or gods exist, that's your belief. It does not matter, other than being perpetually confused.

Why do you think no god or gods exist?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I've seen no evidence of a god.
Click to expand...
But you have.

The Earth itself is such evidence. The Bible is another. The mechanisms behind nature is another. Even the existence of yourself is another.
Are any of them a proof? No. They are evidence only.
Uncensored2008 said:
There is a slim possibility that there could be one, but no one has any evidence to support the notion,
Click to expand...
But there is. You yourself, by merely existing, is such evidence.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
The absence of good would be not helping someone. Deliberately inflicting pain, misery, and death on others are affirmative actions - not the absence of anything. Evil is not the absence of good, but the malicious acts to harm others.
Click to expand...
By this definition, then...Man is evil. Man inflicts pain, misery and death on himself and others. What do you consider 'malicious'?
Yet, Man is good. He brings about happiness by serving others, raising a family, and creating wealth.
Yet again, Man is selfish. He has selfish desires, including the need to eat, shit, have sex, etc.

So why is one activity 'good' and the other 'evil'? What about the selfishness of Man? Is it 'good' or 'evil'? Is the entire discussion really nothing more than a false dichotomy?
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You post papers you can't even explain in your own words, and then misrepresent it's conclusions; for example-->



There's no reason to trust papers you post.

You should be able to explain things in your own words.

Obviously what is happening is you are googling science papers you believe conform to your preconceived notions, but then you're just skimming the abstract and not even trying to take in the paper as a whole.
Click to expand...
This is the essence of philosophy. You cannot use the arguments of other as your argument. You MUST present your own argument and the reasoning for it.

Science does not prove whether there is a god or gods or prove neither exists. Science is completely atheistic. It doesn't even go there.
 
Into the Night said:
But you have.

The Earth itself is such evidence. The Bible is another. The mechanisms behind nature is another. Even the existence of yourself is another.
Are any of them a proof? No. They are evidence only.

But there is. You yourself, by merely existing, is such evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is no evidence of a mechanism behind nature.
 
Into the Night said:
By this definition, then...Man is evil. Man inflicts pain, misery and death on himself and others. What do you consider 'malicious'?
Yet, Man is good. He brings about happiness by serving others, raising a family, and creating wealth.
Yet again, Man is selfish. He has selfish desires, including the need to eat, shit, have sex, etc.
Click to expand...

The dual nature of man.

Acts that intentionally create pain, misery, and death on others are immoral and evil.

Into the Night said:
So why is one activity 'good' and the other 'evil'? What about the selfishness of Man? Is it 'good' or 'evil'? Is the entire discussion really nothing more than a false dichotomy?
Click to expand...

I already explained the difference between good and evil.
 
Into the Night said:
This is the essence of philosophy. You cannot use the arguments of other as your argument. You MUST present your own argument and the reasoning for it.

Science does not prove whether there is a god or gods or prove neither exists. Science is completely atheistic. It doesn't even go there.
Click to expand...

Properly, Science is a process and as such agnostic regarding questions of spirituality.
 
Cypress said:
You post papers you can't even explain in your own words, and then misrepresent it's conclusions; for example-->



There's no reason to trust papers you post.

You should be able to explain things in your own words.

Obviously what is happening is you are googling science papers you believe conform to your preconceived notions, but then you're just skimming the abstract and not even trying to take in the paper as a whole.
Click to expand...

Everything I posted was in support of and did support my contention. What it DIDN'T support was your strawman mischaracterization.

I can't believe I have to explain simple stuff to you over and over again.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
We are already too far off the subject of evil, but exactly where does the constitution say anything about " separation of kids and schools"?

Even the Danbury letter is silent on that subject.
Click to expand...
Trump's MAGA Party is full of pedophiles. The Orange Jesus himself and Matt Gaetz being the most open about it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
What parts of morality would be genetic?I
Click to expand...
We don't know enough about the human mind for me to say.
I am convinced there is our conscience which has morals and values which cannot be explained by the brute lawful facts of Darwinian evolution.
Dutch Uncle said:
nAnthropology is the scientific study of human behavior, biology, culture, society, and language. The comparative studying of human behavior, be they modern or primitive. would strip away the social conditioning aspects to reveal the genetic ones.
Click to expand...
Right, there is something so unique about human we invented academic subjects to study human behavior.
Behavior, in and of itself, is observational. It doesn't explain human morality at the level of the basic physical sciences.
Dutch Uncle said:
AFAIK, while there's a genetic aspect of survival and mate-seeking, morality seems to be social conditioning. Survival being that people who are murderous assholes don't live long enough to breed much whereas people who get along well with others do survive within a human tribe.

www.apa.org

Moral minds

Psychological researchers are discovering the roots of human morality.
www.apa.org www.apa.org

Moral minds​

Angels vs. Demons: How psychological researchers are unearthing the roots of human morality
In a best-case scenario, psychology can identify processes that can help a person learn to make better moral choices. "You can become more moral. That's part of what development is about," says Anne Colby, PhD, a psychologist and consulting professor at Stanford University....

..."People aren't just pawns of their culture. They have the capacity to think about the cultural norms and pressures, and the moral creativity to say,


The Psychology of Morality
Abstract
Five questions regarding the nature of the moral sense, the origin of conscience, the
development of morality, variability in the moral sense, and the relation of morality to
behavior are examined from the point of view of four theoretical approaches (psychoanalytic
theory, social learning theory, cognitive-developmental theory, and evolutionary psychology).
In addition, some concepts and findings from outside the four approaches are also touched
upon. The moral sense is shown to be complex, comprising cognitions, feelings, and
behaviors. The theoretical approaches disagree regarding the issues of whether conscience
directly reflects social teaching, or is constructed by the developing individual. They also
disagree on whether moral development is incremental or stagewise. Explanations of
individual, gender, and cultural differences in morality differ across the four approaches.
None of the approaches explains the relation of behavior to morality; rather, application of
social psychological theories is suggested. More recent developments are briefly reviewed,
supporting the view that the evolutionary approach and its extensions have become
dominant in the field in recent years. Focus on social relations rather than individuals,
emphasis on emotions rather than reason or action, pluralist views of the bases of morality,
and functions of morality in group competition are highlighted as aspects of the newer
approaches....

...Regardless of how or whether consensus is reached on the issues being actively debated
at present, it seems possible to predict some overall trends that probably will not be
reversed. First, despite the tendency of psychologists to revert to investigations of
individual differences, human morality will continue to be recognized as a species-specific
adaptation that evolved in the context of social living and is activated in social relations.
Thus, it is likely that research on the psychology of morality will continue to be dominated
by ideas and theories stemming from evolutionary psychology, and that, compared to the
past, the study of morality will focus less on personality and individual development and
more on social relationships....

...Regardless of how or whether consensus is reached on the issues being actively debated
at present, it seems possible to predict some overall trends that probably will not be
reversed. First, despite the tendency of psychologists to revert to investigations of
individual differences, human morality will continue to be recognized as a species-specific
adaptation that evolved in the context of social living and is activated in social relations.
Thus, it is likely that research on the psychology of morality will continue to be dominated
by ideas and theories stemming from evolutionary psychology, and that, compared to the
past, the study of morality will focus less on personality and individual development and
more on social relationships.
On the other hand, individual differences in preference for or use of particular bases
of morality are being actively researched as correlates of various social psychological
constructs, such as authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, need for cognition and
political ideology, to name a few. This trend is likely to continue and expand, contributing
to the integration of moral psychology into social psychology
Click to expand...
Nice!

I think because we Americans have lived in a peaceful society, with adequate police protection, civil rights, a stable democratic system of cooperation we tend to get biased in what we believe the nature of the human conditions should be. In reality, the kind of society we live in has only existed for 100 to 200 years, which is a blink of an eye in the history of humanity.

Evolutionary science does not say the goal of individual animals is to make sure the species as a whole survives. Animals, including presumably humans, are biologically programmed to ensure our own personal DNA is maintained and propagated - even at the expense of other members of our species.

Small communities and tribes have always cooperated for mutual advantage. Lions and chimpazees do that, and that is easily explained by principles of Darwinian evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary biology I know of that is supposed to dictate humans care for complete strangers, even rivals, or that we aren't supposed to enslave strangers or rivals, or steal from them.
 
Cypress said:
We don't know enough about the human mind for me to say.
I am convinced there is our conscience which has morals and values which cannot be explained by the brute lawful facts of Darwinian evolution.

Right, there is something so unique about human we invented academic subjects to study human behavior.
Behavior, in and of itself, is observational. It doesn't explain human morality at the level of the basic physical sciences.

Nice!

I think because we Americans have lived in a peaceful society, with adequate police protection, civil rights, a stable democratic system of cooperation we tend to get biased in what we believe the nature of the human conditions should be. In reality, the kind of society we live in has only existed for 100 to 200 years, which is a blink of an eye in the history of humanity.

Evolutionary science does not say the goal of individual animals is to make sure the species as a whole survives. Animals, including presumably humans, are biologically programmed to ensure our own personal DNA is maintained and propagated - even at the expense of other members of our species.

Small communities and tribes have always cooperated for mutual advantage. Lions and chimpazees do that, and that is easily explained by principles of Darwinian evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary biology I know of that is supposed to dictate humans care for complete strangers, even rivals, or that we aren't supposed to enslave strangers or rivals, or steal from them.
Click to expand...
cooperation and fruitful project making is not brute.

it;s the human peaceful intelligent way.

its the path of our natural evolution.

the war mongers are attempting to hijack our evolution toward evil.

you're definitely going to hell.
 
Daylight63 said:
It's not weird if I'm not this penny person. Besides, there is NO ONE ON HERE who is named Perry or Penny or Parry.
Click to expand...
What's weird is that you think you are fooling anyone, Perry. Your feeble attempts to convince others you are not Perry PhD is as childish as it is fascinating to me.

9jvgly.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top