tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7760983159899066200..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Giving God A Free PassMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86073823276920219282013-04-01T23:30:57.457-07:002013-04-01T23:30:57.457-07:00My question is why do atheists waste time on provi...My question is why do atheists waste time on proving that a non existent God is wrong?what threat is he offering? It just seems so much knowledge is focused on a worthless subject... you all seem very smart in your writings why not invent something or invest in new businesses? But I can give you a reason why you won't relent on this specific topic...Because Jesus has not relented in saving lives and reminding us of his provision in the lives of believers! Everywhere you go it seems God is mentioned.. why is that? can we all just be crazy brainwashed people like zombies in the walking dead?? I think not because then more than half this world would be irrelevant. So many people from prison or bad backrounds have changed down the road for a greater cause to serve christ and they make differences in this world.. can you look them in the eye and say their wrong even though change is evident? your just creating arguments.I recommend reading lee strobels case for christ he was a young reporter who was an atheist and began to research who Jesus was and is now.his curiosity changed his whole life because evidence of the king outweighed nay sayers that had no contradicting evidence of him being real. He is now a christian and he provides evidence and gives answers to much asked questions. And God is in control! If as people we went through no hardship and just walked on candy apple roads then we would have no personalities or victories of overcoming bad circumstances he does use a situation satan has created and make it work to glorify him in some way but he is not the cause of evil he died a brutal death because of it why would he promote it. To be honest he didn't even have to accept us in our filth yet even athiests he loves but you will not accept his offer for eternal life so don't blame him for hells flames your opportunity to accept him is now. His love is what covers all sin and he tells us we as christians can do nothing to glorify him unless we love first. God bless each and every one of you!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04393030338599168909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7586442724948247902007-10-23T08:18:00.000-07:002007-10-23T08:18:00.000-07:00So if an evil cannot immediately be considered gra...So if an evil cannot immediately be considered gratuitous since it might lead to a greater good or since it might have prevented a worse evil, how will God judge me?<BR/><BR/>Will I be judged for a specific act and its immediate effects or for the greater consequences stemming from it? For example, if I cut someone off on the freeway because I was daydreaming, and if this person I cut off snaps and kills tens of people in a mall, am I responsible? What if that person happens to kill a person who would have become the next Hitler? Will my actions then be judged as not so bad?<BR/><BR/>F. Fletcher 192Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41933370705721137922007-10-16T06:17:00.000-07:002007-10-16T06:17:00.000-07:00"Therefore, with natural evil, we cannot hold God ..."Therefore, with natural evil, we cannot hold God to the same America’s Most Wanted standard. I might be off on this point, not sure." - gortiz<BR/><BR/>I think I see your point. Are you saying that what might be good and evil for us, isn't necessarily good and evil for god? This would fall in line with theists who believe in an indifferent god.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39703682986908605382007-10-15T22:32:00.000-07:002007-10-15T22:32:00.000-07:00Firstly, from my religious experience, the theist ...Firstly, from my religious experience, the theist position is not agnosticism in respect to evil and the goodness that comes from it. Rather, the position is simple: God knows best, and what appears to be a shameless evil actually has a purpose. The theist just does not know what it is – but he or she knows the evil will lead to some good. (Or, that the evil was warranted, whether or not it leads to some good). From this, however, we lead into the problem described by Rowe. The problem is that the theist cannot rationalize this point of view. <BR/><BR/>Regarding America’s Most Wanted analogy. At first, I thought something was wrong with the analogy. I still can’t put my finger on it, but perhaps I can shed some light on it later in this entry. So, the crux of the illustration is that a cold-blooded killer would not be off the hook if he said his evil will lead to some greater good later. So, why should God be off the hook? That is, God presumably allows for this greater evil. And, the theist would assert that the evil leads to some good. So, here’s my question. Are we granting that some evil that God allows leads to other goods? In the same breath, we are saying that the criminal cannot take this line of action because it’s clearly the wrong type of argument. This is granted. So, are we agreeing that when God allows evil, God is doing so for a greater purpose? But, because we wouldn’t allow this type of excuse for the criminal, we shouldn’t allow it for God. Or, in other words, it is also unacceptable for God to use this excuse. But, I think, God has a different playing ground. (This is where I can’t really put my finger on the ‘problem’ with this analogy). Let me lay out what the theist might say. For starters, God need not validation for allowing evil to happen in the world. There