tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4630121225579432298..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Problem of evil - "no-see-um" responseStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50223724078755106462016-02-19T10:39:27.326+00:002016-02-19T10:39:27.326+00:00Your way to enlighten everything on this blog is a...Your way to enlighten everything on this blog is actually pleasant, everyone manage to efficiently be familiar with it, Thanks a great deal.<a href="http://fortworthtexasdentist.com/meet-the-doctors/" rel="nofollow">dentist fort worth texas</a>Melissamoorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00901648636621027024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26148832859952168912008-10-27T09:58:00.000+00:002008-10-27T09:58:00.000+00:00But that doesn't mean that nothing can count as ev...<I>But that doesn't mean that nothing can count as evidence against his goodness or badness, does it?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, supposing it does. Under those circumstances, you *definitely* can't assert that God is good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10366341027550303312008-10-19T08:36:00.000+00:002008-10-19T08:36:00.000+00:00Why would an omnipotent, omniscient being have hop...Why would an omnipotent, omniscient being have hope?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82035509122510662892008-10-10T19:41:00.000+00:002008-10-10T19:41:00.000+00:00Have you convinced me? No. I do not accept the rea...Have you convinced me? No. I do not accept the reasoning that just because there is evil there cannot be a God. Can I prove you wrong? No.<BR/><BR/>Question: Do you have children, and if you do, did you have them full well knowing that there would be times in their lives that they would have to suffer "pointless evil?" If so, what kind of parent does that make you? Granted, you can argue that you did not cause the evil, but does not life tell you that we all suffer pointless evil at one time or another? And since you did have a choice in bringing a child into the world, does that not hold you to blame? <BR/><BR/>Or you can argue that you are not omni-potent, therefore your evil is acceptable. I suppose that holds some water, but perhaps you still should have known better. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could argue that you would love the child. That in spite of evil, that child would have the opportunity to experience many good and wonderful things as well. But would they experience more good than evil? Reality teaches that we have no control over such things. But you can hope. I do. I believe God does.Sphericalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07678782081301897978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47305824589674354032008-09-25T07:08:00.000+00:002008-09-25T07:08:00.000+00:00Spherical,(I said) About your "covenant", I do not...Spherical,<BR/><BR/><I>(I said) About your "covenant", I do not see how this "covenant" could be anything else but imposed by God.<BR/><BR/>(You replied) I agree. Any covenant has to come from God. The lesser has no right to force itself upon the greater.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes, but not because of the "law of the strongest", but more because if might implies responsibility, then allmight implies omni-responsibility.<BR/><BR/>The consequence is, on my question for you to prove why an almighty God is unable to explain the reason of evil to us, that the answer 'because he's morally bound to a contract' is void because you're just telling me "He does not want to" (it's entirely HIS contract). And if 'He' doesn't want to, my parallel of a bad parent punishing his children without telling why stands.<BR/><BR/>And so stands the contradiction of a good God causing pointless evil.<BR/><BR/><I>Under whose definition is this contract cruel? God offers forgiveness. Is that cruel?</I><BR/><BR/>Humanity has common virtues beyond Abraham's myths. By that standard I'm forwarding that infanticide is cruel.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, a small child dying of smallpox is cruel, because, IF the virus has been made by an intelligent being it is infanticide.<BR/><BR/>Further, It's slightly absurd that a God which cannot possibly be wronged (almighty, remember), has any cause to forgive. Furthermore, there's nothing to forgive my mother, the good woman never did anything wrong.<BR/><BR/>I hope I've shown you clearly the contradictions of the good God theory.Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67995988390367270272008-09-24T02:16:00.000+00:002008-09-24T02:16:00.000+00:00Geert,About your "covenant", I do not see how this...Geert,<BR/><BR/>About your "covenant", I do not see how this "covenant" could be anything else but imposed by God.<BR/><BR/>I agree. Any covenant has to come from God. The lesser has no right to force itself upon the greater.<BR/><BR/>We're speaking here about a 'contract' between all-mighty all-knowingness and in comparison petty, insignificant and especially unknowing (and thus innocent) souls.