Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is no Creator, how can good and evil exist?
The same way a creator would, i suppose. But more importantly, how can evil come from Perfection or be allowed within its reach?
We can play the Socratic game all day and night long, but in the end it only leads to confusion and distrust. The Creator argument is a completely different argument than the God argument. it might be a part of the God argument, but it is a tiny part of it.
I don't even believe in all the tenants of scholarly logic, so it would be foolish to play the philosophy game with me. God is just as possible as no God or Gods(Zoroastrianism and strict polytheism).
God can be above logic, so logic is useless in acquiring absolute comfort of mind.
......I was thinking about my answer, perhaps it doesn't satisfy you. so more directly
"How can good and evil exist without being created?"
I suppose the question vaguely answers itself. Good and evil aren't physical things, and neither is "falling" so to better understand the question, we can ask: "how can falling exist without being created?" and what you are thus saying is that "The Creator" designed and created all concepts... but "The Creator" is not necessarily "The Designer" or "The Sustainer"...
So I will turn the question to "How can good and evil exist without being sustained?"
I suppose "falling" is sustained by God, as in gravity, but then a question arises as to what sustains God, and the answer is either "nothing" or "God" so then the answer to what sustains "falling" can be either "nothing" or "falling". And the same can be said about good and evil...
In general the question can be postulated as "What sustains Reality?" and you think the answer is "God." and if asked "what sustains God?" you would unwittingly have to answer: "Reality"(God just IS). I suppose that would be called a circular argument, would it not?
The answer to why we think good and evil can exist is the same as for falling, it is observed and defined. as to the origin...it has not been observed, and though it can be inferred, it would be foolish to think our inferences are perfect, because such would require us to be perfect, and we simply are not.
The other philosophically serious argument for God, “The ultimate Perfection" argument, is: if God is the epitome of complete perfection, and it is more perfect to exist than not, then God exists. however, as many have pointed out, this argument assumes God is the epitome of perfection, and that it is more perfect to exist than to not. Thus it baselessly assumes the existence of God.
The ultimate Cause argument is: If God is the epitome of ultimate cause, and everything, except God, must have a cause, then God exists. Again, this argument assumes God is the epitome of creation, and that everything, except God, needs to be created. Thus is has the same logical fallacies as the “Perfection” with an added logical fallacy of a baseless exception.
Again, your question was: how can good and evil exist without a cause? Then I could say, good and evil are just that powerful and beyond your human understanding, they don’t need to be created.
I believe the bold is the answer that would be acceptable to you…
Can you prove to me that good and evil are not just that powerful and beyond your grasp?
The real question becomes(tying back to the question you dodged): If God exists, and God is the epitome of Ability, Perfection, and Creation, yet evil isn't perfect, why does God create and allow evil?
The answer must be: allowing evil to exist is part of "Perfection". Is this not the case? I don't agree with such a conclusion, based on the fact that all the premises are baseless, the conclusion is deductively contradictory(I assume you understand this) to one of the premises, and more importantly: the conclusion is absurd.
Going back to the answer to your question, perhaps Zeus is just that powerful and beyond your understanding.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 09-10-2011 at 08:21 PM..
If there is no Creator, how can good and evil exist?
Easy, it doesn't. They don't exist outside the human mind.
Good and evil are human ideas that would be totally alien non-human life. You're dog does not draw pentagrams, plan genocide, fight for ideals or give thanks to a higher power for his luck when he tips over your garbage can and finds something especially tasty.
We've made up a lot of stuff over the millennia as we've tried to make sense of what and why we are.
If there is no Creator, how can good and evil exist?
"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is
conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's
expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an
intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain
paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a
concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's
science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his
hope to regain lost innocence.
Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he
conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has
been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality
has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily,
what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through
time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's
consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of
subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person
to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.
Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding,
past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient
misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the
earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this
can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large.
Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost
insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost
insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe
(be it cosmos or chaos matters not).
Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not
subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time
and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain
knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God;
submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and
the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it
is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs
to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual
revelation from God to man.
Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the
highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men
have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not
conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic
customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an
introspective creature.
In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.
These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there
would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and
of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
The same way a creator would, i suppose. But more importantly, how can evil come from Perfection or be allowed within its reach?
I'm sure you realize that the question isn't new. Therefore, I'm probably not laying anything new on you here.
I think it logical to make the distinction between creating evil, and creating a realm where it would be possible for certain creatures to commit evil acts.
Why would this creator allow evil within it's reach? Well, one possibility is love - love for those who actually deserve to be punished and annihilated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
We can play the Socratic game all day and night long, but in the end it only leads to confusion and distrust. The Creator argument is a completely different argument than the God argument. it might be a part of the God argument, but it is a tiny part of it.
What can I say about all this other than that you're entitled to your opinion. It would all depend upon how one views WHO God is and WHO the Creator is - wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I don't even believe in all the tenants (tenets?) of scholarly logic, so it would be foolish to play the philosophy game with me. God is just as possible as no God or Gods(Zoroastrianism and strict polytheism).
