The Problem of Evil

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Common sense isn't a viable reason or source to cover for a blanket statement like the one you made. Reason being I only need one example that runs counter to your statement and your whole point falls apart. Just like the next blanket statement you made in the last sentence of the paragraph. You have no proof or sources to back up your information so why I should I believe what you're saying to be true? Someone can say anything and defend his/herself with "common sense".

Example: "The sky is blue, that's common sense"
That doesn't provide any evidence that the sky is blue, it's merely a way to assert a point and hope no one calls you out on it. It doesn't tell me why the sky is blue. What if I looked up at the sky at night and saw it was black? Just like your reasoning behind your statement is "common sense". That doesn't answer me anything, and it validates nothing. What if Newton said the reason an apple falls to the ground out of tree is because it's "common sense"? Is the rest of physics common sense to you?

From reading this, i'm guessing that you think common sense is always 100% wrong. Am I getting this right?

It's likelihood of the outcome doesn't matter. The fact that the outcome can happen defeats your point.

Let me ask you. Do you work at a drug factory?

Murder is murder, regardless of who it is or what justification there is behind it. If I viewed murder as evil then I would view the killing of that man as evil.

Murder might be murder, but would you rather let that man live, who might go off to kill several more people?

For what reason? The content of the biography is completely at the author's discretion. We have no idea what factors affected the way he/she wrote the biography. Maybe the author felt that a reader would be able to infer that detail using the other facts provided.

My point is, would you let out the fact, in a Christopher Columbus biography, that he sailed with two other ships?

I was comparing the length of our debate to the biography of Newton. I'm not sure as to where average is here. As to your second question, I don't think you have, but I can infer that because if you didn't think my arguments were wrong, then you wouldn't be making a counterargument in the first place. Evidence being this debate. (Unless you're playing Devil's Advocate.)

Why would you compare this debate to the biography in terms of length? Also, what I meant was, have I ever said "your arguments are wrong, mines are right" with no supporting facts?

 

[Sieguest]

From reading this, i'm guessing that you think common sense is always 100% wrong. Am I getting this right?

No.
Common sense is not valid support for an argument. That's all I've said.

Let me ask you. Do you work at a drug factory?

Why would that matter? Are you denying that people work in the tobacco industry?

Murder might be murder, but would you rather let that man live, who might go off to kill several more people?

As I said earlier- Regardless of justification. If I viewed murder as evil then it's still evil consequences after the fact don't change what it is.

My point is, would you let out the fact, in a Christopher Columbus biography, that he sailed with two other ships?

As I said earlier, it's completely at the discretion of the author. The biography might never mention that he sailed with three ships but it be something you pick up from other facts given in the biography.

Why would you compare this debate to the biography in terms of length?

Don't you think, for something as big as that, you wouldn't need to read between the lines?

Something you posted earlier.

Also, what I meant was, have I ever said "your arguments are wrong, mines are right" with no supporting facts?

You've given me a bunch of blanket and "what if" statements. I wouldn't exactly call those supporting facts, but considering the nature of the topic there is not a lot of facts one can use. Though for all of your blanket statements you've not shown an ounce of evidence as for why that's true.
Also you don't need to say "your arguments are wrong, my arguments are right" because that's something I can infer from just the fact that you produce a counter argument. Whether or not you have facts to support your case doesn't change that matter.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

No.
Common sense is not valid support for an argument. That's all I've said.

That might be because your examples of common sense are, quite frankly, wrong.

Here would be an example of when to use common sense:
It's going to rain, because there are dark clouds in the sky.
How does that mean it's going to rain?
Well, because dark clouds usually lead to rain (here is basically common sense)

Common sense is pretty much something that most people will just get, saving a whole lot of explaining.

Why would that matter? Are you denying that people work in the tobacco industry?

My original point is, if your, and you are not a worker of a tobacco factory, friend stopped smoking, would you be happy that you friend quit, or sad that the tobacco factory is losing money?

As I said earlier- Regardless of justification. If I viewed murder as evil then it's still evil consequences after the fact don't change what it is.

I steal your money to feed my starving siblings. Would you still consider that stealing, and send me to jail?

As I said earlier, it's completely at the discretion of the author. The biography might never mention that he sailed with three ships but it be something you pick up from other facts given in the biography.

Actually, most biographies I read about Christopher columbus include the three ships.

Something you posted earlier.

My bad. Whenever i think of "Isaac newton biography", I think of this one "Giants of Science: Isaac Newton" biography that was around 200 pages long.

As for a reason, the biography never mentioned anything about newton improving the las of gravity because of Hooke's criticism.

You've given me a bunch of blanket and "what if" statements. I wouldn't exactly call those supporting facts, but considering the nature of the topic there is not a lot of facts one can use. Though for all of your blanket statements you've not shown an ounce of evidence as for why that's true.
Also you don't need to say "your arguments are wrong, my arguments are right" because that's something I can infer from just the fact that you produce a counter argument. Whether or not you have facts to support your case doesn't change that matter.

Belive me, if i had the time to do some research, I would. Unfortunately, I don't.

 

[Sieguest]

That might be because your examples of common sense are, quite frankly, wrong.

Here would be an example of when to use common sense:
It's going to rain, because there are dark clouds in the sky.
How does that mean it's going to rain?
Well, because dark clouds usually lead to rain (here is basically common sense)

Common sense is pretty much something that most people will just get, saving a whole lot of explaining.