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I agree with this part of the analogy. Perhaps in a pure comparison adult/child to God/adult that is true, but it does not make sense for God to even enter into a contract with an insignificant. Why would He? In order to enter into a contract, we must have some significance to him. And as for the age thing, perhaps in comparision we are only a 2 year old (in think that is being generous, I would go younger), the truth is we are far from innocent.<BR/><BR/>One might imagine a comity of the best lawyers in the world making a contract with a 2 your old.<BR/><BR/>Again, why would they want to? What do they have to gain from such a contract, besides a pacifier, blanket, and dirty diaper. <BR/><BR/>So, this only shifts the problem in: why would God impose on us a cruel contract?<BR/><BR/>Under whose definition is this contract cruel? God offers forgiveness. Is that cruel?Sphericalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07678782081301897978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62605695489408439292008-09-23T12:41:00.000+00:002008-09-23T12:41:00.000+00:00"I can ask you similar questions that you cannot a..."I can ask you similar questions that you cannot answer. How can awareness arise from any degree of complexity of material particles interacting according to the known laws of physics? Prima facie it cannot - and while you can say that evolved apes would not be expected to understand such things"<BR/><BR/>Except for, I can answer that question, at least as soon as you understand what you mean by awareness. It'd be nice if you were more specific, but for the time being, I'll just give you the cliff notes version of the whole thing: the basic forces of the universe are such that atoms (statistically?) must form large objects, like stars and planets. Once that happens, the preconditions for life are satisfied. Given the huge (seriously, huge) number of planets, it's really quite likely that life would arise from non-life just by chance. Once that happens, awareness has basically been satisfied, depending (again) on your definition of the term - sentience is just a better kind of this awareness, not something in another category. But which part of this do you not get? What, specifically, is your objection? How do you mean that prima facie this is impossible - prima facie <I>it has happened</I>. Also, please note the difference between what I said I would say if I could not answer your question ("I don't know") and what you're saying I must say ("I cannot know"). The disanalogy here is exactly the one I pointed out: you don't care to know and you're using that as a shield. The name for that, once again, is sophistry.<BR/><BR/>"I show there is a way in which God's obscurity could be morally justified."<BR/><BR/>No you haven't? You suggested a sketch as to a way that it could be justified, only that sketch only makes sense locally. View it in a broader context and it immediately fails to make sense.<BR/><BR/>"What you have failed to do - as yet - is show that there is even a way in which material complexity could give rise to awareness"<BR/><BR/>You hadn't even asked me yet, you twit! This is hardly a fair criticism or comparison. It is, however, perfect sophistry.<BR/><BR/>"also, I don't want to be taken seriously by you."<BR/><BR/>Then congratulations!<BR/><BR/>"There are then further questions, answers to which I shall publish as and when I think of them. They may be no good, but the immediate question is whether the answer I gave to Stephen's question is any good as such - as an answer to that question (not to the further ones)."<BR/><BR/>Then admit for the time being that you don't know! That's all I ask, but you don't seem to want to do it. Again, these other questions I've asked are not really different from Stephen's initial question: they're simply more specific versions aimed at your specific attempt at an answer. I repeat, in order for God to morally accept an agreement like the one you propose, there must already be a reason for God to allow evil - in other words, <I>your solution doesn't answer the exact question it's supposed to</I>. Your proposed bargain does absolutely no work in your proof. As this is a logical fallacy, I thought it might be wise for you to at least try it again - but you haven't! Instead, you've referred me to a non-existent explanation in that article and then tried to change the subject:<BR/><BR/>"You don't let the fact that there is no evolutionary explanation (at all) of animals who are awake, who are aware"<BR/><BR/>This is simply false! Moreover, you don't have an argument to the contrary - you only have questions. This is equivalent to the two-year-old method of argumentation, wherein I construct an argument and you go, "But why?" This is substantively different than what I'm doing with yours, which is pointing out that it fails as a logically valid argument that establishes your desired conclusion. If you can ask me a specific question to which I don't know the answer, again, I'll admit I don't know - it's that simple! I will not tell you human brains are incapable of understanding, I will not try to deflect from my lack of knowledge (I am, after all, not an evolutionary biologist - you are, notably, at least an amateur theologian), and I certainly won't try to change the subject. Why can't you manage to do the same?Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30526799612505830592008-09-23T09:29:00.000+00:002008-09-23T09:29:00.000+00:00larryniven - but also, I don't want to be taken se...larryniven - but also, I don't <I>want</I> to be taken seriously by you. You are a bit lazy (and rude) when you call me lazy. I wanted to answer Stephen's question, that is all. There are then further questions, answers to which I shall publish as and when I think of them. They may be no good, but the immediate question is whether the answer I gave to Stephen's question is any good <I>as such</I> - as an answer to that question (not to the further ones). Maybe it is not; but maybe it is. You just raised a fog of irrelevancies, and <I>that</I> is pure sophistry!<BR/><BR/>You don't let the fact that there is no evolutionary explanation (at all) of animals who are awake, who are aware, put you off your belief that evolution explains life on Earth, do you? And people like Dawkins play such things down as much as possible, whilst playing up evil. (That is pure sophistry!) But I am not sophisticated. And I like the theory of evolution as far as it goes. I think it is a scientific explanation of many things. But therefore I did not (and still do not) see why I have to address the fact that there are lots of questions that I am not addressing when I put forward an explanation of anything.<BR/><BR/>Do some real science yourself, and then call me lazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15401330242091923522008-09-23T09:12:00.000+00:002008-09-23T09:12:00.000+00:00larryniven, answers to such questions take time (o...larryniven, answers to such questions take time (of course). I can ask you similar questions that you cannot answer. How can awareness arise from any degree of complexity of material particles interacting according to the known laws of physics? Prima facie it cannot - and while you can say that evolved apes would not be expected to understand such things, theists have a similar response, in that we are souls operating within the confines of brains, or that we are fallen creatures operating in depraved ways. If you then ask about how depravity (or distance etc.) could lead to operational malfunctioning, you are missing the point (which is quite general, and applies to science as much as to theology). <I>Answers to questions take time.</I> The history of science is a long history, that has answered only a few questions to date. Now, there is an interesting question about what counts as an explanation (which arose on Ch4 comments). When has someone (who cannot give all the answers) explained something? The short answer is, never, but that is also the wrong answer. I show there is a way in which God's obscurity could be morally justified. What you have failed to do - as yet - is show that there is even a way in which material complexity could give rise to awareness (Pots and Kettles :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10238978557231945972008-09-22T15:12:00.000+00:002008-09-22T15:12:00.000+00:00No, you don't have to answer every question in you...No, you don't have to answer every question in your initial essay - that would require your essay to be infinitely long and I don't really have the time to read an infinitely long essay. But if I ask you questions about it, you do have to (if you want to be taken seriously) address them. Dawkins - or any competent proponent of evolution - will do this, even if it means saying that he doesn't yet know. You, though, don't seem to want to do that; rather, you prefer to do the minimum amount of work necessary to deflect the initial argument and then declare victory. But that's not philosophy, it's sophistry. I reiterate: find me an argument that I couldn't pull that same trick with.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5666442769287347042008-09-22T15:07:00.000+00:002008-09-22T15:07:00.000+00:00larryniven, the thing is, I don't have to explain ...larryniven, the thing is, I don't have to explain everything in my essay, no more than Dawkins has to explain the details of how matter gives rise to consciousness before he puts forward his theory. I took that to be obvious.<BR/><BR/>wombat, I don't saction anything!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3104083534273564202008-09-22T07:31:00.000+00:002008-09-22T07:31:00.000+00:00Spherical,About your "covenant", I do not see how ...Spherical,<BR/><BR/>About your "covenant", I do not see how this "covenant" could be anything else but imposed by God. We're speaking here about a 'contract' between all-mighty all-knowingness and in comparison petty, insignificant and especially unknowing (and thus innocent) souls.<BR/><BR/>One might imagine a comity of the best lawyers in the world making a contract with a 2 your old.<BR/><BR/>So, this only shifts the problem in: why would God impose on us a cruel contract?Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13542034382760229022008-09-20T17:37:00.000+00:002008-09-20T17:37:00.000+00:00AnticantI think that there is a lot more truth in ...Anticant<BR/><BR/>I think that there is a lot more truth in that than most people realize.Sphericalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07678782081301897978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38473932743261878302008-09-20T06:41:00.000+00:002008-09-20T06:41:00.000+00:00MESSAGE FROM GOD:"The communication is the message...MESSAGE FROM GOD:<BR/><BR/>"The communication is the message received.<BR/><BR/>"I know you believe you understand what you think I said,<BR/><BR/>"But I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86621922864454978102008-09-20T00:41:00.000+00:002008-09-20T00:41:00.000+00:00Hello Just Wondering.The whole point to my thesis ...Hello Just Wondering.<BR/><BR/>The whole point to my thesis that I wrote on my blog: my starting point and end point; is that any one of us can commit evil given the right circumstances. And it starts with identity: the ingroup-outgroup mentality. As a previous Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, once commented in a television interview, evil always starts by assigning all of a society’s ills to a specific group of people.<BR/><BR/>In regard to 9/11, the main difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is geography. After the attacks, there were Christian fundamentalists who actually agreed with the terrorists (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson come to mind) by saying that the attacks were ‘God’s punishment’ on an evil American society.<BR/><BR/>I was in America at the time of the attacks, and I remember reading a commentary in USA Today, by a fundamentalist preacher, that the new Harry Potter film (just released immediately after) was a symptom of the ills that caused the 9/11 catastrophe. As the Americans themselves say: 'Go figure.'<BR/><BR/>American fundamentalists will tell you that homosexuality is evil, so it’s a word or label that can easily justify prejudice. The biblical ‘God’ commits genocide yet few people attempt to reconcile that with the ‘problem of evil’. In fact, that very statement will have me labelled as a bigot by some people.<BR/><BR/>‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are not tangible attributes yet we all think we know what they are. But when the President of the United States can justify breaking the Geneva Convention you have to wonder.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1733770249294431512008-09-19T21:47:00.000+00:002008-09-19T21:47:00.000+00:00enigman - re "distance from" and "covenant" etc. ...enigman - re "distance from" and "covenant" etc. You seem to be on the lines of "<A HREF="http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html" REL="nofollow">The Matrix as Metaphysics"</A> here. God is running the simulation and has agreed not to break in until our game is over. Its a totally awesome simulation so we don't spot pixels missing and so on. Totally life like and realistic. The difference I think you are claiming between us and most of the Matrix inhabitants in the film is that we <I>volunteered</I>. Possibly even paid for it - how can we tell? <BR/><BR/>Leave aside for the moment that there is a conspicuous absence of suitably coloured pills or special phone boxes and no-one would ever go in for this sort of thing willingly unless there was a get out option. Consider instead the information flow between the sim and the real world (whatever that looks like). When we enter the sim we are effectively mind-wiped. Can you remember life outside. Signing up? Paying the beardy guy before he put the goggles on and fitted the electrodes? No? I can't. So amnesia it is. Presumably this will enhance the experience as we'll find it all the more believable. <BR/><BR/>OK what about when we leave the sim?<BR/>Do we remember anything? If we don't then its all been a complete waste so why would we sign up? Of course we must remember. Even the suffering. Sure maybe at least some of us are thrill junkies like the guys that play games that give you electric shocks or out and out S&M fans who like that sort of thing and ticked those options on the order form. Ok that handles the natural evil. Any suffering due to earthquakes plague etc. is part of the script and what we wanted. Even though our minds have been blanked so that we cant even remember how much we enjoyed that sort of stuff? Hmm... What about the man made evil then. Other players can do stuff to us that we don't want. Even the people who didn't tick the "I like pain" box can be made to suffer. Totally realistic pain and suffering. Real to them at the time it happens and which they get to remember in the "real world". They are not going to be pleased. What about those poor players who get subjected to so much pain they lose it totally. Everything from post traumatic stress to drooling insanity. They're going to remember that too.<BR/><BR/>Would you sanction such a simulation? <BR/>Would you want to belong to a world where people are queuing up for a go on this simulator?