Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 10:38 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 08:10 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(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

Those are specific but not a universal value of gods.

Your point still remains absent. If an absolute God set this all in order. It created the mass delusion of evil that nearly everyone confirms through other means of expression to eachother.

If still a physiological perception, it's one the gods set within or allow within human minds, that many human minds using the other qualities given by the God to determine it unjust.

"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, 09:24 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.

Do you have a coherent definition of suffering?

A dog - as any mammal - certainly seems, by any defensible definition, to be capable of suffering. It exhibits a variety of negative responses to painful and/or harmful stimuli.

Or are you talking in circles out of your ass?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
19-08-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 08:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem of evil is definitional. not ontological.

It is true that the problem of evil is definitional, however that definitional problem is built upon an ontological understanding of the qualities of reality that the allegedly contradictory concepts point towards.

If you lack awareness of this, there will be a whole raft of unexamined givens supporting your position.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 09:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your point still remains absent. If an absolute God set this all in order. It created the mass delusion of evil that nearly everyone confirms through other means of expression to eachother.

If still a physiological perception, it's one the gods set within or allow within human minds, that many human minds using the other qualities given by the God to determine it unjust.

I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:50 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 09:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your point still remains absent. If an absolute God set this all in order. It created the mass delusion of evil that nearly everyone confirms through other means of expression to eachother.

If still a physiological perception, it's one the gods set within or allow within human minds, that many human minds using the other qualities given by the God to determine it unjust.

I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil

An Omnipotent Benevolent god would not be constrained in that way. You are saying that said person is more powerful than your god.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
19-08-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Phil, I'm just curious. Are you a member of a cult of some sort? I don't know why, but I get a bit of a culty vibe...

(And by cult I don't mean mainstream religion. Although by definition, all religions are cults.)

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:30 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 08:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem of evil is definitional. not ontological.

It is true that the problem of evil is definitional, however that definitional problem is built upon an ontological understanding of the qualities of reality that the allegedly contradictory concepts point towards.

Sorry, no. The ontology of evil has precisely nothing to do with the problem of evil unless you wish to prove that evil exists outside of minds, and that either God created it or it is a necessary part of reality.

Quote:If you lack awareness of this, there will be a whole raft of unexamined givens supporting your position.



Phil

Lack awareness? No, you have not made a cogent argument that ontology has anything to do with it.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-08-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:52 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 10:50 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil

An Omnipotent Benevolent god would not be constrained in that way. You are saying that said person is more powerful than your god.

If an all-powerful God is absent then an all-powerful God wanted it that way. An all-loving God would not want to be absent.

The definitions are irreconcilable. His dodge implicitly rejects omnipotence.

However special OP thinks his spiel is, suffice to say no, he hasn't succeeded where two thousand years of prior apologetics have failed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
19-08-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 10:50 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 09:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your point still remains absent. If an absolute God set this all in order. It created the mass delusion of evil that nearly everyone confirms through other means of expression to eachother.

If still a physiological perception, it's one the gods set within or allow within human minds, that many human minds using the other qualities given by the God to determine it unjust.

I have made an ontological argument that evil does not exist, in the sense that it's a delusion rather than an existential actuality.

In short:

Consider "evil" as a lack of god rather than the presence of a imperfect god.

To give a concrete example: if I am visiting New York and someone breaks into my London flat and steals the contents, it's not reasonable to find me guilty of the crime of theft, even if it could be argued nothing would have been stolen if I'd been present in the flat at the time.

It's not reasonable to consider me guilty of the crime because I wasn't actually there when it happened.

Likewise, "evil" is an absence of god, not the presence of an imperfect god.

Can you please reflect back your understanding of this argument, just so that I can see that I have communicated it clearly to you?

Phil

But you are not omniscient nor omnibenevolent nor omnipresent. So, there's that.

The problem of evil is directed at that kind of god.

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, 11:09 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(19-08-2014 09:24 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you have a coherent definition of suffering?

I would define "suffering" as my psychological relationship to negative emotions and body sensations.

So it's an experience which is based on negative feelings (like pain) but in fact dependent on how (and if) my psychology relates to (and personalises) those feelings.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: