25 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou constantly make 'fallacy of equivocations' KellyJay.
The point you seem to be making, or possibly you are not and I'm
reading it this way is that evil is only evil because of the pain and
suffering attached to actions. I have an uncle who threw himself
on a hand grenade and saved the people who were with him by
taking much of the blast during the Korean conflict. My uncle
lived, pain and suffering were ...[text shortened]... y the bed we have made for ourselves.
I’m again asking you, how would you handle evil?
Kelly
Just because all evil has pain and suffering associated with it, does not imply that all pain and suffering involve evil.
Compare:
All elephants are animals, therefore all animals are elephants.
25 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeI'm trying to understand his point, I even said I could be getting
You constantly make 'fallacy of equivocations' KellyJay.
Just because all evil has pain and suffering associated with it, does not imply that all pain and suffering involve evil.
Compare:
All elephants are animals, therefore all animals are elephants.
it wrong. I don't have any idea what you think evil is, or if there
even is such a thing as evil as far as you are concern.
Kelly
25 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point you seem to be making, or possibly you are not and I'm
The point you seem to be making, or possibly you are not and I'm
reading it this way is that evil is only evil because of the pain and
suffering attached to actions. I have an uncle who threw himself
on a hand grenade and saved the people who were with him by
taking much of the blast during the Korean conflict. My uncle
lived, pain and suffering were ...[text shortened]... y the bed we have made for ourselves.
I’m again asking you, how would you handle evil?
Kelly
reading it this way is that evil is only evil because of the pain and
suffering attached to actions.
this is not what i am trying to say. but evil and suffering go hand in hand since the pain and suffering of others seems to be the practical manifestation of one's evil ways. if one were to go off by himself and be 'evil' (whatever that would entail) in his own little closed system, so to speak, such that his evil ways did not affect others, i doubt that anyone else would care or be aware of the situation. this academic kind of 'evil' is not the kind of evil referred to in the GAFE. the GAFE is concerned primarily with evil that explicitly leads to the pain and suffering of others. that is why i keep referring to pain and suffering even though you are asking about evil. for practical purposes, the two go hand in hand -- not in the sense that evil is a sufficient condition for pain and suffering (which i don't think it is) and not in the sense that evil is a necessary condition for pain and suffering (which, again, it isn't); but in the practical sense that evil often manifests itself in the pain and suffering of others. to rape a young girl is an evil thing to do; this evil thing naturally causes the girl pain and suffering which would not be present if the evil action had not been carried out against her.
does that make what my uncle did evil?
no, of course not. sounds rather heroic to me. but your uncle's pain and suffering was a direct consequence of evil. the evil in this case could be seen as someone else's (not your uncle) act of placing a live grenade in the vicinity of other people with the express intention of killing/harming them; or the evil could be seen in a more general light as simply stemming from the fact that we live in a world where people feel compelled to throw grenades at each other.
I would suggest that pain and suffering reveal something to us,
but by themselves have nothing to do with good and evil they
simply are reactions to nerve impulses and mental stress and strain.
i think this is complete nonsense in the context of this discussion. sure, technically, pain and suffering come from nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain and whatnot. but i think the suggestion that pain and suffering have nothing to do with evil is hogwash. do you agree or disagree with the following sentence: evil actions can and do cause others pain and suffering? do you really think your uncle's pain and suffering had nothing to do with the evils associated with war? do you really think the young girl's pain and suffering had nothing to do with the evil act of forcible rape?
The fact that you want to take away pain and suffering means I guess; we should simply take someone's word for it that raping someone is really a bad thing to do, without the pain and suffering we see today when that deed is done.
good heavens no. i am talking about taking away the needless pain and suffering that result as a direct consequence of evil. if the evil act of raping another person never occurs, then no pain and suffering from rape will occur either. if no one had felt the urge to perform the evil act of throwing a live grenade at another, then your uncle would have never experienced the pain and suffering caused by throwing himself on a live grenade thrown by another person. it's a matter of cause and effect -- if you remove the cause (evil), then you remove the effect (pain and suffering caused by said evil). other forms of pain would still persist (e.g., i stub my toe on a chair); i am not interested in this kind of 'pain'.