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33299080314766305172008-09-19T20:43:00.000+00:002008-09-19T20:43:00.000+00:00enigman - Re "...examples of a failure to communic...enigman - Re "...examples of a failure to communicate..."<BR/><BR/>Several points really here.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, if there is no common language available is there any point in you trying to "tell" someone anything? Surely there must at least be the possibility of successful communication. If not, you are just making a noise/doodling/emitting random scents.<BR/><BR/>Secondly at what point does the activity complete? If I type into this PC to tell you something, when have I told you it? Is it when I finish typing the text, when I press the submit button, when you read the text on your screen or when you understand the words? Until I get some acknowledgment from you I can't really know if I have told you anything. The best I can say is that once I have hit the submit button I am in the process of "trying to tell you". <BR/><BR/>Quite rightly you point to the possibility that I might not understand what you have attempted to communicate even if I am in principle capable of doing so either because I am a poor student or the massage was (obviously) insufficiently clear. Most people in this situation would ask for further clarification I expect, but you could at least get an acknowledgment of the fact that I had received your message, that it was presented in an intelligible form and that I recognized it as a message. <BR/><BR/>Take the example of an adult(A) telling a small child(C) something important.<BR/><BR/>A - "Remember- belladonna is toxic"<BR/><BR/>C - simply looks baffled.<BR/><BR/>A - "You are not to eat the dark purple berries because they are poisonous"<BR/><BR/>C - "OK"<BR/><BR/>A - "OK What?"<BR/><BR/>C - "What you just said"<BR/><BR/>A - "...and that was?"<BR/><BR/>C - "not to eat the purple berries because they are poisonous"<BR/><BR/>A - "And do you know what poisonous means?"<BR/><BR/>C - "If you eat it you get sick."<BR/><BR/>A - "OK now run along...."<BR/><BR/><BR/>At what point in this dialogue would you consider that the child has been "told"? The adult realises that it is not enough to have simply said the words, it is also necessary that they have been heard and understood.<BR/><BR/>In the examples earlier I assumed that the receiver of the message would act in good faith and at least try to understand. <BR/><BR/>In the usual run of things I might well allow that in a tutorial situation there might well be a failure to educate either because of my inadequacy or laziness as a student or the shortcoming of the tutor but even in this situation I would realize that I had been spoken to in my own language using words that I recognised. However in the man/God case I would have thought it safe to assume that God was a fairly compelling speaker and took some care to understand His audience. Better yet He has the opportunity and means to equip them with sufficient brainpower and a good nights sleep beforehand, make sure the all the visual aids work correctly and get the handouts back from the printers on time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56592079569628366142008-09-19T17:02:00.000+00:002008-09-19T17:02:00.000+00:00"Regarding the further details you asked for, they..."Regarding the further details you asked for, they are provided in the essay linked to in that comment"<BR/><BR/>If you can find them there, more power to you - I read it and didn't see any. I think, provisionally, that you're just saying this to get me off your case. It's yet another unproven apologetic conceit that "distance" in some sense from God makes for sin, but again you have failed to provide a reason why that's true, why we should consider our increased appreciation of God's divinity (which, incidentally, most of us don't even have) as morally outweighing the contract itself (or even as being morally good), why we should expect such a vast amount of wrongdoing, and so on. This kind of explanation simply does not sufficiently establish its premises: eventually, you must assume outright that it's better to have the evil we have (or something that entails it) than it would be not to have the evil we have. Let's try this: can you construct a general morality in which this proposed covenant is acceptable? A series of moral equations, so to speak, for which this covenant is a solution? You haven't done it yet, your article hasn't done it yet - in fact, nobody in the history of Christianity has done it yet.<BR/><BR/>"Evil God has no moral obligation to explain as much as he can to his creatures, for example."<BR/><BR/>Ah - so you think Evil God is <I>more</I> likely, therefore, than Good God? Because, as you so rightly point out, Evil God need not justify itself, so there are more prima facie reasons to doubt Good God. Do try to keep the comparison in mind, though: do your defenses of Good God work also for Evil God? So far, they do.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65233931551490994952008-09-19T16:27:00.000+00:002008-09-19T16:27:00.000+00:00Paul:Thanks again for your response. I think I und...Paul:<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your response. I think I understand your definition of evil, especially as it relates to the idea of being a perversion of good. I guess my question was, how do we define good then. You said, that evil in its grossest form is justified by being called good.