Evil

Well at this point I am going to fragment the thread. The topic is Evil and one does not need to be a practising Christian to have opinions on Evil.

I do not believe in Religion. None of them. I do how ever believe there is a design and a creator. I also believe that the Universe is perfection. I am but a mortal in it, and have no capacity to imagine how it could be any better as a Universe.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 28, 2010, 09:52:05 AM

But God says plenty of times in the bible

Let us substitute that for The people that wrote the Bible attributed the following words to God ...
Whilst a favourite line might be "This is the Word of God" I find it hard to believe he would have put so much effort into ancient peoples talking to them individually on a daily basis, but that He wouldn't go on the Letterman Show and give a quick interview on TV to convert Billions in one go for modern times.

The context of the thread is Christianity and how evil applies to it, and the context of the argument I posted that is being discussed is that of a Christian that believes in God. The argument is pointless if you reject the notion of the Christian God.

Good cannot exist without evil.

Morals cannot exist without evil.

Therefore, evil is necessary, and perfection cannot be achieved without evil.

1. Prove it. By this logic it must be morally acceptable to kick the shit out of your baby since you cannot be a good parent unless you have been a bad one first.

2. Even if we accept your premise, evil can still exist as an option but everyone just chooses not to do it.

Good cannot exist without evil.

That's a baseless claim.

The context of the thread is Christianity and how evil applies to it, and the context of the argument I posted that is being discussed is that of a Christian that believes in God. The argument is pointless if you reject the notion of the Christian God.

Then this is the point I must bow out of the thread. EG cannot lose an argument about imperfection with direct reference to the Bible. The Bible is full of contradiction (because it was written by many people and not God), and so the contradictions will point to imperfection in themselves. Anything that is said will be later unsaid, suggesting that something was imperfect to begin with, to warrant that change of opinion.
However I do not believe the universe to be imperfect. It is the Bible that is. Nor do I believe, that Christians have a monopoly on the concept of evil.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 28, 2010, 03:01:06 PM

The context of the thread is Christianity and how evil applies to it, and the context of the argument I posted that is being discussed is that of a Christian that believes in God. The argument is pointless if you reject the notion of the Christian God.

Then this is the point I must bow out of the thread. EG cannot lose an argument about imperfection with direct reference to the Bible. The Bible is full of contradiction (because it was written by many people and not God), and so the contradictions will point to imperfection in themselves. Anything that is said will be later unsaid, suggesting that something was imperfect to begin with, to warrant that change of opinion.
However I do not believe the universe to be imperfect. It is the Bible that is. Nor do I believe, that Christians have a monopoly on the concept of evil.

Emm... did you think I was defending the bible? The argument I presented was the against the Christian God. All I am saying that the argument that I posted is directly pointed towards a Christian God. Attacking the argument from a secular point of view rejects the entire argument, which makes attacking a specific premise pointless.

1. God is the omni-competent creator or the universe. (reductio)
a. Omni-competent entailing omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfect.
b. Omnipotence to be define as that God can create any possible world he wants. Notes that this means he can't do anything contradictory, as contradictions are not possible in a possible world. IE making a round square.
c. Omniscience to be defined as God knowing all the truths that will happen in any world he makes.
d. Moral perfection is self-explanatory.

2. Because of his omni-potence, God can create any world he wants.

3. Thusly, God can, and would make the best possible world. (Moral Perfection)

4. So, God creates the best possible world.

5. Our world is not the best possible world. (Just look at all the evil and shit!)

6. So, God created the best possible world, and our world is the best possible world. (Contradiction OMG!!!)

7. Thus, (1) is false, and God does not exist.

Quote from: Blanko on October 28, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

Good cannot exist without evil.

That's a baseless claim.

In a world without evil, the term "good" would be rendered meaningless.

Quote from: Keldarion Typrax on October 28, 2010, 03:37:22 PM

Quote from: Blanko on October 28, 2010, 01:16:06 PM

Good cannot exist without evil.

That's a baseless claim.

In a world without evil, the term "good" would be rendered meaningless.

By this logic it must be morally acceptable to kick the shit out of your baby since you cannot be a good parent unless you have been a bad one first.

If you are still doing actions that are considered good, why would it matter if good lost its meaning?

Consider this. God creates a world, with lovely trees, wonderful rivers and a green sky.

God then creates Thork and me. We wander around for a few hours and find we are extremely hungry. Being a kinda deity, God gives plops a sandwich in between us. Now there is a fork in the road, I can either be selfish and eat the entire sandwich and give none to Thork, or I can share it with him. Lets say I decided to share it with him. And then,

BOOM!!!

God obliterates the entire universe and sits alone with his thoughts for the rest of eternity.

Did I not just do a good act, even though there was no evil?

First, having left the debate, I do not remember giving you permission to use me in a homosexual garden of Eden sandwich fantasy.

The problem with your analogy was BOOM!

You created a universe of one event. Now at the risk throwing myself back into your Eden dream, left us assume that day occurred. And the next day we walked down the road and you gave me your sandwich again. And the next day. And the next day.

We will most likely get bored of walking around.
We will defiantly get sick of sandwiches.

What you described wasn't a perfect world. Nothing happened. I go back to my statement about winners and losers. The earth isn't abundantly full of sandwiches. There is only one a day. Now assuming we both have a family and one sandwich isn't going to feed us all, are you still going to share the sandwich?

No. You are going to make sure your kids are fed. That's not an evil deed for you. But if you are letting me and my family starve deliberately so your family are well looked after with the divine sandwich, am I going to think you are good? Evil is the perspective of the powerless and those who lost something.

But without change (gain and loss), the universe is stagnant. A universe with no variety can't be perfect. And so evil is just a by-product of perfection. God does exist.

First, having left the debate, I do not remember giving you permission to use me in a homosexual garden of Eden sandwich fantasy.

The problem with your analogy was BOOM!

You created a universe of one event. Now at the risk throwing myself back into your Eden dream, left us assume that day occurred. And the next day we walked down the road and you gave me your sandwich again. And the next day. And the next day.

We will most likely get bored of walking around.
We will defiantly get sick of sandwiches.

What you described wasn't a perfect world. Nothing happened. I go back to my statement about winners and losers. The earth isn't abundantly full of sandwiches. There is only one a day. Now assuming we both have a family and one sandwich isn't going to feed us all, are you still going to share the sandwich?

No. You are going to make sure your kids are fed. That's not an evil deed for you. But if you are letting me and my family starve deliberately so your family are well looked after with the divine sandwich, am I going to think you are good? Evil is the perspective of the powerless and those who lost something.

But without change (gain and loss), the universe is stagnant. A universe with no variety can't be perfect. And so evil is just a by-product of perfection. God does exist.

First off, The Eden of Sandwiches is a possible world, so therefore does work as a counter example.

Next, the "good action" doesn't have to constitute only giving you a sandwich. Making the "good" choice at every cross road can happen with many choices, such as opening a door, or giving you a ride on my mammoth, or building you a hut.
 
Stuff did happen, there was one choice, and it wasn't guaranteed that I would make the noble, or the selfish choice, it was only a matter of chance that I acted how I did. You can extend this for infinity, God can create any possible world, so the odds of it happening every time is irrelevant.

Your one a day sandwich as the only food for the residents of the Earth scenario would imply that God wants us to starve, which would go against his moral perfection. This means that there would be other sources of food for us whether it be hunting or gathering or farming. And since none of us ending up choosing to be sloths, we would want to get food, and not be lazy.

Dude, seriously ...

or giving you a ride on my mammoth

the sandwich will be fine.

Your Eden world was a flawed example. We were dead after one day. That can't be perfection? And before you say it, neither is living forever. Immortality means one of to things. Either you die suddenly and painfully, or you get real bored. Eternity is a long time.

Your always making the right choice, doesn't make for a perfect world though. Because to always make the perfect choice you only have one option. To share the sandwich. When there is only one option, its not free-will. Free-will must surely be part of the equation for perfection?

Lets reverse the situation. Now we have an abundance of sandwiches. There are sandwiches as far as the eye can see and we will never want for another sandwich again as it rains sandwiches daily at meal times. But you own a mammoth. I want a ride on that mammoth. (Yuck). But you want to ride it too. Its fun. Its a mammoth for crying out loud in a world full of raining sandwiches. Who wouldn't want to ride your mammoth. Now what could I offer you in exchange that I might get some time on that mammoth? Would you like a sandwich?

