Is there a God?

[Kiu Ghesik]

Let's not go back to the dark days of La Xinga here.

Anyways, Tarsonis, can you give a proper response to my argument:


God, according to you, is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Even if there are forces operating independent of him, he is responsible since as an omnipotent being, he can control these forces and as an omniscient being he ought to be able to judge whether an action is good or evil. Permitting evil to occur through your own informed negligence, when you have the power to stop it, makes you evil. That contradicts the principle of omnibenevolence.

To expand on Tarsonis' "nope", if you simply change what that omnipotent being defines as "evil", then that goes out the window.

[Godular]

That's rich.

Again you have no room to talk.

I'd say that you were projecting, but you already accused me of that a while back... aw hell, I'll do it anyway.

If your god exists, it's a fucking dipshit unworthy of the adulation it is misguidedly conferred. I've been playing ball on assuming its existence. You've got zero basis for claiming I'm using some stereotypical strawman argument just because I pointed out that pretty much ANY discussion on god is a hypothetical.

Purportedly unknowable, wasn't it?

You got some concrete info floating around in that haughty hot air of yers?

[Punished UMN]

Power is the ability to make things happen or to make other people make things happen.

I suppose that's a fair definition, yes.

We can further divide power into hard power (coercion e.g. violence, threats, blackmail) and soft power (the ability to make people agree with you, e.g. admiration, love, charisma), and there is an overlap between the two in some places.

[Tarsonis]

But again, you appeal to epicurean models of morality that dictate "pleasure good/ pain evil." and theses are not mandative.

I never said such a thing.
I said that there is suffering that does not impact free will, and so free will does not excuse suffering.
And I said to needlessly inflict suffering is a sadistic and immoral act.

ah, the operative word. needlessly...

If you want a moral mandate, I will say that Sadism is very nearly the definition of evil.

Except Sadism refers to deriving pleasure from others suffering.

[Punished UMN]

But again, you appeal to epicurean models of morality that dictate "pleasure good/ pain evil." and theses are not mandative.

I never said such a thing.
I said that there is suffering that does not impact free will, and so free will does not excuse suffering.
And I said to needlessly inflict suffering is a sadistic and immoral act.

If you want a moral mandate, I will say that Sadism is very nearly the definition of evil.

What defines evil?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Let's not go back to the dark days of La Xinga here.

Anyways, Tarsonis, can you give a proper response to my argument:


God, according to you, is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Even if there are forces operating independent of him, he is responsible since as an omnipotent being, he can control these forces and as an omniscient being he ought to be able to judge whether an action is good or evil. Permitting evil to occur through your own informed negligence, when you have the power to stop it, makes you evil. That contradicts the principle of omnibenevolence.

I gave a proper respone: Nope.

Don't be La Xinga.

What part do you take issue with? I'll engage with you on it.

Saying "nope" isn't exactly the most convincing argument.

[Neanderthaland]

In reverse order:
Yes

For the same reason parents have a responsibility to their children. You have introduced a sapient being into the universe. Something with the capacity of joy and suffering. To neglect that responsibility is to inflict suffering, and is a sadistic and immoral act. See: Mary Shelley

So the parent must make every effort to ensure their creation never feels pain? or has any negative experience?

No. But they should make an effort to prevent unnecessary suffering. This may involve some degree of negative experience.

[Kowani]

I suppose that's a fair definition, yes.

And since God can move everything, and cannot Himself be moved, that makes his power supreme, does it not?

I reject the first premise, on the grounds that God has imposed upon himself a limitation not to move the free will of humanity.

I suppose that's a fair definition, yes.

We can further divide power into hard power (coercion e.g. violence, threats, blackmail) and soft power (the ability to make people agree with you, e.g. admiration, love, charisma), and there is an overlap between the two in some places.

Right, that makes sense.

[Godular]

Let's not go back to the dark days of La Xinga here.

Anyways, Tarsonis, can you give a proper response to my argument:


God, according to you, is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Even if there are forces operating independent of him, he is responsible since as an omnipotent being, he can control these forces and as an omniscient being he ought to be able to judge whether an action is good or evil. Permitting evil to occur through your own informed negligence, when you have the power to stop it, makes you evil. That contradicts the principle of omnibenevolence.

To expand on Tarsonis' "nope", if you simply change what that omnipotent being defines as "evil", then that goes out the window.

So god's definition of goodness is subjective? I hear the opposite rather often.

[Kiu Ghesik]

So the parent must make every effort to ensure their creation never feels pain? or has any negative experience?

No. But they should make an effort to prevent unnecessary suffering. This may involve some degree of negative experience.

So, if a hypothetical god were to deem some suffering we deem unnecessary necessary, would that justify the suffering experienced?

[Tarsonis]

Again you have no room to talk.

I'd say that you were projecting, but you already accused me of that a while back... aw hell, I'll do it anyway.

If your god exists, it's a fucking dipshit unworthy of the adulation it is misguidedly conferred. I've been playing ball on assuming its existence. You've got zero basis for claiming I'm using some stereotypical strawman argument just because I pointed out that pretty much ANY discussion on god is a hypothetical.

Hypothetical wasn't the word i was referring to. "Excuses" was.

Purportedly unknowable, wasn't it?

You got some concrete info floating around in that haughty hot air of yers?

A person demanding that the creator of the universe be subject to his moral whims calling me "haughty." Now that is rich.

[Punished UMN]

Now I want to talk about power relations. I miss writing political philosophy papers, bros

[Tarsonis]

To expand on Tarsonis' "nope", if you simply change what that omnipotent being defines as "evil", then that goes out the window.

So god's definition of goodness is subjective? I hear the opposite rather often.