is not a jury watching over God. While God should have control over all occurrences, the law of natures cannot be compared to a free-will, sentient being's actions. Therefore, with natural evil, we cannot hold God to the same America’s Most Wanted standard. I might be off on this point, not sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61787449462230240252007-10-15T11:23:00.000-07:002007-10-15T11:23:00.000-07:00"This is absurd. I never said anything like this. ..."This is absurd. I never said anything like this. In fact, I can hardly even make sense of what your saying." - carlo<BR/><BR/>Come on, you can't say I misunderstood you while saying you misunderstand me. You really have to understand what I'm saying in order to understand that I've misunderstood you (I think we're witnessing the evolution of language right here). But ok, I'll try to be clearer.<BR/><BR/>"My posting was that morality isn't a social construct bur rather something that exist naturally. […] It has a biological basis rather than it being created by humans. Social construction isn't a natural process but rather artificial" - carlo<BR/><BR/>I understand that. My point was that it isn't an either/or choice between social construction and nature, after all, society has a biological basis itself. <BR/><BR/>I think the misunderstanding here is that I don't recognize the romantic distinction between natural and artificial - as some social constructivists and naturalist seem to. Nothing humans do is outside of nature. However, that doesn't say that society doesn't construct language. <BR/><BR/>Consider your evidence rebutted.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6044804326981111262007-10-14T22:36:00.000-07:002007-10-14T22:36:00.000-07:00"You seem to be stating that language doesn't evol..."You seem to be stating that language doesn't evolve for social reasons, and further implying that this is the case because such things are "in nature". This leads me to believe you're under the impression that nature is something outside of society, or vice-versa."<BR/><BR/>This is absurd. I never said anything like this. In fact, I can hardly even make sense of what your saying. <BR/><BR/>My posting was that morality isn't a social construct bur rather something that exist naturally. It has a biological basis rather than it being created by humans. Social construction isn't a natural process but rather artificial (see below). It is also associated with moral relativism. My example of the pencil in the eyeball was to illustrate that morality is objective. What is evil and good is a large part of our morality. I don't know where your going with such absurd conjecture as me denying society in nature etc. You're the one who espoused a relativistic view - that evil is social construction. This I believe is false and I gave an argument for it. For you to grasp straws about the definition of nature appears to me to be a strawman man fallacy.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionismCarlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28495859357841641982007-10-14T22:29:00.000-07:002007-10-14T22:29:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-89136609279050530162007-10-14T19:33:00.000-07:002007-10-14T19:33:00.000-07:00"carlo: I not sure one can say that human language..."carlo: I not sure one can say that human language is part of nature while human society is not" - me<BR/><BR/>"Nowhere have I ever made such a claim. You are confused." - carlo<BR/><BR/>You seem to have, and I certainly am.<BR/><BR/>"Societies don't dictate language nor do they for what's good or bad. Such things originated and subsist in nature just as the tree or the rock." - carlo<BR/><BR/>You seem to be stating that language doesn't evolve for social reasons, and further implying that this is the case because such things are "in nature". This leads me to believe you're under the impression that nature is something outside of society, or vice-versa.<BR/><BR/>However, if you aren't saying that society is outside of nature, I'm not sure how saying language originates in nature says anything about society's role in the evolution of language.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87555181797139873892007-10-14T18:57:00.000-07:002007-10-14T18:57:00.000-07:00What is a morally decent person exactly?Is this a ...What is a morally decent person exactly?<BR/>Is this a person who belives in something to be self evident based on their lifes background and experiences? If so, wouldn't this be different for me....or you? How can we say that anyone is any more moral or ethical than another person when each person's background tells them they are right? State laws differ dramatically as do their residents so it's hard to see the clear line here. I'm sure that most American's agree that murder is wrong, however, support for the death penalty or war have been apparent for centuries. It seems that their is a lack of responsibility. <BR/><BR/>“They will accept any justification….”<BR/>Indeed, believers will accept any justification because if they don’t their God would be placed in the hot seat only to be faced with an obligation of responsibility. Since God can’t actually make it to any court rooms, someone has to defend him and control the public’s opinion of his decisions. <BR/><BR/>What came to mind was that believers were actually passing judgment on their God and attempting to control the degree in which he may be involved in a particular “evil” infested situation. The believer’s response to the common question, “how could your God have let this happen,” is simply quality control. The believers are simply protecting their God from outsiders/nonbelievers passing judgment upon their God. Afterall, you can’t have an evil and just God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79972160361949583692007-10-14T17:03:00.000-07:002007-10-14T17:03:00.000-07:00re: Central Content Publisher"carlo: I not sure on...re: Central Content Publisher<BR/><BR/>"carlo: I not sure one can say that human language is part of nature while human society is not"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nowhere have I ever made such a claim. You are confused.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55187745276358303572007-10-14T10:15:00.000-07:002007-10-14T10:15:00.000-07:00carlo: I not sure one can say that human language...carlo: I not sure one can say that human language is part of nature while human society is not. And, it seems to me that the human creation of language and the evolution of language are not mutually exclusive, but rather, that the human creation of unique utterances is part of the evolutionary process that results in human language.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64153340397302589842007-10-14T07:21:00.000-07:002007-10-14T07:21:00.000-07:00Correction:Good and evil are properties. My bad. I...Correction:<BR/><BR/>Good and evil are properties. My bad. It' been awhile since my naturalism course.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29646289979956846632007-10-13T16:41:00.000-07:002007-10-13T16:41:00.000-07:00RE: s d owenI am still having a hard time understa...RE: s d owen<BR/><BR/>I am still having a hard time understanding what you meant by "social constructs". You appear to still think we humans created our language like we would a computer program. But this mistaken. Sure, syntax can be added but language is evolving. Societies don't dictate language nor do they for what's good or bad. Such things originated and subsist in nature just as the tree or the rock.<BR/><BR/>Good study on evolution and language<BR/>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/14/8028<BR/><BR/>I think maybe you meant to say something else since you say your not a relativist. Perhaps I misunderstood you? Maybe you were just adding that societies has different norms and customs. This is a description I ma sure we can agree on. However what is good and evil doesn't change. people may try to call it different things and add their connotations to it but evil is always evil and good, good.<BR/><BR/>As for why I refer to good and evil being objects. Well I am a naturalist. What we do is naturalize things. How else would you want things to be? Supernatural?<BR/>http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/naturalism.html<BR/><BR/>As a skeptical person you surly have a motivation to eliminate the ontological status of "good" and "evil" from spooky and/or abstract to real objects in this world. Unless you like to think of them as mysterious? I am sure you don't have a problem calling someone that has so much force and presence in both our lives as real as the table that sits in front of you. Both objects are a part of the natural world. Its just that one is more physical in terms of what we conventionally want to see. Yet it can be clearly argues that evil has a greater impact on our lives than a mere table. So why would we call the table a real object and evil not?Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-80150990699163436402007-10-13T12:45:00.000-07:002007-10-13T12:45:00.000-07:00If god is behind both good and evil, god must be a...If god is behind both good and evil, god must be amoral.<BR/><BR/>"I follow your reasoning until here. Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by 'amoral.'" - Matt Evpak<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the whole point of good and evil is to distinguish between that which aught to be, and that which aught not to be. It's a binary that labels each side of a paper thin moral divide. If god sits on both sides of the divide, he is indifferent to good and evil. An indifference to good and evil is amorality - at least, as far as I understand it. Even if we say that god's plan is ultimately good, morality is not introduced, but rather, the possibility of evil is denied, rendering good dangling meaninglessly without the possibility of evil to contrast itself against. This is also amoral. Without the existence of evil, there can be no questions of right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>"My conception of the term doesn't permit this inference; at various times in my life I'm 'behind both good and evil,' but I don't therefore consider myself 'amoral'--quite to the contrary, I consider myself profoundly entwined with morality because I'm so involved and conflicted with matters of right and wrong." - Matt Evpak<BR/><BR/>I understand this, but, if you were to say that the evil you're behind is ultimately good, it stops being evil, and suddenly you are involved and conflicted with matters of right and right. If everything is ultimately good, there is ultimately no evil, and nothing to be conflicted about.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there is something to be conflicted about, so god must either be amoral or not god.<BR/><BR/>"If one argues in favour of god's plan(tm), one argues against the existence of evil, because if all evils lead to an ultimate good, then evil is good. And so, there cannot be evil." - me<BR/><BR/>"I don't understand this at all. One might just as well argue that since all the costs of a shrewd business venture eventually lead to net profit, all costs that are part of the undertaking are actually gains--so costs don't really exist in the business plan. That doesn't make sense: even if an initial cost is necessary in order to make a profit, it's nonetheless an expenditure; likewise, even if an evil is necessary in order to achieve a greater good, it's nonetheless an evil." - Matt Evpak<BR/><BR/>That seems to make sense because you are comparing apples and oranges. Profit and expenditure are not diametrically opposed like good and evil are. Profit and loss might be more appropriate. If an expenditure led to loss it would be evil, but if an expenditure lead to profit it would be good. <BR/><BR/>One must remember that morality asks whether something aught to have been. If my expenditure lead to my profit, and profit is good, then that expenditure aught to have been, and that which aught to have been is good. <BR/><BR/>"Unless one is arguing that god's plan is amoral (containing both good and evil), in which case, saying that an event is part of god's plan tells us nothing about whether an act is evil or not evil." - Me<BR/><BR/>"This makes sense. But I don't think any theist (or at least any Christian) would deny that evil is part of God's plan (it has that whole sin-and-redemption motif, after all)," - Matt Evpak<BR/><BR/>Many Christians believe that evil does not come from god, and so, is not part of god's plan (from whence it comes they try not to think). In fact, many don't believe in a plan at all - you know, freewill and all that jazz. <BR/><BR/>"nor claim that the goodness or evilness of an event is to be judged by whether it's part of God's plan." - Matt Evpak<BR/><BR/>That's exactly what they say when they write something off as "part of god's plan". "It's not so bad, after all, it's part of God's plan". "I know your brother was just murdered, but it's all part of god's plan". "Everything happens for a reason." There's no other reason to invoke god's plan but to imply that the existence of that plan somehow makes bad... less bad.Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30026759195081412052007-10-13T12:18:00.000-07:002007-10-13T12:18:00.000-07:00As to the issue of language. I'm not arguing that...As to the issue of language. I'm not arguing that humans don't have an innate ability to communicate phonetically, but clearly languages are conventional and dependent upon culture for their meanings -- the spoken and written language of an African tribe differs greatly from that of a NY tribe of lawyers -- their cultural experiences and thus conceptual systems are unique.<BR/><BR/>"Meanings" within languages, which are constructed by people, and EVOLVED through cultural experience and practice, are entirely conventional.<BR/><BR/>I am not a relativist though. As I said before, I think we atheists can reduce the term "evil" to something more accurate like "pain and suffering," but the theistic conception of good and evil is indeed based on a transcendental signified -- god/devil.<BR/><BR/>As for what words and concepts "refer to," they refer to each other in a chain of difference which creates "meaning."<BR/><BR/>There is a basic existential experience people have that motivates the need for a system of language, and an objective world of "things" for concepts and words to reflect well or badly, but WE as language users can never get outside the language system.<BR/><BR/>We are always already INSIDE the system of language, no matter which system we use. (Babies are born within a culture and taught the signs and the meanings of the signs; that is, they have to learn a language which is NOT natural to them.)<BR/><BR/>This is why in Iran they see Americans as "evil" and here in the US evangelicals view the Iranians as "evil."<BR/><BR/>Clearly Americans and Iranians aren't both evil?<BR/><BR/>Their conceptual schemes refer to different things, have different historical points of view, and so on.<BR/><BR/>If language was really "natural" in the sense that all humans shared it from BIRTH, then we really would share it and all the concepts that go along with it, but we don't, and conceptual schemes vary greatly between cultures, and even inside of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75507772555507663482007-10-13T11:33:00.000-07:002007-10-13T11:33:00.000-07:00Carlo:"The terms 'evil' and 'good' signify actual ...Carlo:<BR/><BR/>"The terms 'evil' and 'good' signify actual objects in the world."<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>For example? If this is true, then you should be able to easily list a few of these non-socially constructed "actual objects" of "good" and "evil" in the world.<BR/><BR/>...? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27569850196471557402007-10-13T07:12:00.000-07:002007-10-13T07:12:00.000-07:00"if god has a plan, then god is ammoral etc.Rather..."if god has a plan, then god is ammoral etc.<BR/><BR/>Rather than absolute good and evil, I feel more comfortable talking about simpler goods and evils, and leave aside for the moment whether goods or evils exist.<BR/><BR/>Take free speech. This I shall consider good. This does not mean that the people who tolerate some degree of hate litterature (evil) either control it, or see it as necessary to acheive a greator good. Rather they risk the damage that allowing hate speech might cause, rather than risk losing some of the benefits of free speech. To conclude that they control it would be to assume that there is only one actor. That hate litterature is a necessary step towards eventual racial tolerance is not something I would argue either.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is correct to think of religion as a simply a stupid idea (or circular argument) that is never tested. If we consider pain as evil, then we could imagine a good god, that would be obliged to place a pillow in front of us every time we tripped, or a shield if a spear was thrown at us. But like the ghost dancers, the followers of this religion could either quickly stop believing in their pillow god, or be destroyed by the first attack. Or they could alter their idea of god, and evil.