And Ok, its perfect so we both have a mammoth. But before we know it, when the earth is full of all the things we need, we aren't happy because we are forever treading in sandwiches and mammoth shit.

Dude, seriously ...

Quote

or giving you a ride on my mammoth

the sandwich will be fine.

Your Eden world was a flawed example. We were dead after one day. That can't be perfection? And before you say it, neither is living forever. Immortality means one of to things. Either you die suddenly and painfully, or you get real bored. Eternity is a long time.

Your always making the right choice, doesn't make for a perfect world though. Because to always make the perfect choice you only have one option. To share the sandwich. When there is only one option, its not free-will. Free-will must surely be part of the equation for perfection?

The world existing for one day was to show there can be free choices with out any of them being evil. I had a choice to make, and I chose to share instead of being selfish. How does simply choosing to do good every time not free-will? There is always more than one option, but it just turns out in this that each time people end up choosing to do good. Saying that this isn't free-will is saying that you are guaranteed to do evil at one point or another, and gosh, that doesn't sound like free-will either now does it?

Lets reverse the situation. Now we have an abundance of sandwiches. There are sandwiches as far as the eye can see and we will never want for another sandwich again as it rains sandwiches daily at meal times. But you own a mammoth. I want a ride on that mammoth. (Yuck). But you want to ride it too. Its fun. Its a mammoth for crying out loud in a world full of raining sandwiches. Who wouldn't want to ride your mammoth. Now what could I offer you in exchange that I might get some time on that mammoth? Would you like a sandwich?

And Ok, its perfect so we both have a mammoth. But before we know it, when the earth is full of all the things we need, we aren't happy because we are forever treading in sandwiches and mammoth shit.

So you ask me to ride my mammoth, I want to ride it too, but seeing how much it makes you happy, I say, "OK". A few hours later, I need it back so I can take a shower, so I ask you, "Can I have my mammoth back?" You smelling how repulsive I smell, "You say, of course!"

Or I could teach you how to get your own mammoth.

Seems to work out to me.

No I think you missed the point. If there are two options, to share the sandwich or not, to lend me the mammoth or not, to help me build my own hut or not, over a life time these will add up to a lot of choices. Now if you have to always pick the good one or boom! (the universe explodes because you have introduced evil / imperfection / destroyed god or however it plays out), you haven't got a choice. It can't be a choice if things are only perfect when you pick the right option. You haven't got an option. You just said it. You have to always pick the right choice. That isn't free-will.

Yeah I could learn to ride your mammoth. I could have my own mammoth too. But I also need my own hut, a woman would be nice, some children, a car, a road to use it on, a job so I have more purpose than just eating sandwiches and riding mammoths, I want a holiday now and again for a change of scene, I'll need an airport, people working in it, a hotel, all those people need things, and the things they need require other things. Before you know it life is massively complex. The universe might be perfect but we aren't. We sometimes choose not to share the sandwich, and it might just be we didn't realise there was only going to be one sandwich. Sometimes we do things unintentionally, or you get stuck with a situation where there is no nice option. Do I let the dog suffer or do I put it own? Do I let grandma suffer or do I put grandma down? What's evil in those two questions - prolonging suffering or ending life? Life is just to wonderful and complex not to have evil in it. Its a big shit-sandwich and we all have to take a bite. But therein lies the perfection.

No I think you missed the point. If there are two options, to share the sandwich or not, to lend me the mammoth or not, to help me build my own hut or not, over a life time these will add up to a lot of choices. Now if you have to always pick the good one or boom! (the universe explodes because you have introduced evil / imperfection / destroyed god or however it plays out), you haven't got a choice. It can't be a choice if things are only perfect when you pick the right option. You haven't got an option. You just said it. You have to always pick the right choice. That isn't free-will.

You are misunderstanding me. It isn't a threat of, "Choose this way or I'll blow you up." If God is omniscient (from premise 1) then he already knows all the truths of the possible world. Therefore he could just select one where everyone happens to freely choose to not do evil.

