pyrheraklit wrote:-God is Good and Almighty
-Evil or bad things happen in this world
pyrheraklit wrote:I don't know much about formal or modal logic, but I think what turns many to atheism is the following paradox (the question of Evil):
-God is Good and Almighty
-Evil or bad things happen in this world
How can these two assumptions be compromised?
Kasper wrote: Good and evil are simply matter of preference and view point.
oh - and that He is envious, which is almost certainly a vice.
Bert wrote:Kasper wrote: Good and evil are simply matter of preference and view point.
Kasper wrote:Bert wrote:Kasper wrote: Good and evil are simply matter of preference and view point.
Yes. Although I am open for persuasion by a good examples, I personally fail to find any scenario where a man acts out of pure evil, without benefit to himself, however futile or temporary that benefit may be.
Kasper wrote:Personally, i regard the word evil to mean something that is purely harmful to everything and everyone. For this reason, I don't consider evil to exist, because all things have a benefit to someone. Therefore it is a matter of viewpoint/preference.
edonnelly wrote:Kasper wrote:Personally, i regard the word evil to mean something that is purely harmful to everything and everyone. For this reason, I don't consider evil to exist, because all things have a benefit to someone. Therefore it is a matter of viewpoint/preference.
Do you define "good" the same way? That is, for something to be good must it be purely helpful to everyone and everything? Why can you have a little bit of good, but evil must be absolute?
Kasper wrote:Bert -
You said: "If the motives to a man's actions are "benefit to himself, however futile or temporary that benefit may be", does that make his actions less evil?"
I hope you will agree that a benefit per definition means something good. Consequently, if you accept that (all) actions of evil contain an element of benefit, something good, for someone (most likely the actor) then doesn't that confirm the idea that it is a matter of viewpoint?
Kasper wrote:Regardless, are you saying that good actions can contain negative aspects? That is, a combination of good and bad? That there consequently is no pure good, and no pure evil?
Bert wrote: Well, I quess something evil might be something good from someones viewpoint but that does not make it good. It makes his viewpoint wrong.
Someone might kill so that he can have the money of the murdered one.
The benefit to him does not make it a good action. If he thinks it is a good action because it benefits him then his view point is wrong.
edonnelly wrote:I have to think about how I would define them, but I think that I believe there can be actions (things?) that have different levels of good and evil, including aspects of each, but also that there can be things that are purely good or purely evil. I'll have to think about examples.
IreneY wrote:Well, to begin with, I don't think comparing God's jealousy with that of a husband is a good comparison; a husband's jealousy may not (or may) be considered a vice if there IS reason for jealousy. I hope we agree that in an Adam-Eve situation (i.e. if a couple was stranded in an island) the husband jealousy would be at the very least considered ridiculous since there wouldn't be a reason for it.
Secondly I can't see why a definition of what is good and evil is needed or helpful because
a). God is all good. Evil does exist and manifests in the world according to the religion
b) Even if we agree in a definition of both, it can always be argued that this is our definition and not the one of God who is above human measures and intellect.
Kasper wrote:Although I agree that the jealousy of a husband may not be accurate, I didni't want to go into it because I preferred to stick to the discussion of good and evil.
I don't really understand why you don't see a need for definitions. You say God is all good and evil does exist according to religion. Isn't this a matter of religion placing a moral judgement on a certain happening, judging it to be good or evil? Are you saying that right and wrong are the same as good and evil respectively?
Of course our definition of good and evil would be human definitions. But it is by human definition that we hold God to be pure good. So what does it mean when we say that God's actions are pure good? For example, let's take the flood (Noah's story) where God drowned the whole of mankind and all animals as well (with the exception of the ark of course). This would seem to be rather excessive force. Similarly, you will find in the OT various accounts of entire peoples, women and children, being murdered on the order of God. Are these instances of good or evil? Are they perhaps a necessary evil in order to promote hte good? If so, then this action of good clearly contains an element of evil, and is therefore not pure good. For clarity of discussion I therefore think that we should agree on a definition of these terms.
Please correct me if you see this differently!!
Isn't this a matter of religion placing a moral judgement on a certain happening, judging it to be good or evil?
But it is by human definition that we hold God to be pure good
Rhuiden wrote:Chris Weimer wrote:There is no evidence for God.
There is evidence against God.
Therefore God does not exist.
Simple enough, eh?
Didn't we solve this in the other thread?
easternugget wrote:I am curious. We have all heard that the existence of Evil shows that God does not exist because He would not let something like that happen. However, my philosophy teacher gave us something interesting: the existence of Evil shows that God does exist because without God we would not know what Good is; there would be no objective reference to compare with to decide what was good and evil. Just something to be gnawed upon.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests