Is there a God?

[Tarsonis]

Morality is an inherently subjective concept.

Does God hold an objective morality?

No, but then again yes. Morality is inherently subjective. God determining morality acknowledges that it is a subjective concept, it's subjective to God's mandate. But God's mandate being supreme, it functions objectively.

[Kiu Ghesik]

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.

That's fair, I'd need to think about it more. I do recall Christian theology at least focusing on redemption through the overcoming of obstacles, persecution, and suffering, but I don't remember well enough right now to think about it.

On the parasitic wasps, I would ask another question I think got lost up above. If a god created the mechanism of evolution, and that mechanism led to the wasp's existence, as it filled a niche in its environment, then is that god still responsible for the actions of the mechanism it created but does not necessarily still direct?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

If my understanding of your earlier line of reasoning is correct, the reason you assert that an evil thing can be good is because it can have good consequences down the line, which outweigh the original evil. You can call that an evil thing, but I would define that as ultimately a good thing.

Moving on from that, let us consider a thing that is evil that does not lead to an equivalent or greater good later on the line. That sidesteps the issue you raise.

[Neanderthaland]

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?

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. I think sadism is an explicitly evil impulse. Are you asking, "who am I to say that?" or...?

[Tarsonis]

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.

If my understanding of your earlier line of reasoning is correct, the reason you assert that an evil thing can be good is because it can have good consequences down the line, which outweigh the original evil. You can call that an evil thing, but I would define that as ultimately a good thing.

I wouldn't. While one could argue that the Ends Justify The Means, that doesn't change the nature of the means. If one must commit evil to do an ultimately greater Good, it doesn't make the evil not evil, it just makes the evil justified.

Moving on from that, let us consider a thing that is evil that does not lead to an equivalent or greater good later on the line. That sidesteps the issue you raise.

But that's a presumption.

[Godular]

Cool story that really doesn't change anything.

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

Your 'legitimate points' ARE excuses.

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.

Amusingly, I didn't say I did.

[Tarsonis]

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

Your 'legitimate points' ARE excuses.

I reiterate my earlier quote.

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.[/quote]

Amusingly, I didn't say I did.[/quote]

Play Coy all you want.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

That's fair, I'd need to think about it more. I do recall Christian theology at least focusing on redemption through the overcoming of obstacles, persecution, and suffering, but I don't remember well enough right now to think about it.

On the parasitic wasps, I would ask another question I think got lost up above. If a god created the mechanism of evolution, and that mechanism led to the wasp's existence, as it filled a niche in its environment, then is that god still responsible for the actions of the mechanism it created but does not necessarily still direct?

An omniscient and omnipotent God would be aware of the evolution of the parasitic wasps, as an omniscient god and would be able to stop their creation, as an omnipotent god. Therefore, an omniscient and omnipotent God must have let the parasitic wasps be created intentionally.

[Kowani]

Does God hold an objective morality?

No, but then again yes. Morality is inherently subjective. God determining morality acknowledges that it is a subjective concept, it's subjective to God's mandate. But God's mandate being supreme, it functions objectively.

...I got lost, what did any of that mean?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Moving on from that, let us consider a thing that is evil that does not lead to an equivalent or greater good later on the line. That sidesteps the issue you raise.

But that's a presumption.

Are you suggesting no such things exist?

[Tarsonis]

No, but then again yes. Morality is inherently subjective. God determining morality acknowledges that it is a subjective concept, it's subjective to God's mandate. But God's mandate being supreme, it functions objectively.

...I got lost, what did any of that mean?

God's authority is so high, that it's unimpeachable. Thus his Moral proclamations, while by nature subjective (as they are dictated rather then simply existing), are functionally objective.

[Godular]

Your 'legitimate points' ARE excuses.

I reiterate my earlier quote.

And I shall continue to reiterate mine.

[Neanderthaland]

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.

