The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 04:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:12 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  Ok thanks, that is clarifying.

Maybe since it is relevant to your responses I would just ask for opinions on a 2nd question. Does the absence of God lead to the existentialist (Sartre, Camus etc) position about an absurd, meaningless world in which life is only "nausea"? Obviously, as you said, there are good things still in life, and we certainly have experiences which are meaningful, but does the ultimate lack of an overarching and final meaning, and the large amount of suffering that exists coupled with the final ending of all life in ultimate destruction discolor the good which we do experience so much that we should call existence tragic as Sartre etc does?

You can fall into the pit of despair or you can stare into the abyss and laugh.

I prefer laughing.

one life and short time,
cold and lonely universe -
laugh at the abyss

Alternatively you could laugh in despair. Or despair from laughter. Or you could just forget both and simply go mad. Or go mad, with the addition of maniacal laughter.

There is many a way to react.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
16-05-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 04:12 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  Ok thanks, that is clarifying.

Maybe since it is relevant to your responses I would just ask for opinions on a 2nd question. Does the absence of God lead to the existentialist (Sartre, Camus etc) position about an absurd, meaningless world in which life is only "nausea"? Obviously, as you said, there are good things still in life, and we certainly have experiences which are meaningful, but does the ultimate lack of an overarching and final meaning, and the large amount of suffering that exists coupled with the final ending of all life in ultimate destruction discolor the good which we do experience so much that we should call existence tragic as Sartre etc does?

That sounds more like nihilism than existentialism to me...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
16-05-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
Nihilism
Quote:1.
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2.
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination


Existentialism:
Quote:: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad


First Known Use of EXISTENTIALISM

1941

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
16-05-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 05:29 PM)Charis Wrote:  Nihilism
Quote:1.
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2.
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination


Existentialism:
Quote:: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad


First Known Use of EXISTENTIALISM

1941

I think people from Manchester are quite nihilistic... I've never met a happy Manc. Laugh out load

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
16-05-2014, 07:17 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 04:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:12 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  

You can fall into the pit of despair or you can stare into the abyss and laugh.

I prefer laughing.


I get the idea of something like you can't change your circumstances but you can change your attitude to it, but I don't know how much of a laughing matter it is. I mean the idea of being separated forever from my loved ones or of all my accomplishments and relationships just ending with a few shovels of dirt being thrown over my head or of the planets colliding or whatever doesn't exactly crack me up. It kind of sucks.

I guess I just relate to the thinking of Sartre in the below quote a bit more than I do of Rahn127 or of Richard Dawkins who are really excited about God not existing. I feel like the Dawkins crew seems to fit his description of the 1880 French teachers.

"When we speak of forlornness, a term Heidegger was fond of, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense.

About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words-- and this, I believe, is the tendency of everything called reformism in France--nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself.

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoievsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." - Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WimpyPete's post
16-05-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 07:17 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You can fall into the pit of despair or you can stare into the abyss and laugh.

I prefer laughing.


I get the idea of something like you can't change your circumstances but you can change your attitude to it, but I don't know how much of a laughing matter it is. I mean the idea of being separated forever from my loved ones or of all my accomplishments and relationships just ending with a few shovels of dirt being thrown over my head or of the planets colliding or whatever doesn't exactly crack me up. It kind of sucks.

I guess I just relate to the thinking of Sartre in the below quote a bit more than I do of Rahn127 or of Richard Dawkins who are really excited about God not existing. I feel like the Dawkins crew seems to fit his description of the 1880 French teachers.

"When we speak of forlornness, a term Heidegger was fond of, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense.

About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words-- and this, I believe, is the tendency of everything called reformism in France--nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself.

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoievsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." - Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotion

To each his own. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.



You better get it while you can.
You better get it while you can.
If you wait too long, it'll all be gone
And you'll be sorry then.
It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor,
And it's the same for a woman or a man:
From the cradle to the crypt
Is a mighty short trip
So you better get it while you can.

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
16-05-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 07:17 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You can fall into the pit of despair or you can stare into the abyss and laugh.

I prefer laughing.


I get the idea of something like you can't change your circumstances but you can change your attitude to it, but I don't know how much of a laughing matter it is. I mean the idea of being separated forever from my loved ones or of all my accomplishments and relationships just ending with a few shovels of dirt being thrown over my head or of the planets colliding or whatever doesn't exactly crack me up. It kind of sucks.

I guess I just relate to the thinking of Sartre in the below quote a bit more than I do of Rahn127 or of Richard Dawkins who are really excited about God not existing. I feel like the Dawkins crew seems to fit his description of the 1880 French teachers.

"When we speak of forlornness, a term Heidegger was fond of, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense.

About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words-- and this, I believe, is the tendency of everything called reformism in France--nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself.

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoievsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." - Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotion

Finally!

Someone here writing something that is actually stimulating and thought-provoking instead of hurling obscenities.

Clap

I agree with Sartre and actually find Camus and Nietzsche fascinating.

Dostoevsky was brilliant as well. Incidentally, Dostoevsky never himself made the statement above, rather, Ivan in the book The Brother's Karamazov alluded to it as Eiermann below illustrates:

Jean Paul Sartre has said that all of French Existentialism is to be found in Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted. -Katharena Eiermann -Essay on Existentialism and Dostoevsky.

The reference to the 19th century French secular ethicists highlights how their thinking is still alive and well today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 07:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 07:17 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  I get the idea of something like you can't change your circumstances but you can change your attitude to it, but I don't know how much of a laughing matter it is. I mean the idea of being separated forever from my loved ones or of all my accomplishments and relationships just ending with a few shovels of dirt being thrown over my head or of the planets colliding or whatever doesn't exactly crack me up. It kind of sucks.

I guess I just relate to the thinking of Sartre in the below quote a bit more than I do of Rahn127 or of Richard Dawkins who are really excited about God not existing. I feel like the Dawkins crew seems to fit his description of the 1880 French teachers.

"When we speak of forlornness, a term Heidegger was fond of, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense.

About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words-- and this, I believe, is the tendency of everything called reformism in France--nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself.

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoievsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." - Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotion

To each his own. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.



You better get it while you can.
You better get it while you can.
If you wait too long, it'll all be gone
And you'll be sorry then.
It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor,
And it's the same for a woman or a man:
From the cradle to the crypt
Is a mighty short trip
So you better get it while you can.

This could read as an atheism manifesto of sorts.

Yes yes yes, I know.... not all atheists share the same view as Chas....

But when I was an atheist, I would have agreed with every word. Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
(16-05-2014 07:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Finally!

Someone here writing something that is actually stimulating and thought-provoking instead of hurling obscenities.

[Image: bullshit.jpg]


(16-05-2014 07:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But when I was an atheist....

[Image: bullshit-1.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
16-05-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: The argument from evil proves that the world is horrible?
My personal view point, I think life is both simultaneously amazing and deeply dissatisfying by nature. There are things in this world so beautiful and awesome that while witnessing them you literally forget to breath, "take your breath away" as it were, and then inevitably we all pass and it all goes away. Birth is an amazing beginning, and death is agonizing, uncomfortable, and undignifying for almost everybody. Life is equal parts good and bad.

I used to think I would prefer the reality where god exists, but incidentally it doesn't seem he does. Having an after life and a fatherly figure to look over you are comforting thoughts. Christopher Hitches, DarkMatter2525 and TTA helped me to realize that this world is actually much more ideal to any world where immortality is possible and especially one where the abrahamic/theistic god exists.









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