That doesn't answer why it's going to rain. This however does. The "saving an explanation" is exactly what I'm talking about. Hiding behind "common sense" is you're asserting a point and hoping I don't call you out on it to bring evidence.

My original point is, if your, and you are not a worker of a tobacco factory, friend stopped smoking, would you be happy that you friend quit, or sad that the tobacco factory is losing money?

I would be happy for my friend. However my individual answer doesn't prove anything. With the blanket statement you produced earlier. I only need one counter example to disprove. Someone who works in the tobacco industry is that counter example. A more "all business" type person is another example.

I steal your money to feed my starving siblings. Would you still consider that stealing, and send me to jail?

I would consider it stealing and I would try you to the fullest extent of the law.

Actually, most biographies I read about Christopher columbus include the three ships.

And that proves what? The contents of the biography are still at the discretion of the author so what I posted earlier can still happen. I don't see the point you're getting at.

My bad. Whenever i think of "Isaac newton biography", I think of this one "Giants of Science: Isaac Newton" biography that was around 200 pages long.

As for a reason, the biography never mentioned anything about newton improving the las of gravity because of Hooke's criticism.

I see.
As for your other reason, that's why reading between the lines is important, in doing so you would pick out that inference.

Belive me, if i had the time to do some research, I would. Unfortunately, I don't.

Don't feel so rushed to respond right away. A good argument that takes a long time and has evidence to support its assertions is much better than a somewhat timely argument that brings much less support.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

That doesn't answer why it's going to rain. This however does. The "saving an explanation" is exactly what I'm talking about. Hiding behind "common sense" is you're asserting a point and hoping I don't call you out on it to bring evidence.

Basically, common sense is just something that you, just, like, "know". Also, dark clouds are usually what most people use to judge wether a storm is coming or not, in lack of a weather station.

I would be happy for my friend. However my individual answer doesn't prove anything. With the blanket statement you produced earlier. I only need one counter example to disprove. Someone who works in the tobacco industry is that counter example. A more "all business" type person is another example.

Yes, I understand about the counterargument. If i asked anyone else that, they would've probably said yes...

I would consider it stealing and I would try you to the fullest extent of the law.

You have no soul. Can't you have some sympathy?

And that proves what? The contents of the biography are still at the discretion of the author so what I posted earlier can still happen. I don't see the point you're getting at.

My point is, a biography should include most of the main points in the person's life. In addition, the last chapter is basically a review of Newton's life, and included some criticism he got. They never said anything about Newton changing his theory because of criticism by Hooke.

Don't feel so rushed to respond right away. A good argument that takes a long time and has evidence to support its assertions is much better than a somewhat timely argument that brings much less support.

What I'm saying is that, you see, my parents don't know about this account. If they catch me, I'm dead. As a result, i don't exactly have the luxury of time.

 

[Sieguest]

Basically, common sense is just something that you, just, like, "know". Also, dark clouds are usually what most people use to judge wether a storm is coming or not, in lack of a weather station.

And when the storm doesn't come? Then what? And just "know"? Should a toddler just know that stepping on a sharp object is going to hurt them? Should someone in a vegetative state know that touching a hot iron is going to burn. Is someone who know nothing about science supposed to just "know" that plants create their own food?

You have no soul. Can't you have some sympathy?

I've got a family to support too. I'd more likely give you money if you at least asked for it.

My point is, a biography should include most of the main points in the person's life. In addition, the last chapter is basically a review of Newton's life, and included some criticism he got. They never said anything about Newton changing his theory because of criticism by Hooke.

Is criticism a main point in someone's life?
And it's not that Newton completely changed his law because of Hooke, he just refined it to account for the point Hooke made.

What I'm saying is that, you see, my parents don't know about this account. If they catch me, I'm dead. As a result, i don't exactly have the luxury of time.

Okay. So next time with the time you usually take to respond to me, use it to look up some sources to back up your argument, and save them to a word document or something. Then the next time you can sneak a chance respond to me and throw in those sources. A bit more time consuming, yes, but your arguments will be much more substantiated and powerful.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

And when the storm doesn't come? Then what? And just "know"? Should a toddler just know that stepping on a sharp object is going to hurt them? Should someone in a vegetative state know that touching a hot iron is going to burn. Is someone who know nothing about science supposed to just "know" that plants create their own food?

The storm was probably not the best example. However, I found the definition:

common sense
-noun
1. sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

Basically, common sense is logical reasoning, and you probably can't deny that that can be effective.

I've got a family to support too. I'd more likely give you money if you at least asked for it.

That was a bad variation of (which I should have used) I steal bread from a bakery to feed my hungry siblings. Should I go to jail or not?

Is criticism a main point in someone's life?
And it's not that Newton completely changed his law because of Hooke, he just refined it to account for the point Hooke made.

I did some research *gasp* which was basically going through the websites when you google "issac newton laws of gravity". Only one website listed criticism, and, similar to my giants of sience book, the only mentioned person to refute the laws of gravity was Einstein.

Okay. So next time with the time you usually take to respond to me, use it to look up some sources to back up your argument, and save them to a word document or something. Then the next time you can sneak a chance respond to me and throw in those sources. A bit more time consuming, yes, but your arguments will be much more substantiated and powerful.

I don't have word on my phone.

 

[Sieguest]

The storm was probably not the best example. However, I found the definition:

common sense
-noun
1. sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

Basically, common sense is logical reasoning, and you probably can't deny that that can be effective.

The use of common sense is logical reasoning. However you are using the idea of "common sense" and not common sense itself. It's common sense that when you see dark clouds it will probably rain because darker clouds are usually nimbostratus or cumulonimbus clouds and those clouds produce rain.

^That's the use of common sense.

All you've said "Most people would agree ______, that's common sense"
You haven't answered the "why?" question. You've basically just made an open assertion with no logical reason or evidence behind it.

That was a bad variation of (which I should have used) I steal bread from a bakery to feed my hungry siblings. Should I go to jail or not?

Yes you should go to jail, if the law states that you should. Have you heard the saying "Justice is blind"?

I did some research *gasp* which was basically going through the websites when you google "issac newton laws of gravity". Only one website listed criticism, and, similar to my giants of sience book, the only mentioned person to refute the laws of gravity was Einstein.

Criticism is not always direct refutation. Criticism can be from just identifying potential problems and making suggestions to outright attacking one's work.
From the relationship Newton had with Hooke we can infer that Hooke challenged Newton's ideas and probably urged Newton to refine them. However it's only an inference, I've not found any copy of the letters to solidly prove what I've said.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The use of common sense is logical reasoning. However you are using the idea of "common sense" and not common sense itself. It's common sense that when you see dark clouds it will probably rain because darker clouds are usually nimbostratus or cumulonimbus clouds and those clouds produce rain.

Would we even be having this part of a debate if I had worded my example like this?

Use logical reasoning. Your friend stopped smoking! Would you be happy that your friend stopped smoking, or sad that the company is losing money?

Yes you should go to jail, if the law states that you should. Have you heard the saying "Justice is blind"?

No, I haven't.

edit: I understand. But, wouldn't humans not caring about amtoher humans situation, wouldn't that be like having no morals?.

Criticism is not always direct refutation. Criticism can be from just identifying potential problems and making suggestions to outright attacking one's work.
From the relationship Newton had with Hooke we can infer that Hooke challenged Newton's ideas and probably urged Newton to refine them. However it's only an inference, I've not found any copy of the letters to solidly prove what I've said.

In both of my recourses, Newton's theory remained unchanged until Einstein came along. A biography can get recourses form other things, too.

 

[Sieguest]

Would we even be having this part of a debate if I had worded my example like this?

Use logical reasoning. Your friend stopped smoking! Would you be happy that your friend stopped smoking, or sad that the company is losing money?

Yeah, we would still have this part of the debate if you said that. Reason being that the question can be answered both ways. I can logically reason that I would be sad that the company is losing money because that is less money flowing through our economy and less revenue for the country. Although, one can't logically reason that they would be happy if a friend stopped smoking, because what makes someone happy is up to interpretation.

That and all you did is replace "common sense" and "logical reasoning". You're still asserting an open statement with no evidence.

No, I haven't.

edit: I understand. But, wouldn't humans not caring about amtoher humans situation, wouldn't that be like having no morals?.

No it wouldn't. It would just be having different morals.

In both of my recourses, Newton's theory remained unchanged until Einstein came along. A biography can get recourses form other things, too.

And in my source Hooke helped Newton with his theory, and I can use the same reasoning. What are you getting at?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah, we would still have this part of the debate if you said that. Reason being that the question can be answered both ways. I can logically reason that I would be sad that the company is losing money because that is less money flowing through our economy and less revenue for the country. Although, one can't logically reason that they would be happy if a friend stopped smoking, because what makes someone happy is up to interpretation.

Yes, I know it can be interpreted either way. However, I asked you your honest opinion, because I always thought getting someone the opposing side to agree with you meant you are on to something.

That and all you did is replace "common sense" and "logical reasoning". You're still asserting an open statement with no evidence.

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I was wondering whether you would bash "logical reasoning" the same way you bashed "common sense"

No it wouldn't. It would just be having different morals.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't you say, in an argument about morals, that, without morals, people would just not care about people getting stoned, and therefore morals are important, yet now you say that morals should not be used in a court case? Why the stoning but not the court?

And in my source Hooke helped Newton with his theory, and I can use the same reasoning. What are you getting at?

Your biography said that newton edited his laws of color. Why would it not mention him changing the laws of gravity, as the two are probably equal, or gravity is more, in terms of importance?

 

[.Marik]

The forces of evil and good are polar opposites, and therefore, must exist in an equalized state.

This thread attempts to cover way too many aspects.

Is evil compatible? What exactly do you mean by that? They're completely different, oppositional forces, but both must rely on the other to establish an identity.

Without good, no evil, without evil, no good.

Evil is subjective, you can't make a comparision whether or not a certain characterisitic exists without concrete, factual data. But when it comes to debates, and even judicial laws in general, it all boils down to a matter of perspective. The same concept applies.

Dre, you make some solid points. But what can we exactly prove? If we do, then what?

Morality is such a redundant, and equally pointless subject. [POE is derived from this]

For the actual debate, evil is definitely present in more situations than good, due to our primitive, animalistic urges to sexually reproduce, intimidate, and control others.

Evil always falls. But does it? It's an endless, monotone, and destructive cycle.

God doesn't define good. He's a completely separate entity, that at best, can only stress the importance of said quality.

 

[Sieguest]

Yes, I know it can be interpreted either way. However, I asked you your honest opinion, because I always thought getting someone the opposing side to agree with you meant you are on to something.

If you get the opposing side to agree with you on something that isn't completely up to one's opinion you would be on to something. But this is completely subjective, my opinion holds no more weight than someone who all ready agrees with you.

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I was wondering whether you would bash "logical reasoning" the same way you bashed "common sense"

Hence why I'm arguing against the way you're using it.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't you say, in an argument about morals, that, without morals, people would just not care about people getting stoned, and therefore morals are important, yet now you say that morals should not be used in a court case? Why the stoning but not the court?

Incorrect.

If religious texts lose half their value, then so? We wouldn't need that value anymore, it's useless and how does it work to the detriment of mankind? I believe it doesn't, because some religious texts advocate horrid punishments like stoning people to death for not following their "morals".
If the idea of morality disappears and so does all the other things that stem from. What does that mean for humanity? I'm not sure, these ideas would be unnecessary, and useless in such a world, so we're not actually losing anything.

Note that you used the word "horrid". Why exactly is that horrid?
Yet you demonstrated your own morals as I pointed out above.
A world where no one says thank you. No one gets raises, your parents care for you no more than your next door neighbor or your dog. All the knowledge we have now wouldn't exist because it would be wrong to criticize others.

I never said anything about people not caring if others got stoned if there were no morals. I also never placed any degree of importance on morals, that's also subject to interpretation. I only stated that without the idea of morality, good and evil wouldn't exist which was to strengthen my point that you can't know evil without knowing what is good. Every item I listed in my quote above is up to interpretation on how much some values them.

I applied no morality to the stoning. And we don't apply morality in the criminal justice system because that leads to biased decisions.

Your biography said that newton edited his laws of color. Why would it not mention him changing the laws of gravity, as the two are probably equal, or gravity is more, in terms of importance?

That's not true either. The biography only said that Newton submitted a paper about the nature of color, he fell under fire and that he backed down, to later submit another paper. One infers that Newton refined his ideas, just like we infer that Newton refined his law of gravitation when subjected to whatever Hooke told him.

 

[Dre89]

The forces of evil and good are polar opposites, and therefore, must exist in an equalized state.

That's an assumption that requires justification. The theistric notion of evil is that evil is the absence, not opposite of good, or being. So in that sense, there is no equalisation required, evil is just an unecessary corruption of the good.

This thread attempts to cover way too many aspects.

No it doesn't. It's just that people didn't understand what the problem of evil actually is and started talking about other evil related topics.

Is evil compatible? What exactly do you mean by that? They're completely different, oppositional forces, but both must rely on the other to establish an identity.

No the problem of evil is the questions of whether a good God can exist when there is evil in the world.

Without good, no evil, without evil, no good.

Evil is subjective, you can't make a comparision whether or not a certain characterisitic exists without concrete, factual data.


But when it comes to debates, and even judicial laws in general, it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

You need to justify these assumptions.

Dre, you make some solid points. But what can we exactly prove? If we do, then what?

Well for one, if the theist fails to prove that a good God and evil are incompatible, then the credibility of religion is turned on its head. That's pretty significant in academic circles.

Morality is such a redundant, and equally pointless subject. [POE is derived from this]

Actually, formulations of natural law theory have been hugely influential on legal systems.

For the actual debate, evil is definitely present in more situations than good, due to our primitive, animalistic urges to sexually reproduce, intimidate, and control others.

Evil always falls. But does it? It's an endless, monotone, and destructive cycle.

God doesn't define good. He's a completely separate entity, that at best, can only stress the importance of said quality.

Sorry but there's just way too many unjustified assumptions to be able to respond to here.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If you get the opposing side to agree with you on something that isn't completely up to one's opinion you would be on to something. But this is completely subjective, my opinion holds no more weight than someone who all ready agrees with you.

I know, I've been corrected.

Hence why I'm arguing against the way you're using it.

*sigh* I misinterpreted your argument badly. I thought you were talking about common sense is not a good supporting reason, not that they way i'm using common sense is a bad supporting reason.

Edit:

Common sense is not valid support for an argument. That's all I've said.

Isn't that different from what you just said?

I never said anything about people not caring if others got stoned if there were no morals. I also never placed any degree of importance on morals, that's also subject to interpretation. I only stated that without the idea of morality, good and evil wouldn't exist which was to strengthen my point that you can't know evil without knowing what is good. Every item I listed in my quote above is up to interpretation on how much some values them.

Ah, but your post there seems to say that nobody would care about anything without morals, yet you support judging should be without feelings. Wouldn't that mean judging should be done without morals?

I applied no morality to the stoning. And we don't apply morality in the criminal justice system because that leads to biased decisions.

Who ever said biased decisions were bad? Otherwise, we might as well hire robots for the job.

That's not true either. The biography only said that Newton submitted a paper about the nature of color, he fell under fire and that he backed down, to later submit another paper. One infers that Newton refined his ideas, just like we infer that Newton refined his law of gravitation when subjected to whatever Hooke told him.

Yes, but wouldn't it say something along those lines if he had changed his theory on gravity? It never mentioned him resubmitting a paper on gravity.

 

[.Marik]

You have to nitpick everything don't you?

You use elaborate grammar and syntax, but you're disproving or proving absolutely nothing.

No the problem of evil is the questions of whether a good God can exist when there is evil in the world.

What?

God is completely independent of our materialistic interactions.

Why would one need to work with the other to exist, besides an equalized balance?

Well for one, if the theist fails to prove that a good God and evil are incompatible, then the credibility of religion is turned on its head. That's pretty significant in academic circles.

