How do you achieve objectivity from one big all-powerful subjectivity? It’s still just thoughts in a mind. Why should we care what this mind considers “moral”? Is it just because might makes right? “Cuz I sez so” is still weak and subjective whether it comes from a human or a divine being like an angel or god. If you can’t ground your morality outside of all persons/personality you don’t have an objective morality. I will add, that I do believe morality is objective, but this is not it.
this entity is responsible for the very existence of good and evil as both discrete and abstract qualia
trying to define these qualia in the absence of their source is a bit like trying to define what a human being is if humans never existed
The theist does not have any issue with his conception of evil, since it is refuted theologically within the arguments of his own religion. The problem of evil is only a problem to the epicurean, i.e. the anti-theist.
The Epicurean, if he assumes an objective and unbiased premise, must first define evil objectively, which of course he never does, instead relying on the Theistic conception to trap his opponent into paradoxical word games, giving the illusion of victory without having to substantiate his own argument. The minute you play his own game and ask him to define evil, and prove that evil exists, his whole ontological framework falls apart.
An internal critique of a view A begins using premises accepted as true within A, and deduces either a highly implausible or contradictory conclusion. The person offering the critique might hold view B, which would not accept the premises of the critique, but that's irrelevant. The point is to show that A's commitments include something absurd. The fact that B does not include a definition of A's terms has no bearing whatsoever on that conclusion.
A critique of a theist's conception of God should begin with premises accepted as true by the theist, regardless of whether the person making the critique accepts those premises. The atheist could deny the existence of evil, but nevertheless argue that the theist's belief in evil is inconsistent with the theist's definition of God.
But the theist's view of evil is not inconsistent with the theist's view of god, hence they have no issue; contrariwise, it is the anti-theist's perceptions that are inconsistent with one another, hence the very conception of the "Problem" in the first place
But the theist's view of evil is not inconsistent with the theist's view of god, hence they have no issue; contrariwise, it is the anti-theist's perceptions that are inconsistent with one another, hence the very conception of the "Problem" in the first place
The fact that someone believes two propositions p and q does not mean that p and q are actually consistent. So the fact that theists believe in both God and evil is not proof that there is no inconsistency. The point of the problem of evil is that God wills nothing evil, God's will is omnipotent, yet evil exists. This is prima facie inconsistent, and it behooves the theist to explicate how something can exist that is contrary to an omnipotent will.
Possible defenses are, "Evil does not exist, it is an illusion" or "Evil does not exist fundamentally, it is a privation", or "Evil brings about a greater good", or "The absence of evil is logically impossible (and therefore unwillable)", etc. But all of these require some explication because they all admit some kind of seemingly obvious counter-example.
This is also why the only way to be a theist (as all inherently are) is to believe that evil has no ontology. Even the description of “evil” assumes a rationale that presupposes good.
The argument from free will does not save this either, as one cannot teleologically orient themselves towards nothing. Free will must be the choice between goods; not between good and “evil”.
Why are you spamming this retardation? Even sing the biblical definitions of evil god allows and promotes evil. >You shall not commit adultery >But fuck those other women you aren’t married to sure are sexy and willing to have sex with you whether or not they know you’re married
Evil is defined as corruption of reason, anything that doesn't allow the mind to thrive; atleast for the stoics. So no ethics or God stuff here. Evil can exist even without someone imposing what's evil and what's not.
OP is a literal meme but it's a good point. The paradox assumes there is an obvious, concrete definition of evil that can be agreed upon by everyone, which can also be used to judge God. It assumes objective morality is true. If moral relativism/nihilism is assumed instead, the paradox dissolves into nothingness.
That doesn't help though, because the person using the paradox is probably a morally relativistic atheist, so he has no grounds upon which to judge God. And if the atheist believes in objective morality, the two can just drag each other down with endless debate as to the justifications for their respective moral systems, never reaching common ground.
The problem of evil is an internal critique that aims to show that existence of evil as defined by the theist is inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator god. It is not "your god is mean".