God has allowed us to treat each other as we see fit, what we do
with that ability is simply the bed we have made for ourselves.
okay, so in your view, god allows evil, and if needless pain and suffering result from this evil, then god doesn't seem to care about that. fair enough. why would he do that? why do christians give pause when it comes to questioning god's motives? he may end up being a real jerk who has just constantly been lying to you and everybody else. after all, he can do whatever is logically possible, right?
do you think the fact that god doesn't seem to care much about needless pain and suffering is consistent with his supposed attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection? i definitely do not think so, and that is the whole point of the GAFE.
I’m again asking you, how would you handle evil?
again, until you can demonstrate that evil is necessary, my kingdom would have no evil. i'm omnipotent and omniscient -- surely i can produce an evil-free world. why wouldn't i?
25 Jul 05
I would suggest that pain and suffering reveal something to us,
but by themselves have nothing to do with good and evil they
simply are reactions to nerve impulses and mental stress and strain.
i think this is complete nonsense in the context of this discussion. sure, technically, pain and suffering come from nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain and whatnot. but i think the suggestion that pain and suffering have nothing to do with evil is hogwash. do you agree or disagree with the following sentence: evil actions can and do cause others pain and suffering? do you really think your uncle's pain and suffering had nothing to do with the evils associated with war? do you really think the young girl's pain and suffering had nothing to do with the evil act of forcible rape?
Now wait a minute, why do you say this? You admit that pain is a
result of "...nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain and
whatnot" The same thing can be said for pleasure as well, it is
simply the feelings we get in our bodies by either design with a
creator, or evolutionary mutations over time within the human or
other life. These are simply results of actions of nerves, they are
not evil all by themselves. You believe that at some level of reaction
a nerve impulses is evil all by itself? This is important, I would not
call this nonsense.
I am saying that evil deeds can and will result in pain and suffering,
but evil is not limited to pain and suffering, and pain and suffering
does not mean that something evil has occured.
Kelly
25 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is important, I would not call this nonsense.
it is not important because it is irrelevant to this discussion. it is nonsense in the same way that you cannot prove to anybody, even yourself, that you are not in 'the matrix' with machines controlling your sensory experiences through controlled electrical inputs to your brain. it's another discussion for another day.
I am saying that evil deeds can and will result in pain and suffering,
excellent! i agree. so, now we can move on. do you agree that at least some of this pain and suffering is needless? why is evil necessary? why would an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect god allow evil at all? what greater good does evil afford us?
but evil is not limited to pain and suffering, and pain and suffering
does not mean that something evil has occured.
again, i am not disputing this. i have already said that i am not trying to say that evil is a necessary or a sufficient condition for pain and suffering. the relevant point is that evil often leads to pain and suffering which is seemingly needless. why would your god allow that?
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI have provided a classic example of an evil act on my "A Good Example of Evil" thread.
I'm trying to understand his point, I even said I could be getting
it wrong. I don't have any idea what you think evil is, or if there
even is such a thing as evil as far as you are concern.
Kelly
26 Jul 05
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am saying that evil deeds can and will result in pain and suffering,
[b]This is important, I would not call this nonsense.
it is not important because it is irrelevant to this discussion. it is nonsense in the same way that you cannot prove to anybody, even yourself, that you are not in 'the matr ...[text shortened]... ing which is seemingly needless. why would your god allow that? [/b]
excellent! i agree. so, now we can move on. do you agree that at least some of this pain and suffering is needless? why is evil necessary? why would an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect god allow evil at all? what greater good does evil afford us?
Pain and suffering are a direct result from actions within the universe
that God created. They were not to be apart of the universe that God
created! This is the point I'm trying to make, pain and suffering are
simply results from nerve impulse reactions, as we have already
agreed! When God created the universe it was all very good, within
that ‘very good’ for man he had the ability to feel even then, because
he had a nervous system it was not added after the fall.
Feelings both pleasurable and painful are simply our bodies reacting
to stresses that can come because of the life we find ourselves in now.
Man rebelled against God, God allowed man to go so far away from
Himself even though He continued to reach out to man. The
wickedness that we have brought upon ourselves is due to our acting
upon our lusts from the world, the flesh, and the devil we do these
things to ourselves. We are the ones that have brought great pain
and suffering into the universe. Just as we abuse our bodies with
drugs, drink, sex, food, and whatever else we can do, we are the ones
to blame here not God.
