The problem of evil

[Cypress]

Interesting parsing there.

Thanks for admitting that justice and fairness are indeed two different words with two different shades of meaning.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

so why would life be just but unfair?

Are you an atheist, Perry? If so, then you should know that the life is neither just nor fair. Human society created justice to rectify some of life's unfairness. Specifically when humans are unjust to other humans.

If you believe in God, then you know eternity awaits and life is simply a process like kids going to kindergarten. It's our opportunity to learn and make choices.

 

[Cypress]

Are you an atheist, Perry? If so, then you should know that the life is neither just nor fair. Human society created justice to rectify some of life's unfairness. Specifically when humans are unjust to other humans.

^^ Agreed. I would have thought this concept was rudimentary and self evident to speakers of the English language.

 

[Daylight63]

Thanks for admitting that justice and fairness are indeed two different words with two different shades of meaning.

All things just would be considered fair. I am struggling to figure out where something could be fair but unjust.

Needless to say I don't agree on the subtle shading as being particularly meaningful in this context.

 

[Cypress]

All things just would be considered fair. I am struggling to figure out where something could be fair but unjust.

Needless to say I don't agree on the subtle shading as being particularly meaningful in this context.

Good to see you acknowledge there are different shades of meaning between the two words.

I don't expect life to be fair. I don't expect to be entitled to my dream job or to being accepted at the top college of my choice.

On the other hand, in cases of genocide, murder, or rape I feel I am justified in expecting the possibility of justice.

If your spouse were murdered perhaps you would not have any expectation of justice, but most people would.

 

[Scut Farkus]

But it seems that that is precisely why you dislike atheism. Your repeated claims that you dislike it that atheism leads to a universe in which evil people get away without cosmic justice.

Sounds like you haven't fully accepted that life may very well NOT be fair.

but people can treat each other well,

or they can treat each other poorly.

societies in which people treat each other well fare better.



It's not as cosmic as people like to portray.

but it's a masonic theologians job to keep morality obsucured by tethering it to religion and then bad mouthing the religion.

it's form of simple 'poisoning the well'.

 

[Daylight63]

Good to see you acknowledge there are different shades of meaning between the two words.

Except in this case I disagree. But please mischaracterize my position some more. It really turns me on.

I don't expect life to be fair. I don't expect to be entitled to my dream job or to being accepted at the top college of my choice.

But you get upset when evil people like Stalin die without justice. That sounds unfair. So it sounds to me like you DO expect parts of life to be fair.

On the other hand, in cases of genocide, murder, or rape I feel I am justified in expecting the possibility of justice.

How can this be just but unfair?

If your spouse were murdered perhaps you would not have any expectation of justice, but most people would.

And we are back to the personal posts. Obviously I wouldn't care if my spouse were violently murdered. I'm pure evil. I'm an atheist. I would think of it as nothing.

Now can we get back to the topic? Or will you simply continue attacking me personally?

 

[Cypress]

Except in this case I disagree. But please mischaracterize my position some more. It really turns me on.

You are the one who attempted to make the case the two words mean exactly the same thing, only to backtrack a little later on.

But you get upset when evil people like Stalin die without justice. That sounds unfair. So it sounds to me like you DO expect parts of life to be fair.

I said I expect the possibility of justice, not the guarantee of justice.


There never was and never is going to be fairness for the 100 million people destroyed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They are dead and gone, and their families permanently traumatized and damaged.

There is no equation by which we can derive and extract fairness for these people.

But we can expect the possibility of accountability and justice. In my case, I would look to the criminal justice system, the Nuremberg trials, or the world court. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus would tend to believe there is ultimate justice for evil by providential design.

 

[Into the Night]

Nonsense.

There is no evidence of a mechanism behind nature.

Oh....? You don't see a pattern behind F=mA or why all metals have the same characteristics, being conductive and ductile??
The very nature of engineering is using mechanisms found in nature to our advantage!

 

[Into the Night]

The dual nature of man.

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

So Man is evil, since he did this to himself.

I already explained the difference between good and evil.

No, you tried to quantify 'good'. You never specified any unit of measurement.

 

[Into the Night]

Properly, Science is a process and as such agnostic regarding questions of spirituality.

Science is not a 'process' or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not agnostic. It is atheistic.
The same is true of math.
The same is true of logic.