Morality is an inherently subjective concept.

[Kiu Ghesik]

To expand on Tarsonis' "nope", if you simply change what that omnipotent being defines as "evil", then that goes out the window.

So god's definition of goodness is subjective? I hear the opposite rather often.

On the contrary, I would say. If an omnipotent god decides that it is the perfect expression of good to smash a chandelier into one's head, then I would argue that that isn't subjective. It's objective, just as two plus two is four and the Earth orbits the Sun. And it is not the "validity" of that statement that makes it objective. It is the omnipotent nature of the god.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

So god's definition of goodness is subjective? I hear the opposite rather often.

Morality is an inherently subjective concept.

Does God hold an objective morality?

[Kowani]

Now I want to talk about power relations. I miss writing political philosophy papers, bros

Though the RWDT is gone now, so no feedback from us amateurs...

So god's definition of goodness is subjective? I hear the opposite rather often.

Morality is an inherently subjective concept.

See, when I say this, people get mad at me.

[Tarsonis]

I gave a proper respone: Nope.

Don't be La Xinga.

What part do you take issue with? I'll engage with you on it.

Saying "nope" isn't exactly the most convincing argument.

I know I was kidding and got distracted. The reason the "Problem of Evil" proof fails to be sound is because it lends itself to an epicurean line of think in which "pleasure good/ pain evil." It fails to consider that the existence of evil can be a good thing.

[Godular]

I'd say that you were projecting, but you already accused me of that a while back... aw hell, I'll do it anyway.

If your god exists, it's a fucking dipshit unworthy of the adulation it is misguidedly conferred. I've been playing ball on assuming its existence. You've got zero basis for claiming I'm using some stereotypical strawman argument just because I pointed out that pretty much ANY discussion on god is a hypothetical.

Hypothetical wasn't the word i was referring to. "Excuses" was.

Cool story that really doesn't change anything.

Purportedly unknowable, wasn't it?

You got some concrete info floating around in that haughty hot air of yers?

A person demanding that the creator of the universe be subject to his moral whims calling me "haughty." Now that is rich.

A person claiming their imaginary friend is the bestest of the best in all the land and then doing a mental air-show when challenged on the matter... seems I've got more room to speak than you do.

[Neanderthaland]

I never said such a thing.
I said that there is suffering that does not impact free will, and so free will does not excuse suffering.
And I said to needlessly inflict suffering is a sadistic and immoral act.

If you want a moral mandate, I will say that Sadism is very nearly the definition of evil.

What defines evil?

Underlined.

The only reason I use qualifiers, is that there are a smattering of behaviors that I might also describe as evil, that do not perfectly fall under the category of Sadism. Most of these involve a degree of selfishness, or a disinterest in the wellbeing or dignity of others.


I do somewhat enjoy the Hindu conception of Evil, as an "incomplete state of being." In which one is not fully aware of one's obligations and the impact of one's actions. But I don't think this accounts for Sadism. I don't think Sadism can be described as "something missing," it's "something extra."

[Godular]

Now I want to talk about power relations. I miss writing political philosophy papers, bros

Though the RWDT is gone now, so no feedback from us amateurs...

Morality is an inherently subjective concept.

See, when I say this, people get mad at me.

I know, right? I keep hearing 'objective morality' in the Abortion Thread. To hear it directed AT me is... funny in its own way.

[Tarsonis]

Hypothetical wasn't the word i was referring to. "Excuses" was.

Cool story that really doesn't change anything.

You're the one dismissing legitimate points as excuses with no legitimate basis. Not me.

A person demanding that the creator of the universe be subject to his moral whims calling me "haughty." Now that is rich.

A person claiming their imaginary friend is the bestest of the best in all the land and then doing a mental air-show when challenged on the matter... seems I've got more room to speak than you do.

You haven't challenged me. So not really no.

[Kiu Ghesik]

What defines evil?

Underlined.

The only reason I use qualifiers, is that there are a smattering of behaviors that I might also describe as evil, that do not perfectly fall under the category of Sadism. Most of these involve a degree of selfishness, or a disinterest in the wellbeing or dignity of others.


I do somewhat enjoy the Hindu conception of Evil, as an "incomplete state of being." In which one is not fully aware of one's obligations and the impact of one's actions. But I don't think this accounts for Sadism. I don't think Sadism can be described as "something missing," it's "something extra."

I thought a group defined evil as a preventable behavior detrimental to the group, and all else was extrapolation on that group's part.

[Tarsonis]

Though the RWDT is gone now, so no feedback from us amateurs...



See, when I say this, people get mad at me.

I know, right? I keep hearing 'objective morality' in the Abortion Thread. To hear it directed AT me is... funny in its own way.

Those people lack nuance I'm afraid.

[Neanderthaland]

No. But they should make an effort to prevent unnecessary suffering. This may involve some degree of negative experience.

So, if a hypothetical god were to deem some suffering we deem unnecessary necessary, would that justify the suffering experienced?

It might. But I don't see how parasitic wasps in any way impact the human experience. So I don't think the problem of suffering can be handwaved by this logic.

[Punished UMN]

What defines evil?

Underlined.

The only reason I use qualifiers, is that there are a smattering of behaviors that I might also describe as evil, that do not perfectly fall under the category of Sadism. Most of these involve a degree of selfishness, or a disinterest in the wellbeing or dignity of others.


I do somewhat enjoy the Hindu conception of Evil, as an "incomplete state of being." In which one is not fully aware of one's obligations and the impact of one's actions. But I don't think this accounts for Sadism. I don't think Sadism can be described as "something missing," it's "something extra."

No, what I mean is, what defines what is evil?