Sigh.

God doesn't define the definition of good. If I'm wrong, then how can I be taught?

What methods will work efficiently in enlightening my knowledge of compatibility between two very subjective forces?

Actually, formulations of natural law theory have been hugely influential on legal systems.

Interesting. You're suggesting morality has nothing to do with these formations?

Sorry but there's just way too many unjustified assumptions to be able to respond to here.

You don't have assumptions, but rather, theories that cannot be proven.

God may not even exist. Which means, evil is a separate force, governed from our primitive emotions.

 

[Sieguest]

Edit:



Isn't that different from what you just said?

No. I should've put "common sense" in quotation marks like I usually do to denote that I'm getting at a certain way someone is using the term. I got lazy.

Ah, but your post there seems to say that nobody would care about anything without morals, yet you support judging should be without feelings. Wouldn't that mean judging should be done without morals?

The idea that nobody would care about anything if they didn't have the idea of morality is true. However the purpose of the courts is to interpret the morals set forward in laws, not bring in their own morals, else they are misrepresenting the agreed upon ideals of the country they live in.

If we let every Judge's morals allow them to make ruling according to their own personal biases, then what happens when we have the judge that believes in second chances, the judge that believes that punishment is a wrong, the judge that believes that capital punishment is the only acceptable punishment or *object of morality here*. It defeats the entire purpose of the court system. If we let you get away with stealing bread from the bakery, then the well off guy down the street steals some and says "you let that guy get away with it." and everyone else after that will use that excuse.

Who ever said biased decisions were bad? Otherwise, we might as well hire robots for the job.

If you make an exception for one, you give it to them all or else now you have a completely unjust court system. Read above.

Yes, but wouldn't it say something along those lines if he had changed his theory on gravity? It never mentioned him resubmitting a paper on gravity.

Because he had his exchange of letters with hook before the ideas were publicized. Especially given the privacy of one's domestic life, we can't go back and trace every single event he did, we can only infer from what we find left behind. So given that the ideas were publicized after Hooke's letters, if Newton did write a paper, there would only be one. And to avoid giving inaccurate information, the author can make not of that one paper. Newton may have written drafts that got burned in his fireplace as he discussed things with Hooke, we can't know and we have no grounds to infer it. You're assuming that a biographer can pick up every last detail of a person's life and quite frankly that's not true unless the author was with the person getting a biography written about them every waking moment of their life.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

No. I should've put "common sense" in quotation marks like I usually do to denote that I'm getting at a certain way someone is using the term. I got lazy.

Oh, I see. Okay then.

The idea that nobody would care about anything if they didn't have the idea of morality is true. However the purpose of the courts is to interpret the morals set forward in laws, not bring in their own morals, else they are misrepresenting the agreed upon ideals of the country they live in.

There is already enough misrepresentation of the U.S. laws. I don't see why this one shouldn't be broken, as the damage is far less than other cases.

If we let every Judge's morals allow them to make ruling according to their own personal biases, then what happens when we have the judge that believes in second chances, the judge that believes that punishment is a wrong, the judge that believes that capital punishment is the only acceptable punishment or *object of morality here*. It defeats the entire purpose of the court system. If we let you get away with stealing bread from the bakery, then the well off guy down the street steals some and says "you let that guy get away with it." and everyone else after that will use that excuse.

Th rich guy stealing it probably wouldn't work, as the fact that the person is poor is the main reason he wouldn't get sent to jail. The poor person stole the bread because he couldn't afford it. The rich person just stole for the hell of it.

Because he had his exchange of letters with hook before the ideas were publicized. Especially given the privacy of one's domestic life, we can't go back and trace every single event he did, we can only infer from what we find left behind. So given that the ideas were publicized after Hooke's letters, if Newton did write a paper, there would only be one. And to avoid giving inaccurate information, the author can make not of that one paper. Newton may have written drafts that got burned in his fireplace as he discussed things with Hooke, we can't know and we have no grounds to infer it. You're assuming that a biographer can pick up every last detail of a person's life and quite frankly that's not true unless the author was with the person getting a biography written about them every waking moment of their life.

Let's say you helped a person with this theory that changed the world (in a good way), yet you get no credit. How would you feel about that?

 

[Phantom7]

My belief is that evil and sin exist to complete and give meaning to good will and perfection. As a theist, I believe that the state of imperfection offers humankind a reason to glorify God and to be sanctified, and without sin, redemption itself would be utterly without meaning. Therefore, the existence of God would be meaningless also. If God does not exist, then there simply is no perfection for evil to complement, and we are simply eternally doomed to iniquity.

I believe that evil and perfection act as one combined force, so to say, and if one did not exist, the other could not exist either. I suppose this is partly the reason I choose to be a theist.

 

[Sieguest]

There is already enough misrepresentation of the U.S. laws. I don't see why this one shouldn't be broken, as the damage is far less than other cases.

Uh... what? Source please. And even if you do provide a source Your reasoning follows that it's all ready broken so it doesn't matter. So lets take a broken thing and make it worse shall we?

Th rich guy stealing it probably wouldn't work, as the fact that the person is poor is the main reason he wouldn't get sent to jail. The poor person stole the bread because he couldn't afford it. The rich person just stole for the hell of it.

So, you still were allowed to break the law. Maybe he "needs" the money for something else so he stole the bread. And every other well off person in world "needs" the money for something else so they still bread. If you give the exception one. You have to do it to them all or else you've just a made a martyr out of the judicial system.