Yeah I could learn to ride your mammoth. I could have my own mammoth too. But I also need my own hut, a woman would be nice, some children, a car, a road to use it on, a job so I have more purpose than just eating sandwiches and riding mammoths, I want a holiday now and again for a change of scene, I'll need an airport, people working in it, a hotel, all those people need things, and the things they need require other things. Before you know it life is massively complex. The universe might be perfect but we aren't. We sometimes choose not to share the sandwich, and it might just be we didn't realise there was only going to be one sandwich.

Just because people's desires spin a thick complex web of choices, does not mean that the only way that a fulfilling life can come about is from doing evil at some point. Once again, if you are saying that to live your life, you are guaranteed to do evil, then that's not free-will now is it? And the free-will defense falls apart.

Sometimes we do things unintentionally, or you get stuck with a situation where there is no nice option. Do I let the dog suffer or do I put it own? Do I let grandma suffer or do I put grandma down? What's evil in those two questions - prolonging suffering or ending life? Life is just to wonderful and complex not to have evil in it. Its a big shit-sandwich and we all have to take a bite. But therein lies the perfection.

Sadly, there is quite a easy answer to this.

Why would a morally perfect God intentionally create a world with suffering?

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:20:00 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:20:00 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.

No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:44:57 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:20:00 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.

No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

If God can only create possible things, then to create something that is impossible is a contradiction. It is that simple. I really don't see how you do not get this. Possible worlds by definition cannot have contradictions, so saying that something impossible can be created is a contradiction since by its definition, impossible means something that is not capable of occurring or something that cannot be done.

Besides, there is an answer to what is the last digit of pie. It could say, "There is none." so your analogy fails.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:51:39 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:44:57 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:20:00 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.

No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

If God can only create possible things, then to create something that is impossible is a contradiction. It is that simple. I really don't see how you do not get this. Possible worlds by definition cannot have contradictions, so saying that something impossible can be created is a contradiction since by its definition, impossible means something that is not capable of occurring or something that cannot be done.

Besides, there is an answer to what is the last digit of pie. It could say, "There is none." so your analogy fails.

something that would be impossible to move does not mean that it is impossible to make. it is not a case of if P then Q. like I said If I just put a limit that he can only move things that are possible to move, I have not made any condition would make is so there was nothing that was impossible to move.
 impossible to move != impossible to make

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 01:36:38 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:51:39 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:44:57 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:20:00 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.

No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

If God can only create possible things, then to create something that is impossible is a contradiction. It is that simple. I really don't see how you do not get this. Possible worlds by definition cannot have contradictions, so saying that something impossible can be created is a contradiction since by its definition, impossible means something that is not capable of occurring or something that cannot be done.

Besides, there is an answer to what is the last digit of pie. It could say, "There is none." so your analogy fails.

something that would be impossible to move does not mean that it is impossible to make. it is not a case of if P then Q. like I said If I just put a limit that he can only move things that are possible to move, I have not made any condition would make is so there was nothing that was impossible to move.
 impossible to move != impossible to make

Can you think of any example of an object that is impossible to move, and exists? If not, your claim is no different than saying that round squares exist.

Once again, if something is impossible, it means that it is not capable of occurring or something that cannot be done. So if you are making something with the quality of being impossible, this is a contradiction.

Ok, so dragging the thread away from semantics and back to sandwiches and dead grandmas.

You are misunderstanding me. It isn't a threat of, "Choose this way or I'll blow you up." If God is omniscient (from premise 1) then he already knows all the truths of the possible world. Therefore he could just select one where everyone happens to freely choose to not do evil.

But this assumes God already knows all our actions before we do them. If God created a universe where only the good deed is chosen, it suggests he has foreseen all our actions, knows what we will do and how things play out. If that is the case and the future is already mapped out what is the point in the universe, and how did you have any free-will? You just did what you were expected to do. And the whole point of life, is that at the end you are judged. Judgement day comes upon you, and St Peter either gives you a free pass into heaven or he pulls the lever and you plummet to an eternity of bum sex and boiling. How can you be judged on your actions if the universe was designed to make you always pick the good option. Evil has to be possible for judgement. Now why doesn't God let everyone go to heaven? That is because God works in mysterious ways and that part of the equation (the afterlife) is not part of the universe. If the test is necessary (and God sees fit that it is, in his divine wisdom), then Evil must be a readily available option which we can all choose. Some of us do. To be judged on your life, when you can only do good, does not make for a test. So the universe is perfect in that it provides the option of evil, and hence the perfect opportunity for him to assess if you are worthy of heaven.