<BR/><BR/>So in a situation where this happens, say the 9/11 attacks, I am sure those flying the planes justified their deeds in such a manner, therefore saying they had done a good thing. Others viewed it as evil. Of course, some view America as the land of opportunity, others as the great Satan (land of evil). It appears that your interpretation of good or evil acts may come down to which side of the water you live on. In some ways it would appear that evil and good could then be the same thing. Do you think this a possibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38685371528778891312008-09-19T16:00:00.000+00:002008-09-19T16:00:00.000+00:00Sorry for that tangentiality... I just wanted to g...Sorry for that tangentiality... I just wanted to give a possible reason why God would be morally obliged to say as little as the evidence suggests he has (i.e. next to nothing to most of us directly) about the suffering of the world, in reply to Stephen's parenthetical question, because such a moral <I>obligation</I> could be why God cannot explain the reason for the suffering within his creation.<BR/><BR/>In brief, such an obligation could follow from God allowing us to enter into a world remote from him in order to facilitate an empirical investigation (i.e. into God's uniqueness, as sketched out in the essay aforelinkedto - basically, by becoming more distant from—while belonging to (since originating in) and hence longing for—what is now transcendent (and heavenly) we expected to become more sensitive to any divinity that exists).<BR/><BR/>And by allowing us to be in a remote place for a short while (where our minds would be the product of our souls being encumbered by our brains, so that little could be explained for the duration anyway) he has agreed not to intervene very much. The extent to which things could get bad before intervention would have been decided by our souls before incarnation. God agreeing to our request binds him morally not to intervene until such a point is reached. He could pop in and tell us everything we could grasp through a lesser-dimensional sketch of himself within his creation, but if he did that he might as well just destroy the world and take us all to Heaven, since that would ruin the remoteness that we requested.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18960760248927385382008-09-19T15:43:00.000+00:002008-09-19T15:43:00.000+00:00wombat, your examples do indeed seem to be example...wombat, your examples do indeed seem to be examples of a failure to communicate; but are you suggesting that there is no way in which I could be communicating with you rather well (or you with me) and yet failing to get my (your) point across, because (for example) of intellectual laziness on your (my) part? (Surely you think this is possible, that I am failing to understand you because of my willful self-delusion, not because your expressive weakness?) I might ask you to try harder to see the other's pov, and you might tell me that I am a rubbish teacher, but surely it is not always a case of the latter, for everyone.<BR/><BR/>larryniven, you are not supposed to be convinced, of course; but I was hoping for a motion of a degree of belief somewhere. Regarding the further details you asked for, they are provided in the essay linked to in that comment, and consequently my hypothesis did not beg the apposite question. (That essay is not, of course, supposed to answer everyone's worries by itself, to convince even a reasonable agnostic; but I can of course answer any worries not answered already within it)... Re your "likewise," I fail to see any parity at all. Evil God has no moral obligation to explain as much as he can to his creatures, for example. Furthermore I do think that the fact that I have not been talked to by an evil being who claims to be a God does not make it impossible - or even especially unlikely, by itself - that others have been plagued by demons doing just that; and indeed, nor does it mean that the Devil has not been throwing subliminal temptations at me. But I don't see how that is apposite (would it be too much trouble to explain how it is, if it is?)...<BR/><BR/>geert, re your <I>If you punish a child and he doesn't understand why, he's simply not learning and punishment is pointless.</I><BR/>Why assume that the suffering of this world is a punishment? I would say that most of it is a side-effect of a situation that we chose to enter into. God does not explain it to us because he respects our decision to be here (and because we can work it out for ourselves if we really want to). But where there is punishment, I'm not sure that you are right anyway. If all punishment is for reform, you are right, and I am attracted to that ideal, but I don't think it is realistic. E.g. you can punish a child to put others off evil-doing, so long as they understand why. The punished child could be criminally insane but charismatic, for example. Or you might punish in such a way retributively, in theory, if the child is old enough to be responsible and if ignorance would be just, e.g. if the crime involved deception. And finally, the child might understand enough but not everything, e.g. that he did something to avoid repeating, and so come to work out what it was over the next few days; or maybe just feel uneasy the next time the opportunity to be similarly bad arises, making the next punishment more effective, etc.