Science is not a religion. Neither is math or logic. NONE of them care whether a god or gods exist or not. They simply don't go there. There is spiritual about any of them.

 

[Into the Night]

Trump's MAGA Party is full of pedophiles. The Orange Jesus himself and Matt Gaetz being the most open about it.

Go stuff your hatred elsewhere, Sybil. Stop making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

You are the one who attempted to make the case the two words mean exactly the same thing, only to backtrack a little later on.

I said I expect the possibility of justice, not the guarantee of justice.


There never was and never is going to be fairness for the 100 million people destroyed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They are dead and gone, and their families permanently traumatized and damaged.

There is no equation by which we can derive and extract fairness for these people.

But we can expect the possibility of accountability and justice. In my case, I would look to the criminal justice system, the Nuremberg trials, or the world court. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus would tend to believe there is ultimate justice for evil by providential design.

You are not looking beyond death.

 

[Into the Night]

You give a hungry person a sandwich. A "degree"is just a created method of determining the relative presence of heat.

Heat has no temperature.

 

[Yakuda]

Heat has no temperature.

Sure it does. That's what's being measured.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Science is not a 'process' or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not agnostic. It is atheistic.
The same is true of math.
The same is true of logic.

Science is not a religion. Neither is math or logic. NONE of them care whether a god or gods exist or not. They simply don't go there. There is spiritual about any of them.

This is not correct. Hypothesis and theories may be derived using the scientific method,. but they are not science. Science is a process, which includes falsification. Science is a methodology for discovery through hypothesis, testing, and refinement in an iterative manner until a theory is established. Science is not what, but how. To say that any given theory is "science" would be akin to saying Microsoft Word is "programming." It is a product of programming, theories can be a product of science.

 

[Daylight63]

You are the one who attempted to make the case the two words mean exactly the same thing, only to backtrack a little later on.

I did not backtrack. I think the words function largely the same in this case. Your parsing is noted.

I said I expect the possibility of justice, not the guarantee of justice.

Ahhh, now YOU are moving the goalposts about. LOL.

But we can expect the possibility of accountability and justice.

Seems like you want a guarantee of justice. Funny right after you just decreed no such guarantee can be had for fairness. Strange word games you play.

In my case, I would look to the criminal justice system, the Nuremberg trials, or the world court. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus would tend to believe there is ultimate justice for evil by providential design.

So because humans invented courts you think the universe has a justice system?

Your reasoning, such as it is, befuddles me.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure it does. That's what's being measured.

Nope. Heat has no temperature. You are probably thinking of thermal energy. See the 0th law of thermodynamics which defines 'temperature', and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which defines 'heat' and gives it a direction.

 

[Into the Night]

This is not correct.

It is correct. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Nohing more. Nothing less.

Hypothesis and theories

A hypothesis comes out of a theory, not the other way around.
There are plenty of nonscientific theories. They don't need to be falsifiable.

may be derived using the scientific method,. but they are not science. Science is a process, which includes falsification. Science is a methodology for discovery through hypothesis, testing, and refinement in an iterative manner until a theory is established. Science is not what, but how. To say that any given theory is "science" would be akin to saying Microsoft Word is "programming." It is a product of programming, theories can be a product of science.

Science is not a process, procedure, methodology, 'discovery', or 'refinement'. There is no iteration involved with the creation of a theory of science. Science is not a software product or programming. There are plenty of nonscientific theories. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

A hypothesis comes out a theory, not the other way around. One example is the null hypothesis of theory.

You are trying to justify the philosophy of Francis Bacon, who tried to prove God existed using 'science'.

A lot of people make this same error since they were never taught science to begin with, and tend to treat scientists like 'holy men', and they read Wikipedia and sites like it too much.

Science is not social. It is not even people. It is just the theories themselves. Those theories speak for themselves. As long as they can survive tests designed to destroy it, they will continue to automatically be part of the body of science. There is no vote. There is no people per se that is 'science'.

I suggest you look at the philosophies of Karl Popper for a start, which provides the beginnings of the best current definition of 'science'.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Go stuff your hatred elsewhere, Sybil. Stop making shit up.

I don't hate pedophiles, but I do consider them evil as I do anyone who abuses children. Why don't you agree?