Pain and suffering are a result of evil; they again are not the evil! Which
again goes back to my point where we see how ‘evil and good’ things
are by the manifestation of pain and pleasure. We can see how totally
selfish an act of rape is by the pain and suffering that result in the
rape, we can see how much some men can care for their fellow
comrades in arms when one will dive upon a hand grenade thrown into
the foxhole where everyone is. Just as we can find that the pursuit of
pleasure can also reveal evil too, the intent of man’s heart is what
has brought evil into the God’s universe we have abused what was
before us to our own grief. You would think by seeing pain and
suffering that man’s desire to do evil to one another would be
diminished but we do not see that do we! We do see a long suffering
God putting up with this crap we are doing to each other to save as
many of us as His time table allows.
but evil is not limited to pain and suffering, and pain and suffering
does not mean that something evil has occured.
again, i am not disputing this. i have already said that i am not trying to say that evil is a necessary or a sufficient condition for pain and suffering. the relevant point is that evil often leads to pain and suffering which is seemingly needless. why would your god allow that?
God I imagine thinks that pain and suffering should act as brakes
for us, when we see what it is we are doing to each other we would
stop if it causes pain and suffering. For those that have a heart it
does stop them, it stops a lot of suffering because of those that
do not want to see others suffering; however, there are those that
are given over to evil, pain and suffering are a way of life. When
it all shakes out in the end, all sin will be dealt with.
Kelly
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeYea I read it, another example of people doing evil in God's name.
I have provided a classic example of an evil act on my "A Good Example of Evil" thread.
The part I would focus upon would be that is the "people doing the
evil," they could do it in your name, that would not make it your
fault.
Kelly
27 Jul 05
Hi Howared thanks for saying what you said. I always have had the habit of questioning things that I don't understand or don't actually agree with because I've always thought it was silly just to accept what you are told all of the time, and there are things in the Bible I definitely don't agree with. And I can't remember the exact chapter but it's definitely in Luke between chapters 13 and 16 where Jesus is supposed to have said that if you don't hate your parents you can't poosibly be his disciple. I reacted quite strongly to that in the home bible study group and told the minister who was leading it that I refuse to hate my parents just because Jesus says I should, and then the minister tried to cover it up by saying that it shouldn't be taken literally, but the mere fact that Luke said Jesus said that put me right off. Not totally put off but I am not very interested in taking what is put down in the Bible because I am finding I disagree with a lot of it. And also who is to say that Jesus really did say that? I mean what I've learned about God and Jesus is that they are loving beings and love everyone, and I don't take too well to the idea that we should suddenly hate people to be okay with them! Anyway 🙂 thanks for reading. I will have a look for that book.
27 Jul 05
KellyJay, you state that:
"pain is a result of nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain and whatnot. The same thing can be said for pleasure as well, it is
simply the feelings we get in our bodies by either design with a
creator, or evolutionary mutations over time within the human or
other life. These are simply results of actions of nerves"
300 Years ago, you would have been called a heretic for stating this scientific fact. Pleasure and pain used to be part of what was known as the 'soul'.
Isn't education wonderful. Even you managed to get your nose out of a bible for long enough to learn about nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain!
Eventually we will learn that souls do not exist.
..Later we will all realise that Heaven and Hell do not exist.
..Ultimately we will learn that God does not exist.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayat the crux of the problem is LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY suffering. i'm not talking about the 'good' kind of suffering that brings families together and hardens us with lifelong lessons like we're all living in a Little House on the Prairie episode or something. i'm talking about suffering like a violent rape that chronically transforms a beautiful promising young girl into a crippled shadow of her former self.
I am saying that evil deeds can and will result in pain and suffering,
[b]excellent! i agree. so, now we can move on. do you agree that at least some of this pain and suffering is needless? why is evil necessary? why would an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect god allow evil at all? what greater good does evil afford us?
Pain and suf ...[text shortened]... fering are a way of life. When
it all shakes out in the end, all sin will be dealt with.