That's fair, I'd need to think about it more. I do recall Christian theology at least focusing on redemption through the overcoming of obstacles, persecution, and suffering, but I don't remember well enough right now to think about it.

On the parasitic wasps, I would ask another question I think got lost up above. If a god created the mechanism of evolution, and that mechanism led to the wasp's existence, as it filled a niche in its environment, then is that god still responsible for the actions of the mechanism it created but does not necessarily still direct?

If the God is not omnipotent or omniscient, and must work within limitations, then it would not always be responsible.

But if the God is these things, then it knew ahead of time exactly what outcome it's actions would produce, and would have the power to change things to make them different. So that God will always be responsible for what evolves.


I would actually be quite sympathetic to the first God, who means well, but whose actions have unforeseen or unavoidable consequences. And who can merely do the best they can. But this does not seem to be the God that anyone worships.

[Kowani]

...I got lost, what did any of that mean?

God's authority is so high, that it's unimpeachable. Thus his Moral proclamations, while by nature subjective (as they are dictated rather then simply existing), are functionally objective.

Ahh, I see.
Yeah, that does actually make sense.

[Tarsonis]

But that's a presumption.

Are you suggesting no such things exist?

So Evil that no good thing can come of it? I can't say such things don't exist, but there's also no way of making that determination on a any one thing.

[Godular]

No, but then again yes. Morality is inherently subjective. God determining morality acknowledges that it is a subjective concept, it's subjective to God's mandate. But God's mandate being supreme, it functions objectively.

...I got lost, what did any of that mean?

'Yes.'

[Punished UMN]

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

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. I think sadism is an explicitly evil impulse. Are you asking, "who am I to say that?" or...?

Precisely.

[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.

ah, the operative word. needlessly...

Parasitic wasps.

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.

Normally. Though I'm willing to throw "inflicting suffering needlessly" under that umbrella as well. In the end, the motivation doesn't matter as much as the pointlessness of it.

[Tarsonis]

ah, the operative word. needlessly...

Parasitic wasps.

Your inability to perceive a purpose, does not mean a purpose does not exist.

Except Sadism refers to deriving pleasure from others suffering.

Normally. Though I'm willing to throw "inflicting suffering needlessly" under that umbrella as well. In the end, the motivation doesn't matter as much as the pointlessness of it.

But again, the operative word there, "Needlessly."

[Neanderthaland]

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. I think sadism is an explicitly evil impulse. Are you asking, "who am I to say that?" or...?

Precisely.

Ah, well in that case:

Who am I NOT to say it?


Must we be so philosophical that we can't even condemn sadism? Can't even agree that pointlessly inflicting suffering on another being is wrong?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Are you suggesting no such things exist?

So Evil that no good thing can come of it? I can't say such things don't exist, but there's also no way of making that determination on a any one thing.

Well, we can't know your God's moral compass, but for him to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent/omniscient, it means that if we judge every single thing against the God's moral compass, they all have to pass muster (the evil of the original action must not surpass the eventual good, if any).

That's a pretty strong assertion.

[Punished UMN]

Precisely.

Ah, well in that case:

Who am I NOT to say it?


Must we be so philosophical that we can't even condemn sadism? Can't even agree that pointlessly inflicting suffering on another being is wrong?

Yes.

[Tarsonis]

Precisely.

Ah, well in that case:

Who am I NOT to say it?


Must we be so philosophical that we can't even condemn sadism? Can't even agree that pointlessly inflicting suffering on another being is wrong?

We can absolutely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective idea, not a mandate of the universe.

[Bakanu]

Well I believe there is a Christian God, but I respect others beliefs. I am religious so many of you may doubt me LOL.

[Godular]

Ah, well in that case:

Who am I NOT to say it?


Must we be so philosophical that we can't even condemn sadism? Can't even agree that pointlessly inflicting suffering on another being is wrong?

We can absolutely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective idea, not a mandate of the universe.

Question: would not god's purported mandate also be that of the universe?