EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:52 pm Arguments from mathematics and reason are non empirical - Evidence from design and history are begging the question
Evidence from revelation and existential experiences cannot be tested - Moral arguments are begging the question
Well, if you think that's the case, then you don't know the arguments, I'm afraid.

The point is that one can make a case for faith from exactly the kinds of things universities and colleges use to make cases all the time. It's just that for a skeptic who decides he's not prepared to see any evidence as evidence, there's no such thing as evidence. But the fault there is not the evidence: it's the epistemological presupposition of the observer. My suggestion would be that you should take a look at these arguments for yourself, and see if what you think at the moment is true about them actually is.

I believe you'll find it's not.
Belief by its very nature cannot be falsified because it is the acceptance of a proposition that is taken to be true
but for which there is insufficient / zero evidence to support it [ this applies to all belief not just belief in God ]
Not at all. A belief held in the face of no evidence is not a good belief. Beliefs are, instead, extensions of evidence into further cases. In that sense, the scientist who has performed 30 lab tests of his hypothesis is exercising belief when he says, "Y'know, I think this will work outside the lab too, in the less-controlled conditions of the real world." And he's exercising faith that the 31st, 32nd, or 1,008th trial of his theory would not defeat his earlier results, too. Because no scientist in the history of the world has ever performed all the possible trials on even one hypothesis. At some point, all trials stop, and the scientist says, "Well, that's good enough." Does he know that for sure? No. But he believes it. And he believes it, we hope, on good warrant too.
God is taken to be real so empirical evidence is what is required to demonstrate his existence
Logical arguments and personal testimonies cannot do this and so they can be easily discarded
Again, it's clear you don't know what those arguments I listed actually say. If you did, you wouldn't characterize them at all in the way you do.

Take the historical argument: why would it be invalid for a historian to suppose Caesar's Gaulic campaign took place, when he has documentary evidence it did? Your suggestion would make not just Biblical history, but ALL historical knowledge impossible. Likewise personal testimony. In a court of law, it's often the centrepiece of a determination of truth: why would you rule it out a priori, without even knowing what the testimony was? Or take the mathematical argument: you assume it's non-empirical, but it's both mathematical AND empirical. If you knew those arguments, you would know you've criticized them entirely inaccurately.

So it must be the case that you don't really know those arguments, I guess.

Why not find out, though? What is keeping you from informing yourself on them, even if only to dismiss them on good grounds -- if indeed, they are so easily dispatched as you seem to suggest? What are you afraid of? Is your skepticism on such shaky ground that it cannot stand knowing the counter-arguments?

I would hope not. But if I can read Nietzsche, Hume, Freud, Marx, Jung, and Darwin, what would keep you from investigating any good arguments that are skeptical of Atheism? Why wouldn't you consider them? Have you, perhaps, not so much certainty about your convictions as you would like? But if so, hiding from the evidence would surely be a poor way to fortify unbelief. So surely you could invest a little time in actually understanding the arguments, no?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4660
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:45 pm
Well, what do your wish me to understand by your phrase, "lead to"?
I mean the process of evolution which is the result of natural process and randomness gives us nature which is good.
Do you mean "nature is good," as in the natural world, or "human nature is good"?
I mean "human nature is good".
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am

No. I think that I should be clear now given the last gomment.
Not really.
I meant that human nature is good which this is the result of evolution.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am
You are saying that "God's nature is good" therefore morality (do good) is justified.
I said God is both good and He commands good.
I am saying that "God's nature is evil

That's like Gnosticism.
Ok, whatever they give name to evil God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am
therefore morality (do evil) is justified

In your sentence, you make "morality" and "do evil" the same thing. In ordinary usage, they're not. I really cannot understand your position at all. If I could, I might have something to say.

I am not defending my position now. I am attacking your position instead (I will defend my position by another argument later). You argue that because nature of God is good then morality (morality is to do good things) is justified. I am asking what if God is evil? Following the same line of argument, we can deduce that morality (morality now is to do evil things) is justified.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am

I mean. You are arguing in favor of morality using the premise that "God's nature is good". That is your argument: God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good).
No, this is your summary, not mine. See above exactly what I said.
No, this: "God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good)" is your argument.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am
I think that atheists also can use the same argument saying: Our nature is good, this justifies morality (do good).
In your sentence, you're using "good" as an objective property. But you've already said that you think moral values are not objective. And if that's the case, then all your putative "Atheist" is saying is, "Atheists like what Atheists do." And that isn't saying much, because everybody tends to like what they do...if they didn't, they would stop doing that.

So I can't really get a cogent argument out of that sentence either. Can you bottom-line something for me here? I just can't get your point, so far.
As I said I am attacking your position now. You said that because God nature is good then morality (do good) is justified. To chalenge your position I am asking what if God was evil? Would you hold the same opinion about such a form of argument?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4660
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:25 am
That's a hypothesis. There's no way for you to establish that it's true.
Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.
You have to define what is morality and ethics.
  • Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
    Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    -wiki
If Morality is based on the above and how to ground and justify absolute moral rules as guides [only]. As such, we should be able to justify Moral principles from empirical evidences, evolutionary psychology and philosophical reasoning.
I agree with the definitions of morality. I am interested to see your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Morality can be grounded and justified as in the way I had proposed here.
Where? I am interested to read your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Note Morality refer to the body of principles only and its grounding. That is the pure aspect of Morality and Ethics.