Let's say you helped a person with this theory that changed the world (in a good way), yet you get no credit. How would you feel about that?

The same way Hooke felt when Newton took him out of all of his books and such. Which was in the biography.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Uh... what? Source please. And even if you do provide a source Your reasoning follows that it's all ready broken so it doesn't matter. So lets take a broken thing and make it worse shall we?

I would give you proof, but since you say it doesn't matter, ok then. My point is, there is already misrepresentation of U.S. laws which are far more dangerous than then letting a beggar be innocent. My reason isn't "let's add fuel to the fire", it's " why should we care about a petty misrepresentation compared to some other ones?"

So, you still were allowed to break the law. Maybe he "needs" the money for something else so he stole the bread. And every other well off person in world "needs" the money for something else so they still bread. If you give the exception one. You have to do it to them all or else you've just a made a martyr out of the judicial system.

Those people well off don't need to steal the bread, as they can probably just buy it, but the beggar can't buy it, and that's why he's stealing it.

The same way Hooke felt when Newton took him out of all of his books and such. Which was in the biography.

Wouldn't you want to at least tell somebody that you helped with that?

 

[Dre89]

You have to nitpick everything don't you?

You use elaborate grammar and syntax, but you're disproving or proving absolutely nothing.

What?

God is completely independent of our materialistic interactions.

Why would one need to work with the other to exist, besides an equalized balance?

When I say ' the question is whether a good God is compatible with evil or not' what I mean is that certain atheists/skeptics will argue that a good God does not exist because there is evil in the world. They argue that if a good God existed there wouldn't be evil in the world.

Sigh.

God doesn't define the definition of good. If I'm wrong, then how can I be taught?

What methods will work efficiently in enlightening my knowledge of compatibility between two very subjective forces?

Where is all this coming from?

All I did was explain why the Problem of Evil is an important academic debate.

Why are you acting as if I attacked you personally or something?

Interesting. You're suggesting morality has nothing to do with these formations?

Natural Law is in part a moral theory.

You don't have assumptions, but rather, theories that cannot be proven.

God may not even exist. Which means, evil is a separate force, governed from our primitive emotions.

Theories? What theories?

When did I ever posit an argument?

Go ahead, tell me what this alleged argument of mine was.

All I did was correct people's misunderstanding of the subject.

I never said what I thought was right and wrong, I never said what I believe. All I did was describe the prominent notion of evil in theistic philosophy, which I never even said I agree with.

The only other thing I did was clarify what the problem of evil question is, because people started mistaking it for a moral philosophy thread on evil in general.

If you actually want to know what some of my personal ideas on the subject are, you can read the essay I pasted (it was a uni assignment obviously, I don't just write massive essays for online forums) on one of the first pages.

The fact that you completely misunderstood what the question was says to me that you have done no study on the topic, let alone know it even existed. That's fine if you haven't done any study on it, virtually everyone in this thread hasn't either, just don't come out throwing accusations at people when you're not familiar with the thread topic at all, that's all I'm saying.

 

[.Marik]

When I say ' the question is whether a good God is compatible with evil or not' what I mean is that certain atheists/skeptics will argue that a good God does not exist because there is evil in the world. They argue that if a good God existed there wouldn't be evil in the world.

But that is my point. God cannot define whether evil exists or not.

He's a completely separate entity, him being there doesn't disprove evil existing.

This manner of thinking is as subjective as your entire debate.

Where is all this coming from?

All I did was explain why the Problem of Evil is an important academic debate.

Why are you acting as if I attacked you personally or something?

I'm not upset or offended in the slightest. Just stating what my understanding of this subject is.

Personally? I don't believe in God. There is no "personal" for me.

Natural Law is in part a moral theory.

That's better.

Theories? What theories?

When did I ever posit an argument?

Go ahead, tell me what this alleged argument of mine was.

All I did was correct people's misunderstanding of the subject.

I didn't explicitly say you were posting an argument. To my understanding, you can't post arguments because we have no foundation of proof either aspect of our debate even exist. It's therefore opinions being justified as arguments.

Let's be honest, none of us are too educated on the subject. Except AltF4.

I never said what I thought was right and wrong, I never said what I believe.

I didn't either. But now I am.

The only other thing I did was clarify what the problem of evil question is, because people started mistaking it for a moral philosophy thread on evil in general.

It's not a moral philosophy thread. It's a thread I'm reasonably saying we can't disprove or prove. That's my stance.

Athiests or religious followers argue whether God can exist with evil being present.

I was using a sarcastic streak, that if God did exist, or didn't exist, then a said individual needs to enlighten me, because that's probably never going to be even remotely recorded as evidence, or figured out like a mathematical problem.

The fact that you completely misunderstood what the question was says to me that you have done no study on the topic, let alone know it even existed. That's fine if you haven't done any study on it, virtually everyone in this thread hasn't either, just don't come out throwing accusations at people when you're not familiar with the thread topic at all, that's all I'm saying.

Nice assumptions. Like before.

I'm not throwing out any personal idealogies of mine. I barely understand the topic, but it's such a subjective one, with no clear and crystalized intent on proving anything.

Hypothetically, it's discovered God does or doesn't exist. Evil exists with God? It doesn't?

What do we call hatred, ****, murder, torture, and other savage primitive behaviour? Evil.

What if you were considered different back in the ancient days? Evil. Could God exist in such an atmosphere?

Or, would it be more plausible, that God does exist, but since said entity has no physical contact with our world, let alone interaction, that He's also separate from evil?

So, a harmonized balance. This is just my stance on it; but you can continue.

I'm just using a manner of thinking which neutralizes everything. It seems to make sense.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Hypothetically, it's discovered God does or doesn't exist. Evil exists with God? It doesn't?

If you are going to bring god into this, you should know that, bible-wise, god did not create evil: evil was the result of a betrayal.

What do we call hatred, ****, murder, torture, and other savage primitive behaviour? Evil.

Like I said to NaCl, what is evil to on person might be good for another one.

 

[rvkevin]

Or, would it be more plausible, that God does exist, but since said entity has no physical contact with our world, let alone interaction, that He's also separate from evil?

If unable to interact, then God is not omnipotent, therefore he does not exist. If able to interact and decides not to, he is not benevolent, therefore he does not exist. Either way, God does not exist.

At least famaliarize yourself with the topic before commenting. It does not concern impotent notions of God, nor malevolent and irrational notions of God; it only concerns the omnimax notion of God.

 

[.Marik]

If you are going to bring god into this, you should know that, bible-wise, god did not create evil: evil was the result of a betrayal.

The Bible is merely interpretations of facts; not necessarily the facts themselves.

No religious textament is reliable.

Like I said to NaCl, what is evil to on person might be good for another one.

What we define as "evil" is what mainstream society believes is morally and politically incorrect.

If unable to interact, then God is not omnipotent, therefore he does not exist. If able to interact and decides not to, he is not benevolent, therefore he does not exist. Either way, God does not exist.

You're certain whether or not God chooses not to interact?

Just like everyone else, you're making a hypothetical guess based off your own emotions and interpretations.

At least famaliarize yourself with the topic before commenting. It does not concern impotent notions of God, nor malevolent and irrational notions of God; it only concerns the omnimax notion of God.

Familiarize?

Irrational? Malevolent? I never even discussed those properties.

First off, why are people attemping to rationalize whether evil can realistically exist alongside God?

Why wouldn't it be able to?

God is independent from evil; it was created by corrupted and sinful humans.

Does God interact with us in a physical manner? No. Even spiritually? Hasn't been proven.

If God is aware of evil, it can pretty much be explained with the Yin-Yang concept. Everything must be equalized in a balanced state.

I have no answers, just seemingly logical assumptions.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The Bible is merely interpretations of facts; not necessarily the facts themselves.

No religious textament is reliable.

I said it's the facts of Christianity. Also, I would much rather believe a book then some person i've never heard about.

What we define as "evil" is what mainstream society believes is morally and politically incorrect.

Pretty big blanket statement you're saying there. I doubt you know everything about mainstream society.

Also, you seem to think the mainstream society decides everything. If mainstream society said "books are gay", would there be nobody that thought books weren't gay? No.

 

[rvkevin]

You're certain whether or not God chooses not to interact?

Just like everyone else, you're making a hypothetical guess based off your own emotions and interpretations.

I suggest you reread my comment. If you cannot figure out why your response is lacking and flagrantly incorrect, reread my comment again. If you still cannot figure it out, then you either have failed to grasp logic, or are not familiar with the topic. In either case, continuing this discussion would be pointless.

 

[.Marik]

I said it's the facts of Christianity. Also, I would much rather believe a book then some person i've never heard about.

This doesn't refute anything I said, or even relate to the statement.

Pretty big blanket statement you're saying there. I doubt you know everything about mainstream society.

Also, you seem to think the mainstream society decides everything. If mainstream society said "books are gay", would there be nobody that thought books weren't gay? No.

Society does decide everything.

Actually, you'd be surprised. If you grew up by certain traditions, and were taught customs since birth, you'd accept it as fact and the way of life.

If we believed that books were, indeed, gay, for hundreds of years, we'd treat it as such. We, having been brainwashed repeatedly, would accept it as fact and politically correct.

Keep in mind several societies have similar principles and concepts on the idea of sin. Don't murder, ****, kill, commit adultery, and such.

I suggest you reread my comment. If you cannot figure out why your response is lacking and flagrantly incorrect, reread my comment again. If you still cannot figure it out, then you either have failed to grasp logic, or are not familiar with the topic. In either case, continuing this discussion would be pointless.

Stop the elitism. I have a pink name already for a reason.

I'll break it down.

1. Since God is omniscent, omnipotent, and transcendent, how would God not be aware? Especially when it started with a betrayal involving him.

2. Both the definitions "good" and "evil" require the other to establish an identity. Would we understand the difference if only one existed?

It's a balanced equation, such as the Yin-Yang symbol. If God was aware, since he is completely independent of our materialistic interactions, I would assume he's left it there.

See how preposterous these claims are? Now to continue.

3. If God didn't exist? They're involving explanations based off of primitive emotion.

On an academic scale, we realistically possess no means of even developing mainstream idealogies. There's no manner to prove these subjects, or to even study them.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

This doesn't refute anything I said, or even relate to the statement.

My point is, you seem to be tying god into this, and you also say that the bible would be interpreted wrong, but i would much rather trust a book than some random person.

Society does decide everything.

Actually, you'd be surprised. If you grew up by certain traditions, and were taught customs since birth, you'd accept it as fact and the way of life.

If we believed that books were, indeed, gay, for hundreds of years, we'd treat it as such. We, having been brainwashed repeatedly, would accept it as fact and politically correct.

