Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 06:18 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 06:56 AM by phil.a.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You are correct, there is no meaningful distinction between my usage of the terms "suffering" and "pain," so you can feel free to use the latter instead of the former.

OK well I have thought about this, on reflection I am not sure I can offer a meaningful post on the subject of "pain" if you don't differentiate "pain" from "suffering", simply because it's likely that both separate phenomena will be conflated in your interpretation of my argument. E.g. if I am to talk about pain, I need to know you are hearing about "pain" as a phenomena distinct from "suffering".

So given that these are two separate words and therefore two slightly separate concepts, can I suggest we perhaps discuss their differentiation? In fact, I think my argument hinges around their clear differentiation.

In my opinion, it's meaningful that you chose to use the term "suffering" rather than "pain" in your original post, even if you are perhaps not fully cognisant over why you chose that word rather than "pain". I think you used the correct word insofar as suffering rather than pain is an issue that's relevant to this discussion.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 04:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I make no absurd ontological arguments; that is word-play.

I do make an ontological argument. If you don't address it, you're not actually addressing my argument.

Quote:Of course evil exists only in people's minds and can be exhibited in their actions. This is what rational people mean by 'evil'.

Granted, evil exists insofar as humans can identify it in the world. But that only accounts for the objective, factual aspect of the concept, the concept also has a moral quality associated with it.

Since you have described the concept of evil relative to the humans who experience evil, any morality in the description is likewise relative.

Relative not absolute. "God" is absolute, to negate "god" you'll need to pull an absolute quality out of the hat and you haven't yet done that. Can I suggest you might need some sort of ontological argument to achieve that?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 06:51 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  How does pain require self-awareness? Do you think a puppy does not feel pain?

Not in the same way an adult human does.

It might be that "pain exists" but without any self-awareness the pain can't be personalised, so it has more of an objective quality to it.

This isn't an argument for animal abuse, it's just an argument against personifying a non-human organism. It's very easy to see one's own reflection in the eyes of a puppy.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 07:35 AM
Re: RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 06:38 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 04:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I make no absurd ontological arguments; that is word-play.

I do make an ontological argument. If you don't address it, you're not actually addressing my argument.

Quote:Of course evil exists only in people's minds and can be exhibited in their actions. This is what rational people mean by 'evil'.

Granted, evil exists insofar as humans can identify it in the world. But that only accounts for the objective, factual aspect of the concept, the concept also has a moral quality associated with it.

Since you have described the concept of evil relative to the humans who experience evil, any morality in the description is likewise relative.

Relative not absolute. "God" is absolute, to negate "god" you'll need to pull an absolute quality out of the hat and you haven't yet done that. Can I suggest you might need some sort of ontological argument to achieve that?

Phil

On what grounds is a God definitely absolute? That's part of the issue here. People who believe such aspects that make this contradiction visible.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 06:51 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  How does pain require self-awareness? Do you think a puppy does not feel pain?

Not in the same way an adult human does.

It might be that "pain exists" but without any self-awareness the pain can't be personalised, so it has more of an objective quality to it.

This isn't an argument for animal abuse, it's just an argument against personifying a non-human organism. It's very easy to see one's own reflection in the eyes of a puppy.

Phil

You can not determine that the puppy is not suffering.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 06:51 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  How does pain require self-awareness? Do you think a puppy does not feel pain?

Not in the same way an adult human does.

It might be that "pain exists" but without any self-awareness the pain can't be personalised, so it has more of an objective quality to it.

This isn't an argument for animal abuse, it's just an argument against personifying a non-human organism. It's very easy to see one's own reflection in the eyes of a puppy.

Phil

Unless you are privy to what it is to experience the world as a dog, that sounds a lot like talking out of your ass. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-08-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 06:38 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 04:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I make no absurd ontological arguments; that is word-play.

I do make an ontological argument. If you don't address it, you're not actually addressing my argument.

Note I said "absurd ontological arguments".
The argument that evil does not exist separate from our judgement in no way invalidates the problem of evil.

Quote:
Quote:Of course evil exists only in people's minds and can be exhibited in their actions. This is what rational people mean by 'evil'.

Granted, evil exists insofar as humans can identify it in the world. But that only accounts for the objective, factual aspect of the concept, the concept also has a moral quality associated with it.

Since you have described the concept of evil relative to the humans who experience evil, any morality in the description is likewise relative.

Relative not absolute. "God" is absolute, to negate "god" you'll need to pull an absolute quality out of the hat and you haven't yet done that. Can I suggest you might need some sort of ontological argument to achieve that?

Phil

No, God is non-existent as is absolute morality.

The problem of evil is definitional. not ontological.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 07:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  On what grounds is a God definitely absolute? That's part of the issue here. People who believe such aspects that make this contradiction visible.

In terms of religious truth claims?

Islam explicitly asserts it. I don't think Christianity does, but it does refer to god in terms of attributes which are absolute, e.g. god has "immutability" and "omnipresence".

In terms of philosophy, the absolute is often used as an equivalent term for "god" (perhaps because it separates the underlying phenomena from the truth claims of specific religions).

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  You can not determine that the puppy is not suffering.

You can not determine that it is.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 08:12 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  You can not determine that the puppy is not suffering.

You can not determine that it is.

Phil

Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: