The Argument From Evil

Define light without darkness.

'Light' is electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.
'Darkness' has nothing to do with it.

Define up without down.

Neither are actual things.

What is suffering? What is pointlessness? Some people can stand pain that others cannot, some people prefer what others would consider pointless. There is no suffering in the world that we do not bring upon ourselves.

Joe

Not true.  Let me propose a thought experiment.  Imagine a forest.  Within this forest are all sorts of woodland creatures.  For reasons that we cannot fathom, a fire breaks out in this forest (not due to some careless camper, we can posit it being a lightening strike or some other sort of "natural" event).  The fire horribly burns a fawn, who languishes for days in excruciating pain before expiring.  Now, this baby deer did nothing untoward, malicious, or otherwise deserving of a death filled with pain and fear.  I would also argue that this scenario is not at all far-fetched; it is something that can happen, probably has happened, or could be happening right now somewhere in the world.  I would further argue that no grand scheme is visible, no outcome that would lead any of us to conclude that the fawn's death prevented some greater evil from transpiring or brought about some greater good.  It was, for lack of better phrasing, pointless.  It was also full of suffering.  It is, in all ways, an example of pointless suffering. 

Quote from: Gumwars on April 06, 2018, 07:18:14 PM

If God exists, and God is a morally perfect, omni-powerful entity, then God would not allow Evil to exist due to His/Its morally perfect, omni-powerful attributes.

Evil exists, therefore God does not exist.

If FE, or at least a large part of it hinges on the existence of God, then I contend that God does not exists, therefore the elements of FE that require an Almighty are not valid.

Good can not exist without evil.

Are you making a statement or asking a question?

Quote from: 41317 on April 09, 2018, 07:43:02 AM

What is suffering? What is pointlessness? Some people can stand pain that others cannot, some people prefer what others would consider pointless. There is no suffering in the world that we do not bring upon ourselves.

Joe

Not true.  Let me propose a thought experiment.  Imagine a forest.  Within this forest are all sorts of woodland creatures.  For reasons that we cannot fathom, a fire breaks out in this forest (not due to some careless camper, we can posit it being a lightening strike or some other sort of "natural" event).  The fire horribly burns a fawn, who languishes for days in excruciating pain before expiring.  Now, this baby deer did nothing untoward, malicious, or otherwise deserving of a death filled with pain and fear.  I would also argue that this scenario is not at all far-fetched; it is something that can happen, probably has happened, or could be happening right now somewhere in the world.  I would further argue that no grand scheme is visible, no outcome that would lead any of us to conclude that the fawn's death prevented some greater evil from transpiring or brought about some greater good.  It was, for lack of better phrasing, pointless.  It was also full of suffering.  It is, in all ways, an example of pointless suffering.

Some trees only reproduce through a fire. Also that fawns carcass will provide the nutrients necessary for a healthy regrowth. Its dead carcass will also give life to hundreds if not thousands of maggots who would otherwise never have existed. It's death was not pointless

Some trees only reproduce through a fire. Also that fawns carcass will provide the nutrients necessary for a healthy regrowth. Its dead carcass will also give life to hundreds if not thousands of maggots who would otherwise never have existed. It's death was not pointless

So, in your opinion, the suffering experienced before the animal died is at least equal, as a sum of potential goods, to the consequence of said death?

Keep in mind that some people equate suffering with loss of cell phone signal.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 04:33:16 PM

Define light without darkness.

'Light' is electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Darkness is the absence of electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Checkmate.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 11, 2018, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 04:33:16 PM

Define light without darkness.

'Light' is electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Darkness is the absence of electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Checkmate.

You are shouting "King Me!" while your checker sits on the 5th rank.

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

You can't define good without evil.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:08:09 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 11, 2018, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 04:33:16 PM

Define light without darkness.

'Light' is electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Darkness is the absence of electromagnetic radiation in the 400 to 600 nm range.

Checkmate.

You are shouting "King Me!" while your checker sits on the 5th rank.

HAHAHAHA!!

D1 (tapping fingers together like Monty Burns, probably): Define light without darkness

Moose: Challenge met.

D1: I WIN!


Just like a toddler.

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

I just did.

You can't define good without evil.

good   ɡo͝od/  adjective
1. to be desired or approved of.

HAHAHAHA!!

Nice ad hominem. You're getting better mate.

Pity you couldnt make a rebuttal.
Alas.

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing
this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill
of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the
want of skill is.

So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to
(the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the
idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the
figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from
the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and
tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and
that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and
conveys his instructions without the use of speech.

All things spring up, and there is not one which declines to show
itself; they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership;
they go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a
reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no
resting in it (as an achievement).

The work is done, but how no one can see;
'Tis this that makes the power not cease to be.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

I just did.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define good without evil.

good   ɡo͝od/  adjective
1. to be desired or approved of.

Bad
to be un-desired or disapproved of.

See?

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

You can't define good without evil.

If one requires the other for its definition (which is a tenuous assertion), then if one does not exist, neither does its opposite.

South = the opposite of North.

North = the opposite of South.

You really can't have one without the other.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

You can't define good without evil.

If one requires the other for its definition (which is a tenuous assertion), then if one does not exist, neither does its opposite.

I agree and ill explain why if you want to hear it.

Quote from: boydster on April 11, 2018, 06:18:45 PM

HAHAHAHA!!