Kelly[/b]
if the suffering is logically unnecessary, then i would assert that the omnipotent, omniscient god is to blame just as much as the human perpetrator of the evil act that causes the unecessary suffering. IMO it's a load of crap to say 'well, he's god, so he can run the world any way he sees fit, and it'll all pan out in the end'. if god allows logically unnecessary suffering (indeed, maybe even wills it since it is trivial for him to prevent it), then why would you trust him to fulfill any promises he has made about afterlife shmafterlife? to trust a god that demonstrates callousness for your condition is foolish methinks.
it's a load of crap to say that god establishes morality so he answers to nothing when it comes to his motives. god is not above morality. IF an omnipotent, omniscient god exists out there, then i say he has a lot of explaining to do.
27 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeWhat people did and believed 300 years ago is just that, what
KellyJay, you state that:
"pain is a result of nerve impulses and electrical signals to the brain and whatnot. The same thing can be said for pleasure as well, it is
simply the feelings we get in our bodies by either design with a ...[text shortened]... do not exist.
..Ultimately we will learn that God does not exist.
people believed and did 300 years ago. I will tell you that your
affirmations of faith in what people will realize and learn is also
just that, a declaration of your beliefs nothing more. All of this
has nothing to do with what we believe to be true either, people
believed in planting crops for food 300 years ago, some things
they got right some they did not. Truth isn’t something we can
say is accurate simply by how recently it was discovered or
believed, making what was believed long ago always wrong.
Truth is truth and having us believe it or realize that for several
thousands of years or 10, does not make it anything other than
what it is.
Kelly
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloAt the crux is evil, not suffering in my opinion. Do you agree with this?
at the crux of the problem is LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY suffering. i'm not talking about the 'good' kind of suffering that brings families together and hardens us with lifelong lessons like we're all living in a Little House on the Prairie episode or something. i'm talking about suffering like a violent rape that chronically transforms a beautiful prom ...[text shortened]... /i] an omnipotent, omniscient god exists out there, then i say he has a lot of explaining to do.
Kelly
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you agree with this?
At the crux is evil, not suffering in my opinion. Do you agree with this?
Kelly
no, i do not agree with this. evil in general is not the crux of this discussion. i can break evil acts down into 3 types which i think will encompass all evil acts of man (with respect to whatever ethical theory you want to employ):
1. evil acts that lead to no suffering
2. evil acts that lead to wholly logically necessary suffering
3. evil acts that lead to at least some measure of logically unnecessary suffering
for the purposes of this discussion, i am NOT AT ALL interested in types 1 and 2. i am interested in the existence (or non-existence, if that is your stance) of type 3 evil acts and their ramifications. therefore, it muddies the waters completely unnecessarily to say that the crux of the discussion is evil in general. moreover, it is conceivable to think that some forms of logically unnecessary suffering may exist that have nothing to do with evil acts of man (for example, suffering that comes from floods, plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc). so, again, i say that the crux of the matter lies with the existence or non-existence of logically unnecessary suffering.
please answer the following questions, KJ, if you feel so inclined:
1. do you think logically unnecessary suffering exists (or has existed) in the world?
2. if you answer 'yes' to 1, then don't you think an omnipotent, omniscient god should actively prevent (or have actively prevented) such suffering, being that it is altogether trivial for him to do so?
3. if you answer 'no' to 1, then what are your reasons for thinking that all suffering in this world is logically necessary for bringing about greater good?
my feeling is that if you answer question 1 (or 2) with 'i don't know and it's not for us to say because he's god and he can do what he wants and who are we to question him, etcetera, etcetera', then i think you are just not interested in viewing the GAFE with any objectivity.
28 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf all creation had in it were those leading loving, good, and
[b]Do you agree with this?
no, i do not agree with this. evil in general is not the crux of this discussion. i can break evil acts down into 3 types which i think will encompass all evil acts of man (with respect to whatever ethical theory you want to employ):
1. evil acts that lead to no suffering
2. evil acts that lead to wholly logically n ...[text shortened]... tera', then i think you are just not interested in viewing the GAFE with any objectivity.
[/b]
righteous lives would there be needless suffering?
If righteous acts, good acts, and loving acts alone fill the world, what
would we be seeing and feeling; suffering, loneliness, hate, revenge,
lust, rage, despair and so on?
If loving acts all lead to a life free of suffering, and if suffering only
comes at a result of evil don't you think you are looking at the
symptoms and not the diseases?
1. I can think of no evil acts that do not lead to suffering.
2. and 3. I see only one thing here not two, the difference is only
your views on what is logical or not.
Spell out GAFE, I'm not sure I understand you when you use it.
Kelly