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9014999903886340662008-09-19T14:42:00.000+00:002008-09-19T14:42:00.000+00:00enigman, are you not getting the point of Stephen'...enigman, are you not getting the point of Stephen's argument?<BR/><BR/>"...just because God has not told you anything that you can (yet) recognise does not even mean that he has not told you anything, but most crucially it does not mean that he has not told us anything, where 'us' refers to the linguistic community within which meaning resides."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, just because Evil God has not told you anything that you can (yet) recognize etc. Are you now convinced that Evil God is just as likely as Good God?<BR/><BR/>As for your ad-hoc covenant hypothesis - for which there is no evidence and which could not ever be proven - it begs the question. In order for God to enter into any morally binding covenant, it must be the best (or, at least, one of the best) available options for God. In putting forward this hypothesis, you assume that a covenant which interrupts moral perfection could be morally justifiable. That is, you assume that moral variety of the sort we see now (i.e., that includes vast amounts of wrongdoing) is, at worst, morally equivalent to any other of God's options. This is precisely what we have asked you to prove, though! Rather than explaining what reason there could possibly be for allowing moral imperfection, all you've done is constructed an exceedingly complicated story in which, <I>if</I> you can rationalize moral imperfection, everything works out okay for you. Why are we supposed to be convinced by this?Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46700173741641036102008-09-19T13:55:00.000+00:002008-09-19T13:55:00.000+00:00Just Wondering,I'm not sure where to stop this. On...Just Wondering,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure where to stop this. On a definition of evil, I can't speak for Stephen. Personally, I see evil as a human condition because it involves morality and I don't think we can impose our moral values on the animal kingdom. What Stephen is talking about, perhaps, is suffering, which is not synonymous with evil in my view.<BR/><BR/>I don't attempt to reconcile suffering with 'god' because I don't believe in god as 'the Creator'. God is a subjective experience which is open to interpretation to the person who has it, so I think the best description of 'god' is as a projection not unlike Ludwig Feuerbach's quotation: 'God is the outward projection of man's inner nature'. <BR/><BR/>This is also consistent with the idea of 'god as a process', but I don't claim that this is the 'Truth'; just an alternative way of looking at theism. I don't even claim that there is a 'god' outside the concept that exists in a human mind.<BR/><BR/>As I've said previously, a belief in God is not something I judge people by.<BR/><BR/>If you don't understand what I mean by evil being the perversion of good then I'm not sure I can explain it more clearly. It's more that evil is a perversion, because in its grossest form, people justify it as being good. I thought I explained it very well in my blog, to be honest.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60409307695907606342008-09-19T12:53:00.000+00:002008-09-19T12:53:00.000+00:00Paul:Thanks for the clarification, although it doe...Paul:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification, although it does raise further questions.<BR/><BR/>If evil is the perversion of good, how does one define good? I am assuming that there is no god of any type in the picture since evil is purely a human condition. And if we were, as you suggest, to view God as an end result rather than the creator, what impact does this have on our understanding of good and evil?<BR/><BR/>Also, this seems to be a different definition of evil than Stephen holds to. How could millions of years of animal suffering be evil if evil is only a human condition? Or do you still see that as an appropriate argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53420767625160983902008-09-19T12:40:00.000+00:002008-09-19T12:40:00.000+00:00Hi Wombat,By the way, are you a marsupial?I have t...Hi Wombat,<BR/><BR/>By the way, are you a marsupial?<BR/><BR/>I have to admit I've never considered the 'god as process' the way you describe it. I don't know, to be honest. I actually don't think it's important.<BR/><BR/>The only thing that's important as far as I am concerned is what someone thinks about humanity - what they think about 'god' is ancillary to that, not the other way round.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.com