Nice ad hominem. You're getting better mate.

Pity you couldnt make a rebuttal.
Alas.

Quote

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing
this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill
of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the
want of skill is.

So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to
(the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the
idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the
figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from
the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and
tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and
that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and
conveys his instructions without the use of speech.

All things spring up, and there is not one which declines to show
itself; they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership;
they go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a
reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no
resting in it (as an achievement).

The work is done, but how no one can see;
'Tis this that makes the power not cease to be.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 11, 2018, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

I just did.

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define good without evil.

good   ɡo͝od/  adjective
1. to be desired or approved of.

Bad
to be un-desired or disapproved of.

See?

No, this is, at best, pedantic.  Merely using the negative case of a term does not mean it is a dualistic opposite.  The point has been made that, as a matter of linguistics, the words "good" and "evil" can be defined absent the other.

South = the opposite of North.

North = the opposite of South.

You really can't have one without the other.

Quote from: Gumwars on April 11, 2018, 06:24:35 PM

Quote from: disputeone on April 11, 2018, 06:16:21 PM

You can't define light as something without darkness to compare it to.

You can't define good without evil.

If one requires the other for its definition (which is a tenuous assertion), then if one does not exist, neither does its opposite.

I agree and ill explain why if you want to hear it.

I agree too and would enjoy hearing your perspective.

No, this is, at best, pedantic.  Merely using the negative case of a term does not mean it is a dualistic opposite.  The point has been made that, as a matter of linguistics, the words "good" and "evil" can be defined absent the other.

If there was no evil there would be no good. We wouldn't have a word for it, it would simply be the way things are. We would be unable to  define it much like the nature of our existence.

the D1 Airshow ! ! !

(4m:0s)

Another good ad-hominem.

No, just laughing at you in your face.

If there was no evil there would be no good. We wouldn't have a word for it, it would simply be the way things are. We would be unable to  define it much like the nature of our existence.

Logically, we can argue that the absence of one particular trait does not immediately lead to the absence or negation of another.  To arrive at this conclusion, we would need to first establish a connection between the two proving an inverse relationship.  Traits or conditions like something being true or false is easier.  Good and evil means that we must explore morality, which is far fuzzier.  We'd need to discuss culture, absolute morality vs. relative morality, consequentialism, and a whole host of other abstract topics before we could announce, with certainty, that the two are dualistic. 

In other news, I agree that they are, but to make a point here about it would require some unpacking of things.

No, just laughing at you in your face.

Quite.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character

Dictionaries are fun.

You're a smart guy Gumwars maybe we can talk once my fanclub has calmed down a little.

I'm patient (most of the time).

Thanks, the constant personal attacks get tiring here. I'm back to work from my break now but hopefully we can continue this soon.

Of all the classes I took in philosophy, religion, and in particular the argument or problem of evil, is the most fascinating I've come across.  Plantinga's argument for theism, and the numerous arguments against the logical argument are great.  What I appreciate the most is that it is nearly impossible (or at least what I've come across), to prove either argument.

Quote from: Shifter on April 11, 2018, 05:51:21 PM

Some trees only reproduce through a fire. Also that fawns carcass will provide the nutrients necessary for a healthy regrowth. Its dead carcass will also give life to hundreds if not thousands of maggots who would otherwise never have existed. It's death was not pointless

So, in your opinion, the suffering experienced before the animal died is at least equal, as a sum of potential goods, to the consequence of said death?

The same mechanism which caused the animal suffering (pain) is the same mechanism which helps the animals survive.

The same mechanism which caused the animal suffering (pain) is the same mechanism which helps the animals survive.

With all due respect, that isn't a response to the question I asked.

Quote from: Shifter on April 11, 2018, 08:37:12 PM

The same mechanism which caused the animal suffering (pain) is the same mechanism which helps the animals survive.

With all due respect, that isn't a response to the question I asked.

You asked if its suffering was necessary. Well, it is if you want an animal that has the ability to feel pain which in turns helps it survive and evolve as a species

It may sound cruel and it is sad, but yes, the suffering is 'worth it'. Otherwise there would be no species at all.

Would you choose to live your life without the ability to feel pain and suffering? Or do you think they serve a purpose?

About dualism, ever heard of heat? Heat is warm, and the opposite of that is cold... but what is cold? Well, the absence of heat. But when do we have a absence of heat? Theoretically at -273.15 degrees celsius, but we've never been able to reach that and we don't think it exists naturally anywhere in the universe. Yet we call a lot of other things, that are not absent of heat, cold. Cold is not actually an absence of heat, it is a lesser degree of heat. The whole universe is heat, because there is no absence of heat. We can measure the exact amount of heat without relying on the concept of absence of heat.

However, "the absence of x" is a really cheap way to describe something that is the opposite of x. Being absent, or not existing, is the opposite of existing and nothing else. Let's take matter for example. Matter is this thing with mass that takes up space. Then what is the opposite of matter? Well, the absence of matter. But then we have antimatter, which is supposedly the opposite of matter. The absence of matter is not the opposite of matter in this case, it's the opposite of the presence of matter. To have matter is the opposite of not having matter, but matter itself is not the opposite of not-matter. We can apply this to light as well: The presence of light is the opposite of the absence of light, but light itself is not a opposite of not-light.

There doesn't have to be a opposite for something to exists, and an absence of something does not qualify as an opposite to it either.

What is anti-matter?