<BR/> <BR/> Any religion (as humans are the only vector for transmission) seems to me to be under enormous evolutionary pressure, to conform to reality in all the practically important ways. So I see the statement that "its part of god's plan", as equivalent to the statement "what happens, happens". It is not necessarily psycopathic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6499078853624770852007-10-13T03:03:00.000-07:002007-10-13T03:03:00.000-07:00RE: s d Owen "Carlo...you don't see how a "term" i...RE: s d Owen <BR/><BR/>"Carlo...you don't see how a "term" is a social construct?"<BR/><BR/>Society doesn't dictate what is good or evil. You are arguing for relativism here. The terms "evil" and "good" signify actual objects in the world. They have properties and are recognizable by people from all walks of life. <BR/><BR/>"(Hint: all language and concepts ARE social constructs)"<BR/><BR/>This is false. Language evolves. Constructed languages are created by humans. Think of computer langauges. Concepts aren't created either but rather discovered. You are arguing for compete relativism here. I dont think you realize the implications of your claim.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_languages<BR/><BR/>Further, you have no right defining what atheist or theist believe about what the term "evil" means. I don't know how you could of arrived at such a conclusion. Do you have a survey handy supporting such a notion?Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83985971937211226852007-10-13T02:00:00.000-07:002007-10-13T02:00:00.000-07:00Carlo...you don't see how a "term" is a social con...Carlo...you don't see how a "term" is a social construct?<BR/><BR/>Think about that one for a minute. ;)<BR/><BR/>(Hint: all language and concepts ARE social constructs)<BR/><BR/>For the atheist, saying the word "evil" refers to a different concept than the theist refers to. "Evil" on an atheist's view would amount to something like "pain and suffering in the world," but of course we could be much more specific in our reduction of the "term."<BR/><BR/>For a theist "evil" refers to an ideological concept dependent upon the untenable bi-polar opposition good/evil in which both terms are supposed to refer to a "supernatual/transcendental" signifed for their meaning and ontological presence.<BR/><BR/>Now how can an atheist hold the theist's conception of evil without contradicting their own position?<BR/><BR/>In fact, the atheist really doesn't help herself much in even retaining the term, because as I mentioned above, it carries the baggage of an "either-or" opposition which is ideologically loaded and self-contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Thus, from an atheist perspective, the term "evil" should be theoretically eliminated because it really only refers to concepts/signifiers such as "pain" and "suffering," which are more theoretically applicable, practical, and reflective of the actual state of affairs in the world.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the problem of "evil" should really be about the problem of untenable bi-polar oppositions.<BR/><BR/>>;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58318970228937226502007-10-13T00:48:00.000-07:002007-10-13T00:48:00.000-07:00Of course it would be commonsesically obsurd to be...Of course it would be commonsesically obsurd to believe that we should be agnostic about evil within the problem of evil context, but the theist can absurdly say that the alleged evil is really an illusion and therefore a test of faith. Example, when a fried gets shot and killed, he "really does not feel pain, we just believe it by what we see, but god saved him from the pain". I'm sure many more absurd example's could be given by that. And they are possible realities that are seen by most rationalists - I hope - to be less probable than what science or common sense tells us about the exterior world. <BR/><BR/>There is another problem concerning evil, science would have it that only natural evil's exist, i.e. pain and catastrophe, for if there is no free will and the world is controlled by quantum mechanics which is randomness within probability or/and einsteinian classical physics which is determinism, then only natural evil is possible. Maybe there is an escape for our moral sentiments in some theory of mind where the study of the physical brain cannot grasp.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54663912547715819232007-10-13T00:33:00.000-07:002007-10-13T00:33:00.000-07:00I can't see how you guys think the terms "evil" an...I can't see how you guys think the terms "evil" and "good" are social constructs. I have no doubt that if I shoved my number two pencil into either of your guy's eyeball you would both think it quite evil.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83135970272335320172007-10-12T23:03:00.000-07:002007-10-12T23:03:00.000-07:00central content publisherIf god is behind both goo...<B>central content publisher</B><BR/><BR/><I>If god is behind both good and evil, god must be amoral.</I><BR/><BR/>I follow your reasoning until here. Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by 'amoral.' My conception of the term doesn't permit this inference; at various times in my life <I>I'm</I> 'behind both good and evil,' but I don't therefore consider myself 'amoral'--quite to the contrary, I consider myself profoundly entwined with morality <I>because</I> I'm so involved and conflicted with matters of right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>So I'm not sure in what sense you intend the term. Can you explain?