Meanwhile Ethics is the applied aspect and represent how the body of principles are to be translated into actions within and confined to the individual[s] as a group.

Note Morality and Ethics [albeit inter-connected] are independent of political legal laws that enforce behaviors via threats of penalties and jail time.
That is the same with any religion which threaten believers with perdition and hellfire to enforce behavior, that is not morality & ethics proper.
God: Do as I had commanded, else, your eternal home shall be Hell.
Let's focus on your argument first.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
you should take a look at these arguments for yourself and see if what you think at the moment is true about them actually is
The most famous argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument used by both Christians and Muslims
The first premise of it is false and consequently renders the entire argument false [ though Christians and Muslims still use it ]

My problem is not with the existence of God but with the weakness of arguments like the Kalam used to demonstrate said existence
When an argument has a first premise shown to be flawed then it has to be immediately discarded and a better one has to be found
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Because no scientist in the history of the world has ever performed all the possible trials on even one hypothesis
One black swan proves beyond all doubt that not all swans are white even if it is the only one that has ever existed
A falsified hypothesis is effectively absolute knowledge
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Likewise personal testimony . In a court of law it is often the centrepiece of a determination of truth
Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable because it falls way below the standard that science would deem as acceptable
For forensic evidence has to satisfy the rigour of the scientific method and is far more clinical than any testimony has to be
Science does not even consider any single first person subjective experience to be evidence as it can not be reliably tested
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:43 pm I mean "human nature is good".
Really?

From where does all the evil people do come, then? If it's not in their nature at all, then it must come from...what?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am That's like Gnosticism.
Ok, whatever they give name to evil God.
Demiurge. That's what they generally call it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am No, this is your summary, not mine. See above exactly what I said.
No, this: "God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good)" is your argument.
No, that's your paraphrase. I don't agree with it. Read what I actually wrote, if you want my argument. This one isn't it. You've misunderstood.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am Can you bottom-line something for me here? I just can't get your point, so far.
As I said I am attacking your position now. You said that because God nature is good then morality (do good) is justified. To chalenge your position I am asking what if God was evil? Would you hold the same opinion about such a form of argument?
Not cogent. I didn't say what you attributed to me. So it's not my position you're "attacking." It's only one you'd like me to have.

But I don't. So I can't really respond.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5823
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:43 pm
Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.
You have to define what is morality and ethics.
  • Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
    Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    -wiki
If Morality is based on the above and how to ground and justify absolute moral rules as guides [only]. As such, we should be able to justify Moral principles from empirical evidences, evolutionary psychology and philosophical reasoning.
I agree with the definitions of morality. I am interested to see your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Morality can be grounded and justified as in the way I had proposed here.
Where? I am interested to read your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Note Morality refer to the body of principles only and its grounding. That is the pure aspect of Morality and Ethics.

Meanwhile Ethics is the applied aspect and represent how the body of principles are to be translated into actions within and confined to the individual[s] as a group.

Note Morality and Ethics [albeit inter-connected] are independent of political legal laws that enforce behaviors via threats of penalties and jail time.
That is the same with any religion which threaten believers with perdition and hellfire to enforce behavior, that is not morality & ethics proper.
God: Do as I had commanded, else, your eternal home shall be Hell.
Let's focus on your argument first.
Morality as defined is the establishment of absolute moral principles to act as a guide for an effective Moral and Ethics System.

I have already argued how we can justify an absolute moral maxim such is,
"no human can kill another human" period! no ifs and no buts and this is to be used as a guide to the system and not an enforcement.

Despite Hume's no ought from is, I have already presented the argument in earlier posts [have to search for it] in reconciling want [is] to shall [ought].
The establishment of such an 'ought' as an absolute moral maxim is to be used as a guide within the Moral and Ethics system iteratively in heuristic mode.

Here is the argument in the other thread;
viewtopic.php?p=421197#p421197
the above is supported by various posts in counter to the opposition raised.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
you should take a look at these arguments for yourself and see if what you think at the moment is true about them actually is
The most famous argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument used by both Christians and Muslims
The first premise of it is false and consequently renders the entire argument false [ though Christians and Muslims still use it ]
So you don't believe "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
I see. Are you saying you believe in the existence of uncaused things that just begin without any cause? Can you give an example of one such?
When an argument has a first premise shown to be flawed then it has to be immediately discarded and a better one has to be found
If that first premise is actually wrong, you should be able to provide an example rather easily, I suspect.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Because no scientist in the history of the world has ever performed all the possible trials on even one hypothesis
One black swan proves beyond all doubt that not all swans are white even if it is the only one that has ever existed
A falsified hypothesis is effectively absolute knowledge
I was speaking of positive trials, not negations, but okay. You're correct in regards to falsification, to the eliminating of a hypothesis, not confirming one.

But science needs to confirm positively, not just eliminate hypotheses. For example, a new drug is tested and released; but it is not known beforehand how it will interact with all patients. But if we had to wait to perform a test on all patients, we could never release a drug. And we need drugs to be released.

So the problem with your complaint is back. At some point, we just arbitrarily say, "Well, that's enough testing." And the rest is faith.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Likewise personal testimony . In a court of law it is often the centrepiece of a determination of truth
Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable because it falls way below the standard that science would deem as acceptable
And yet in judiciary evidence, sufficient to condemn a man to jail for life, or in some cases, to execution, we trust it -- especially when it is confirmed by multiple independent witnesses, when it is regarded as highly reliable. And it is, actually: because multiple independent witnesses are mathematically extremely unlikely to spontaneously generate compatible testimony.

Likewise in historical evidence: where multiple independent sources exist, we are likely to take testimony as very powerful evidence.

So you're not correct about that. You're only correct about single-witness, unconfirmed testimony.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4660
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:51 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:43 pm I mean "human nature is good".
Really?

From where does all the evil people do come, then? If it's not in their nature at all, then it must come from...what?
I mean the majority of people's nature is good. Otherwise there would be no society.

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am That's like Gnosticism.
Ok, whatever they give name to evil God.
Demiurge. That's what they generally call it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am No, this is your summary, not mine. See above exactly what I said.
No, this: "God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good)" is your argument.
No, that's your paraphrase. I don't agree with it. Read what I actually wrote, if you want my argument. This one isn't it. You've misunderstood.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:49 am Can you bottom-line something for me here? I just can't get your point, so far.
As I said I am attacking your position now. You said that because God nature is good then morality (do good) is justified. To chalenge your position I am asking what if God was evil? Would you hold the same opinion about such a form of argument?
Not cogent. I didn't say what you attributed to me. So it's not my position you're "attacking." It's only one you'd like me to have.

But I don't. So I can't really respond.
Ok, what is your argument then?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4660
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:33 am
bahman wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am
You have to define what is morality and ethics.
  • Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
    Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    -wiki
If Morality is based on the above and how to ground and justify absolute moral rules as guides [only]. As such, we should be able to justify Moral principles from empirical evidences, evolutionary psychology and philosophical reasoning.
I agree with the definitions of morality. I am interested to see your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Morality can be grounded and justified as in the way I had proposed here.
Where? I am interested to read your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 am Note Morality refer to the body of principles only and its grounding. That is the pure aspect of Morality and Ethics.

Meanwhile Ethics is the applied aspect and represent how the body of principles are to be translated into actions within and confined to the individual[s] as a group.

Note Morality and Ethics [albeit inter-connected] are independent of political legal laws that enforce behaviors via threats of penalties and jail time.
That is the same with any religion which threaten believers with perdition and hellfire to enforce behavior, that is not morality & ethics proper.
God: Do as I had commanded, else, your eternal home shall be Hell.
Let's focus on your argument first.
Morality as defined is the establishment of absolute moral principles to act as a guide for an effective Moral and Ethics System.

I have already argued how we can justify an absolute moral maxim such is,
"no human can kill another human" period! no ifs and no buts and this is to be used as a guide to the system and not an enforcement.

Despite Hume's no ought from is, I have already presented the argument in earlier posts [have to search for it] in reconciling want [is] to shall [ought].
The establishment of such an 'ought' as an absolute moral maxim is to be used as a guide within the Moral and Ethics system iteratively in heuristic mode.

Here is the argument in the other thread;
viewtopic.php?p=421197#p421197
the above is supported by various posts in counter to the opposition raised.
How could you justify the survival of human species is good?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:35 pm I mean the majority of people's nature is good. Otherwise there would be no society.
And no wars, not genocides, no rapes, no pornography, no tyranny, no oppression, no racism, no sexism, no slavery...keep going.

In other words, your view of human nature seems rather one-sided. It has no account of how evil comes to exist at all.

So I have to ask, what is "evil," by your account? Are you saying none of the above things qualify? But if they do qualify as "evil", and they don't come from human nature, then how do they come to exist at all?

Please explain that.
Ok, what is your argument then?
I wasn't making one. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You posited a dichotomy between "good" and "what God commands," and I said the answer was "both."

That's where we left off.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4660
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:35 pm I mean the majority of people's nature is good. Otherwise there would be no society.
And no wars, not genocides, no rapes, no pornography, no tyranny, no oppression, no racism, no sexism, no slavery...keep going.

In other words, your view of human nature seems rather one-sided. It has no account of how evil comes to exist at all.

So I have to ask, what is "evil," by your account? Are you saying none of the above things qualify? But if they do qualify as "evil", and they don't come from human nature, then how do they come to exist at all?

Please explain that.
The calculation is simple: There is a critical point on the line of evil-to-good at which the population does not grow. The population grow if people are more good otherwise it collapses. We have a growing population therefore good is more than evil.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm
Ok, what is your argument then?
I wasn't making one. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You posited a dichotomy between "good" and "what God commands," and I said the answer was "both."

That's where we left off.
So God has no argument in favor of morality? How about you? Do you know any argument in favor of morality?
Post Reply