Just because people's desires spin a thick complex web of choices, does not mean that the only way that a fulfilling life can come about is from doing evil at some point. Once again, if you are saying that to live your life, you are guaranteed to do evil, then that's not free-will now is it? And the free-will defense falls apart.

Addressed above. The future cannot be mapped out if you are to be tested. You need to be able to select evil at your desire.

Sadly, there is quite a easy answer to this.

Why would a morally perfect God intentionally create a world with suffering?

Suffering is necessary. Without it, there is no contrast to pleasure. One cannot appreciate good without experiencing evil. You do not appreciate a warm sun on your face, if the sun is always warm and on your face. But 4 months of snow and rain make you realise how nice that is. You cannot understand how tasty chocolate is if all you ever eat is chocolate. For me a quick taste of something pickled reminds me that chocolate is really very tasty. You will not realise the pleasure of an orgasm if you spent your whole life having one (probably a form of hell in itself). And the opposite is true. You do not appreciate feeling fine, if you have never felt pain. You cannot appreciate happiness if you have never been sad. Nor can you empathise with others too pick the right choice, if you don't realise parking your mammoth on sunbather will hurt them. You need to feel suffering yourself, in order that you can choose a good option from an evil one, as without this knowledge how could you be fairly tested?

I'd like to see Thork ride EnglshGentleman's mammoth.

But this assumes God already knows all our actions before we do them. If God created a universe where only the good deed is chosen, it suggests he has foreseen all our actions, knows what we will do and how things play out. If that is the case and the future is already mapped out what is the point in the universe, and how did you have any free-will?

God choose this world did he not? So how does this not violate our free will?

You just did what you were expected to do. And the whole point of life, is that at the end you are judged. Judgement day comes upon you, and St Peter either gives you a free pass into heaven or he pulls the lever and you plummet to an eternity of bum sex and boiling. How can you be judged on your actions if the universe was designed to make you always pick the good option. Evil has to be possible for judgement. Now why doesn't God let everyone go to heaven? That is because God works in mysterious ways and that part of the equation (the afterlife) is not part of the universe. If the test is necessary (and God sees fit that it is, in his divine wisdom), then Evil must be a readily available option which we can all choose. Some of us do. To be judged on your life, when you can only do good, does not make for a test. So the universe is perfect in that it provides the option of evil, and hence the perfect opportunity for him to assess if you are worthy of heaven.

Judging people to let them into heaven was only necessary once God realized that humans were becoming assholes. Before then it wasn't necessary. After all, Cain got to get away with murder since there was no prior rule against it. So yes, evil is required for judgment, but does God have to judge to let people into heaven? He didn't always.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:06:48 AM

Just because people's desires spin a thick complex web of choices, does not mean that the only way that a fulfilling life can come about is from doing evil at some point. Once again, if you are saying that to live your life, you are guaranteed to do evil, then that's not free-will now is it? And the free-will defense falls apart.

Addressed above. The future cannot be mapped out if you are to be tested. You need to be able to select evil at your desire.

Already discussed. God knows what is going to happen regardless of the world, and testing isn't always necessary. In this world be can select evil at their desire, it just so happens that they never do. If you are saying that people have to pick evil at one point, that isn't free-will now is it??

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 12:06:48 AM

Sadly, there is quite a easy answer to this.
Why would a morally perfect God intentionally create a world with suffering?

Suffering is necessary. Without it, there is no contrast to pleasure. One cannot appreciate good without experiencing evil. You do not appreciate a warm sun on your face, if the sun is always warm and on your face. But 4 months of snow and rain make you realize how nice that is. You cannot understand how tasty chocolate is if all you ever eat is chocolate. For me a quick taste of something pickled reminds me that chocolate is really very tasty. You will not realize the pleasure of an orgasm if you spent your whole life having one (probably a form of hell in itself). And the opposite is true. You do not appreciate feeling fine, if you have never felt pain. You cannot appreciate happiness if you have never been sad. Nor can you empathize with others too pick the right choice, if you don't realize parking your mammoth on sunbather will hurt them. You need to feel suffering yourself, in order that you can choose a good option from an evil one, as without this knowledge how could you be fairly tested?