<BR/><BR/><I>If one argues in favour of god's plan(tm), one argues against the existence of evil, because if all evils lead to an ultimate good, then evil is good. And so, there cannot be evil.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't understand this at all. One might just as well argue that since all the costs of a shrewd business venture eventually lead to net profit, all costs that are part of the undertaking are actually gains--so costs don't really exist in the business plan. That doesn't make sense: even if an initial cost is necessary in order to make a profit, it's nonetheless an expenditure; likewise, even if an evil is necessary in order to achieve a greater good, it's nonetheless an evil.<BR/><BR/><I>Unless one is arguing that god's plan is amoral (containing both good and evil), in which case, saying that an event is part of god's plan tells us nothing about whether an act is evil or not evil.</I><BR/><BR/>This makes sense. But I don't think any theist (or at least any Christian) would deny that evil is part of God's plan (it has that whole sin-and-redemption motif, after all), nor claim that the goodness or evilness of an event is to be judged by whether it's part of God's plan.<BR/><BR/><B>s d owen</B><BR/><BR/>I can certainly identify with your notions about evil as a sociocultural construct, but are you suggesting that an atheist ought not to believe in the independent reality (or perhaps any sort of reality) of evil? If so, I have to wonder how that impacts the argument from evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34144798732057238862007-10-12T22:03:00.000-07:002007-10-12T22:03:00.000-07:00Putting aside the question of whether god exists o...Putting aside the question of whether god exists or not, and most of us here as atheists already accept the premise that "it" does not, we can see immediately that religion is just another ideology, and that the bi-polar opposition of "good vs evil" is really just concept used to control people.<BR/><BR/>For example, religious leaders and political leaders can easily argue for war on the basis of "we are the good and they are the evil."<BR/><BR/>With no room for anything in between the two oppositions, leaders persuade their citizens or flock to kill and bomb or give the death penalty to anyone who doesn't fit a very limited conceptual scheme.<BR/><BR/>We see the result of this kind of "either-or" thinking in places like Iraq and Iran and Palestine, and we see the large amount of death and violence it causes.<BR/><BR/>But what's important to note here is that if evil is only a concept based on ideology, if there is no such thing as supernatural forces generating evil, then it is ONLY the ideology itself and the cultures and people who construct it, maintain it, and distribute it into the belief pool who are responsible for its existence.<BR/><BR/>That is, pain and suffering exist, but "evil" is simply an idea created primarily by theists.<BR/><BR/>Theists create "evil."<BR/><BR/>When children are TAUGHT about sin from their parents and are TAUGHT to fear burning in hell, etc., this is how "evil" and all of its baggage and ideology are posited into the world.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, theists not only give god a free pass for "creating" evil in the narrative of their sadistic mythology, but they themselves are responsible for the existence of the idea itself.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, theistic ideologies that posit evil are themselves evil.<BR/><BR/>>;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60264882870167114862007-10-12T21:22:00.000-07:002007-10-12T21:22:00.000-07:00"If god is in control, he must control evil as wel..."If god is in control, he must control evil as well as good, and so god is amoral."<BR/><BR/>If god has a plan and all things are an unfolding of that plan, god must be behind all things. If evil and good are part of that plan, then god must be behind both good and evil. If god is behind both good and evil, god must be amoral. <BR/><BR/>"Also, isn't your argument sort of inconsistent? I mean, you say the conclusion denies the existence of evil, but evil must exist in order for the argument to work in the first place. How can that be?" - Matt Evpak <BR/><BR/>If one argues in favour of god's plan(tm), one argues against the existence of evil, because if all evils lead to an ultimate good, then evil is good. And so, there cannot be evil. Unless one is arguing that god's plan is amoral (containing both good and evil), in which case, saying that an event is part of god's plan tells us nothing about whether an act is evil or not evil. So, once a plan is evoked, either god is amoral, or evil doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>The first possibility requires evil, but permits it. The second possibility doesn't require evil, and prohibits it.<BR/><BR/>Is that clearer?Central Content Publisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253155339560248960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51019340699935561832007-10-12T18:15:00.000-07:002007-10-12T18:15:00.000-07:00If god is in control, he must control evil as well...<I>If god is in control, he must control evil as well as good, and so god is amoral.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how this follows. Can you elaborate?<BR/><BR/>Also, isn't your argument sort of inconsistent? I mean, you say the conclusion denies the existence of evil, but evil must exist in order for the argument to work in the first place. How can that be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com