You misinterpreted my argument. my point is, there would still be some people who would think books aren't gay. Same here.

Keep in mind several societies have similar principles and concepts on the idea of sin. Don't murder, ****, kill, commit adultery, and such.

That's incorrect. Back up your statements next time.

 

[.Marik]

My point is, you seem to be tying god into this, and you also say that the bible would be interpreted wrong, but i would much rather trust a book than some random person.

The random person might actually contain the correct idealogy. Situational anyways.

You misinterpreted my argument. my point is, there would still be some people who would think books aren't gay. Same here.

But they're a minority. The majority, or mainstream, would ultimately decide the laws and traditions.

That's incorrect. Back up your statements next time.

Should've clarified. Not primitive societies, modernized ones.

Basically, Abrahamic religions, to give you a better idea. Also since you're using Chrisitanity as an example yourself.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The random person might actually contain the correct idealogy. Situational, anyhow.

Common sense disagrees. Some random guy came up to you and said "This huge book that some people base their life around is completely wrong." Would you agree with him?

But they're a minority. The majority, or mainstream, would ultimately decide the laws and traditions.

Does that matter?! There is still proof that the crimes you said are not strictly evil!

Should've clarified. Not primitive societies, modernized ones.

Those civilizations were primitive? Gasp!

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Whoops. Ignore this.

 

[.Marik]

Common sense disagrees. Some random guy came up to you and said "This huge book that some people base their life around is completely wrong." Would you agree with him?

If you were taught otherwise, no. If you were, perhaps. People get convinced to convert all the time. Those pastors could be random people.

You're thinking of an uneducated person of the matter, but what about a professional doctor? Your newly aquired friends?

Does that matter?! There is still proof that the crimes you said are not strictly evil!

Someone might interpret that they're not strictly evil, but then again, they're a minority and are persecuted in society.

The minority don't decide the traditions or customs that everyone follows, is what I'm saying. There are individual exceptions, who's opinion little matter in the first place.

Egyptians were primitive? Gasp!

Since you're using Christianity as an example, I'm comparing societies that practice Abrahamic religions. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians.

Egyptians, to our standards, were primitive.

Mathematically, they were extremely intelligent. Arabics actually developed today's system of mathematics.

But, does anyone practice ancient Egyptian culture? No, people, and generations, have developed more sophisicated religious systems. The mainstream have the most opinion, and keep in mind, people with high social status and money influenced things tremendously, formations of general law were then underway.

Maybe primitive was the wrong word, but Egyptians had many of their Gods disproved, and most of their traditional culture revolved around these exact Gods.

For better wording, no longer practicied due to outdated measures. Perhaps.

Egyptians were incredibly smart, but I also wasn't thinking of ancient Egyptians, just the stereotypical portrayal of one.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If you were taught otherwise, no. If you were, perhaps. People get convinced to convert all the time. Those pastors could be random people.

You're thinking of an uneducated person of the matter, but what about a professional doctor? Your newly aquired friends?

I would, if they gave me some decent proof, which you haven't done.

Someone might interpret that they're not strictly evil, but then again, they're a minority and are persecuted in society.

The minority don't decide the traditions or customs that everyone follows, is what I'm saying. There are individual exceptions, who's opinion little matter in the first place.

You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying that one thing is not strictly evil, not that what some people say is not always right.

Since you're using Christianity as an example, I'm comparing societies that practice Abrahamic religions. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians.

Egyptians, to our standards, were primitive.

Mathematically, they were extremely intelligent. Arabics actually developed today's system of mathematics.

But, does anyone practice ancient Egyptian culture? No, people, and generations, have developed more sophisicated religious systems. The mainstream have the most opinion, and keep in mind, people with high social status and money influenced things tremendously, formations of general law were then underway.

Maybe primitive was the wrong word, but Egyptians had many of their Gods disproved, and most of their traditional culture revolved around these exact Gods.

No longer practicied due to outdated measures. Perhaps.

You still need to back up your statements, then you wouldn't be arguing about this.

 

[.Marik]

I'll start backing up my arguments once you've grasped what I've already said.

I'm also high as a kite right now, and that colourful font is seriously tripping me out.

So, I will get back to you shortly once you've proceded with the initial points I made.

Also, those individuals are minorities, and modernized societies don't consider it to be correct, which is exactly why they're persecuted.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Also, those individuals are minorities, and modernized societies don't consider it to be correct, which is exactly why they're persecuted.

I'll come back wen you're going to listen.

And yes, be mesmerized by my font color.

 

[.Marik]

I'll come back wen you're going to listen.

And yes, be mesmerized by my font color.

I am listening. Which is ironic, because of me being deaf in real life. Get it? Haha.

That's a lot of coding. So colourful though.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I am listening. Which is ironic, because of me being deaf in real life. Get it? Haha.

Look at my posts on defining evil.

Look at your responses.

 

[rvkevin]

.Marik
1. I don't find anything preposterous about that claim. He must by definition, know everything, that is what it means to be omniscient. If he is not aware of something, then he is not God.

2. Your second point is white noise to me.

3. I don't see the point you are trying to make. If morality does concern particular emotions or desires, then a benevolent deity would have the desires that are determined to be good, for that is what it would mean to be benevolent. If we can discern that he either lacks the knowledge of evil, he lacks good desires, or he lacks the ability the act on those desires, then the being we are talking about is not God. If no such being exists, we can determine that via modus tollens from the lack of action of the presupposed God.