So by this logic is must most morally acceptable to kick the crap out of your baby since you cannot be a good parent before you have been a bad one.

Your argument has turned to mush. 

His argument doesn't say you have to be a bad parent before you can be a good one.  It says you have to know evil to know good, and good to know evil.

Your argument has turned to mush. 

His argument doesn't say you have to be a bad parent before you can be a good one.  It says you have to know evil to know good, and good to know evil.

Indeed. I think he twists and turns like a twisty turny thing.

God choose this world did he not? So how does this not violate our free will?

God did indeed chose it. That was his choice to make not yours. He picked the perfect world for us. A nice lush flat one. It does not violate free-will that the inhabitants of a planet did not pick their own planet. They would all require different things. A perfect balance needs to be stuck. Who better to make that decision than God Almighty?

Judging people to let them into heaven was only necessary once God realized that humans were becoming assholes. Before then it wasn't necessary. After all, Cain got to get away with murder since there was no prior rule against it. So yes, evil is required for judgment, but does God have to judge to let people into heaven? He didn't always.

Cain did not get away with murder. Cain was cast into the wilderness and bore 'The mark of Cain' so as all those who met him would know what he had done and to stop others from killing him, so as he may live his life out being cursed. Interestingly ...

In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Already discussed. God knows what is going to happen regardless of the world, and testing isn't always necessary. In this world be can select evil at their desire, it just so happens that they never do. If you are saying that people have to pick evil at one point, that isn't free-will now is it??

Testing is necessary. It is the whole point of life on earth and the point of 'Judgement day'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment
Fortunately we are talking about Christianity, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will make it into heaven.
http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/144-000.htm
So next time one comes to your door, ask them how many people get into heaven. Then ask him how many JWs there are in the world right now. They should tell you about 7 million. Then ask what the odds are then, of you getting into heaven, even if you convert off the back of their visit.

So by this logic is must most morally acceptable to kick the crap out of your baby since you cannot be a good parent before you have been a bad one.

No, you are wriggling. Its is important that in your life you have experienced pain, so as you know the consequences of inflicting it on others. A sneaky baseball to the crotch, a stubbing of ones toe, getting a kick off someone at school. These experiences all serve you well in knowing if you kick the crap out of your baby, you will hurt it.

Unfortunately some people still do that, as in the sickening case of Baby P here in the UK. The reports of what happened to that child are so stomach churning, you can only attribute the offenders actions to evil. I hope there will be no redemption. If anyone browsing this topic is of a sensitive disposition, do not follow the link below. It is truly one of the most horrific cases of child abuse I have ever heard of.
http://news.deviantart.com/article/62577/
It is cases like this that make me wish I was a believer in Christianity and hell, because the man who did that, will never be punished to the extent that he deserves under UK law.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 10:46:03 AM

God choose this world did he not? So how does this not violate our free will?

God did indeed chose it. That was his choice to make not yours. He picked the perfect world for us. A nice lush flat one. It does not violate free-will that the inhabitants of a planet did not pick their own planet. They would all require different things. A perfect balance needs to be stuck. Who better to make that decision than God Almighty?

So how can you say that it doesn't violate our free will for God to choose this planet, but it would if he chose a different planet. It just doesn't make sense. Regardless of the planet he chooses he is going to know everything that occurs in it due to omniscience. Either way he knows the actions people will be choosing. The fact that he decides to pick a world where people do not rape and murder each other over one where people do does not violate free-will.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 10:46:03 AM

Judging people to let them into heaven was only necessary once God realized that humans were becoming assholes. Before then it wasn't necessary. After all, Cain got to get away with murder since there was no prior rule against it. So yes, evil is required for judgment, but does God have to judge to let people into heaven? He didn't always.

Cain did not get away with murder. Cain was cast into the wilderness and bore 'The mark of Cain' so as all those who met him would know what he had done and to stop others from killing him, so as he may live his life out being cursed. Interestingly ...

Quote

In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

He got shunned yes, but did he get punished for it? No. Because there was no law against it at that time, just like there was no law against incest, so Cain didn't get punished for that either.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 10:46:03 AM

Already discussed. God knows what is going to happen regardless of the world, and testing isn't always necessary. In this world be can select evil at their desire, it just so happens that they never do. If you are saying that people have to pick evil at one point, that isn't free-will now is it??