>the fact that there are moral evils that I'm not drawn towards in the slightest.
this is a lie, or at best a false premise, since the Demon of Perversity exists in all men even if you successfully resist it and find it disgusting, it's still there beckoning you with things vile and repugnant to your conscience
Wait, so you are admitting that there are evils which you are not drawn towards? Seems like you didn't think your reply through, anon.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I admit nothing, I ask only why the Imp of the Perverse put "raping babies" foremost in your innermost thoughts that you thought you had to express such thoughts on the itnernet.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You admit nothing because you're dishonest. You know precisely why I talked about raping babies - I selected one of the most abhorrent evils that I could think of, because it puts you into a position where you either have to admit that you're drawn to it or admit that you're full of shit and your argument fails.
You will not address it because you are a dishonest person through and through, like most christians on this board.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>anti-christian is immediately drawn to the thought of raping babies
perhaps this wasn't such an epic own as you thought it was
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
See? There is that dishonesty again. You know exactly what you're doing, and you know that I know what you're doing. It's just theatre.
I just don't get why theists think God would create a world he knows will have stuff he doesn't want in it, like sin.
God has the superpower to always get what he wants (omnipotence).
>one will learn bar better
what is there to learn when one will burn in hell for all of eternity if he fails the test?
christian_cognitive_dissonance.jpg
>Could God X
>Not with Y
then he's not omnipotent you fucking retard
Does evil need to objectively exist, for the argument to go through?
How do you achieve objectivity from one big all-powerful subjectivity? It’s still just thoughts in a mind. Why should we care what this mind considers “moral”? Is it just because might makes right? “Cuz I sez so” is still weak and subjective whether it comes from a human or a divine being like an angel or god. If you can’t ground your morality outside of all persons/personality you don’t have an objective morality. I will add, that I do believe morality is objective, but this is not it.
this entity is responsible for the very existence of good and evil as both discrete and abstract qualia
trying to define these qualia in the absence of their source is a bit like trying to define what a human being is if humans never existed
Mist religions have their own idea of what is evil so ghe religious person would just apply that
Lol no. Evil in this context is whatever the religion denotes as evil, sin etc
Christisraelite really are 50 iq apes, worse than atheists
These kind of arguments are only meant to be forceful against people who believe there is such a thing as evil
isaiah 45:7
christians are really going to pretend like evil isnt real
The argument uses the same concept of evil as the proponent of theism that it's aimed at.
The theist does not have any issue with his conception of evil, since it is refuted theologically within the arguments of his own religion. The problem of evil is only a problem to the epicurean, i.e. the anti-theist.
The Epicurean, if he assumes an objective and unbiased premise, must first define evil objectively, which of course he never does, instead relying on the Theistic conception to trap his opponent into paradoxical word games, giving the illusion of victory without having to substantiate his own argument. The minute you play his own game and ask him to define evil, and prove that evil exists, his whole ontological framework falls apart.
An internal critique of a view A begins using premises accepted as true within A, and deduces either a highly implausible or contradictory conclusion. The person offering the critique might hold view B, which would not accept the premises of the critique, but that's irrelevant. The point is to show that A's commitments include something absurd. The fact that B does not include a definition of A's terms has no bearing whatsoever on that conclusion.
A critique of a theist's conception of God should begin with premises accepted as true by the theist, regardless of whether the person making the critique accepts those premises. The atheist could deny the existence of evil, but nevertheless argue that the theist's belief in evil is inconsistent with the theist's definition of God.
If you don't understand this, you're retarded.
They are physically incapable of grasping this.
Exhibit A
.
But the theist's view of evil is not inconsistent with the theist's view of god, hence they have no issue; contrariwise, it is the anti-theist's perceptions that are inconsistent with one another, hence the very conception of the "Problem" in the first place
The fact that someone believes two propositions p and q does not mean that p and q are actually consistent. So the fact that theists believe in both God and evil is not proof that there is no inconsistency. The point of the problem of evil is that God wills nothing evil, God's will is omnipotent, yet evil exists. This is prima facie inconsistent, and it behooves the theist to explicate how something can exist that is contrary to an omnipotent will.