Testing is necessary. It is the whole point of life on earth and the point of 'Judgement day'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment
Fortunately we are talking about Christianity, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will make it into heaven.
http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/144-000.htm
So next time one comes to your door, ask them how many people get into heaven. Then ask him how many JWs there are in the world right now. They should tell you about 7 million. Then ask what the odds are then, of you getting into heaven, even if you convert off the back of their visit.

Judgment is only a requirement because of original sin. If it did not occur, it would not be necessary. Seems to me God created a world in which he'd know Adam and Eve would sin and screw everything up for humanity. Why would a morally perfect intentionally create a situation where people would suffer?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 29, 2010, 10:46:03 AM

So by this logic is must most morally acceptable to kick the crap out of your baby since you cannot be a good parent before you have been a bad one.

No, you are wriggling. Its is important that in your life you have experienced pain, so as you know the consequences of inflicting it on others. A sneaky baseball to the crotch, a stubbing of ones toe, getting a kick off someone at school. These experiences all serve you well in knowing if you kick the crap out of your baby, you will hurt it.

Unfortunately some people still do that, as in the sickening case of Baby P here in the UK. The reports of what happened to that child are so stomach churning, you can only attribute the offenders actions to evil. I hope there will be no redemption. If anyone browsing this topic is of a sensitive disposition, do not follow the link below. It is truly one of the most horrific cases of child abuse I have ever heard of.
http://news.deviantart.com/article/62577/
It is cases like this that make me wish I was a believer in Christianity and hell, because the man who did that, will never be punished to the extent that he deserves under UK law.

It is irrelevant if I have never experienced pain if I don't end up inflicting it upon anyone. I don't know what it is like to rape someone, and I haven't been raped, does this mean that I don't know I don't want to rape people? Knowing how badly your baby will get hurt is irrelevant if you never choose to do it.

This is worse than the Star Trek v Star Wars thread.

You cannot come to any sort of agreement, short of open hostility anyway, when you argue something as arbitrary as God, 'Evil' etc.

This is worse than the Star Trek v Star Wars thread.

You cannot come to any sort of agreement, short of open hostility anyway, when you argue something as arbitrary as God, 'Evil' etc.

I am constructing an answer for EG. However what is obvious is that 2 FErs having a debate hasn't resorted to low content posting, posts of 'prove it', accusations of trolling, or indeed open hostility. It is just an open an honest debate and I am actually enjoying the change, despite the fact I may end up losing. But I doubt I will.

Quote from: Vindictus on October 29, 2010, 02:59:34 PM

This is worse than the Star Trek v Star Wars thread.

You cannot come to any sort of agreement, short of open hostility anyway, when you argue something as arbitrary as God, 'Evil' etc.

I am constructing an answer for EG. However what is obvious is that 2 FErs having a debate hasn't resorted to low content posting, posts of 'prove it', accusations of trolling, or indeed open hostility. It is just an open an honest debate and I am actually enjoying the change, despite the fact I may end up losing. But I doubt I will.

I too like this fact. This discussion hasn't involved insults or pedantry or accusations. This pretty much proves the use of these in a discussion or debate does not stem from us. The mood as been calm. Why can't the upper fora be like this? 

Quote from: Thork on October 29, 2010, 03:06:05 PM

Quote from: Vindictus on October 29, 2010, 02:59:34 PM

This is worse than the Star Trek v Star Wars thread.

You cannot come to any sort of agreement, short of open hostility anyway, when you argue something as arbitrary as God, 'Evil' etc.

I am constructing an answer for EG. However what is obvious is that 2 FErs having a debate hasn't resorted to low content posting, posts of 'prove it', accusations of trolling, or indeed open hostility. It is just an open an honest debate and I am actually enjoying the change, despite the fact I may end up losing. But I doubt I will.

I too like this fact. This discussion hasn't involved insults or pedantry or accusations. This pretty much proves the use of these in a discussion or debate does not stem from us. The mood as been calm. Why can't the upper fora be like this? 

Because its full of children.
On a side note I am furious with myself. I was just about to send my rebuttal, and I deleted it by accident. I am going to have to rewrite. So annoying. Sorry.