Possible defenses are, "Evil does not exist, it is an illusion" or "Evil does not exist fundamentally, it is a privation", or "Evil brings about a greater good", or "The absence of evil is logically impossible (and therefore unwillable)", etc. But all of these require some explication because they all admit some kind of seemingly obvious counter-example.
yep. saved.
Great post.
This is also why the only way to be a theist (as all inherently are) is to believe that evil has no ontology. Even the description of “evil” assumes a rationale that presupposes good.
The argument from free will does not save this either, as one cannot teleologically orient themselves towards nothing. Free will must be the choice between goods; not between good and “evil”.
Evil=bad things that happen to people
Why are you spamming this retardation? Even sing the biblical definitions of evil god allows and promotes evil.
>You shall not commit adultery
>But fuck those other women you aren’t married to sure are sexy and willing to have sex with you whether or not they know you’re married
>god defines evil
I disagree
>But god is god and...
"I have said, you are gods"
*Cough cough* motherfucker.
Evil is objective if God(objective good) exists though so it doesn't really harm the paradox at all
Hang on, this was not a troll thread?
Resident theists genuinely don't get it
lmao
This argument presupposes a God, so the Atheist has already lost by admitting to a God.
It's a reductio ad absurdum, retard. You suppose something, then derive a contradiction to prove that that thing can't exist.
By talking about God, you admit that he exists.
>by talking about cthulhu, you admit that he exists
>implying there is no evil
Ok but what's the point of religiosity then?
Evil is defined as corruption of reason, anything that doesn't allow the mind to thrive; atleast for the stoics. So no ethics or God stuff here. Evil can exist even without someone imposing what's evil and what's not.
OP is a literal meme but it's a good point. The paradox assumes there is an obvious, concrete definition of evil that can be agreed upon by everyone, which can also be used to judge God. It assumes objective morality is true. If moral relativism/nihilism is assumed instead, the paradox dissolves into nothingness.
The problem of evil is only used against those theists who are also moral realists.
That doesn't help though, because the person using the paradox is probably a morally relativistic atheist, so he has no grounds upon which to judge God. And if the atheist believes in objective morality, the two can just drag each other down with endless debate as to the justifications for their respective moral systems, never reaching common ground.
The problem of evil is an internal critique that aims to show that existence of evil as defined by the theist is inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator god. It is not "your god is mean".
free will refutes the problem of evil
the problem of evil is only a problem for fatalists and logical determinists
It's a weak defense, it assumes that my free will is restricted by the fact that there are moral evils that I'm not drawn towards in the slightest.
>the fact that there are moral evils that I'm not drawn towards in the slightest.
this is a lie, or at best a false premise, since the Demon of Perversity exists in all men even if you successfully resist it and find it disgusting, it's still there beckoning you with things vile and repugnant to your conscience
So what you're saying is that you personally have to actively resist the urge to rape babies? Sucks to be you, I guess.
Wow that's a huge leap, I didn't say anything about raping babies. Why was that on your mind?
Wait, so you are admitting that there are evils which you are not drawn towards? Seems like you didn't think your reply through, anon.
I admit nothing, I ask only why the Imp of the Perverse put "raping babies" foremost in your innermost thoughts that you thought you had to express such thoughts on the itnernet.
You admit nothing because you're dishonest. You know precisely why I talked about raping babies - I selected one of the most abhorrent evils that I could think of, because it puts you into a position where you either have to admit that you're drawn to it or admit that you're full of shit and your argument fails.
You will not address it because you are a dishonest person through and through, like most christians on this board.
>anti-christian is immediately drawn to the thought of raping babies
perhaps this wasn't such an epic own as you thought it was
See? There is that dishonesty again. You know exactly what you're doing, and you know that I know what you're doing. It's just theatre.
False, I am fooling myself.
If mommy loves me, why she cause a world where she knew with absolute certainty that I would get braincancer and die at age 5?
Epichuds BTFO
I just don't get why theists think God would create a world he knows will have stuff he doesn't want in it, like sin.
God has the superpower to always get what he wants (omnipotence).
>if there's no god then everything is permitted
*everything is permitted*
Yeah, I don't get it. It's not like God is preventing me from masturbating.