This is the "Religion and Philosophy forum." It seems to me that we can all naturally expect to encounter the philosophy "games" here. Perhaps you should stick to strictly 'religious' forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
God can be above logic, so logic is useless in acquiring absolute comfort of mind.
People like Descartes would agree with the first part.
...but here's my question: Can God create a square circle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
......I was thinking about my answer, perhaps it doesn't satisfy you. so more directly
"How can good and evil exist without being created?"
I suppose the question vaguely answers itself. Good and evil aren't physical things, and neither is "falling" so to better understand the question, we can ask: "how can falling exist without being created?" and what you are thus saying is that "The Creator" designed and created all concepts... but "The Creator" is not necessarily "The Designer" or "The Sustainer"...
Reference my answer to your initial question. The DISTINCTION between creating evil and creating a realm or realms where it is possible for certain creatures to commit evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
So I will turn the question to "How can good and evil exist without being sustained?"
I suppose "falling" is sustained by God, as in gravity, but then a question arises as to what sustains God, and the answer is either "nothing" or "God" so then the answer to what sustains "falling" can be either "nothing" or "falling". And the same can be said about good and evil...
In general the question can be postulated as "What sustains Reality?" and you think the answer is "God." and if asked "what sustains God?" you would unwittingly have to answer: "Reality"(God just IS). I suppose that would be called a circular argument, would it not?
The question goes to WHO God is. What is your doctrine of God? Please don't make the absurdly ridiculous assertion that you have no doctrine of God or the Creator. ANY attempt to answer this question (Who is God/Creator) AUTOMATICALLY places one up to their neck in doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The answer to why we think good and evil can exist is the same as for falling, it is observed and defined. as to the origin...it has not been observed, and though it can be inferred, it would be foolish to think our inferences are perfect, because such would require us to be perfect, and we simply are not.
Again...you're entitled to your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The other philosophically serious argument for God, “The ultimate Perfection" argument, is: if God is the epitome of complete perfection, and it is more perfect to exist than not, then God exists. however, as many have pointed out, this argument assumes God is the epitome of perfection, and that it is more perfect to exist than to not. Thus it baselessly assumes the existence of God.
An argument from perfection strikes me as dubious. Again, I think this is more of a question that goes to WHO God/Creator is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The ultimate Cause argument is: If God is the epitome of ultimate cause, and everything, except God, must have a cause, then God exists. Again, this argument assumes God is the epitome of creation, and that everything, except God, needs to be created. Thus it has the same logical fallacies as the “Perfection” with an added logical fallacy of a baseless exception.
Ah, nice try, but you've completely misstated the Classical Cosmological Argument. Therefore, your assertion amounts to a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Again, your question was: how can good and evil exist without a cause?
Not quite. I asked how can good and evil exist if there is no God? In other words, how does one arrive at good and evil from the atheist perspective. I would be inclined to agree with Chango - "it doesn't (can't)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Then I could say, good and evil are just that powerful and beyond your human understanding, they don’t need to be created.
I believe the bold is the answer that would be acceptable to you…
Then it's obvious that you know absolutely nothing about me or my doctrine of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Can you prove to me that good and evil are not just that powerful and beyond your grasp?
You mean, can I convince you...rather than "prove...?"
Why would I want to try and convince you of such a thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The real question becomes(tying back to the question you dodged): If God exists, and God is the epitome of Ability, Perfection, and Creation, yet evil isn't perfect, why does God create and allow evil?
The answer must be: allowing evil to exist is part of "Perfection". Is this not the case? I don't agree with such a conclusion, based on the fact that all the premises are baseless, the conclusion is deductively contradictory(I assume you understand this) to one of the premises, and more importantly: the conclusion is absurd.
Going back to the answer to your question, perhaps Zeus is just that powerful and beyond your understanding.
Look, why not make this easy on yourself. Instead of providing all of the psychoanalysis, just ask me direct questions. I promise to be as honest and as concise as I possibly can.
...but please, don't filibuster. Remember: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
Since you are not accustomed to organization, I will not bother quoting you…for “brevity” and what not else. I will remind you that you weren’t particular deeply helpful in the thread about the arguments against Agnosticism, as I had hoped you would have been.
So first of all, how lovely is it to allow evil to exist? And more importantly: if you love evil, what does that make you?
Secondly, my description of the Cosmological argument as a red-herring that fails to even talk about God, in the complete sense, is very much not my subjective opinion, it is logical fact. How can you prove the existence of humanity by the need for cans to be created? How could one talk about one tiny aspect of something and thus talk about the entire thing? This ideas of yours which joins the ultimate cause with the idea of God, are completely logically invalid; because the Creator does not have to be God.
Thirdly, the philosophical game you were playing with me was rather parallel to the Socratic method of question dodging by asking a question instead of answering those posed to you directly. It is a complete waste of time, and a fool’s endeavor, wit for the sake of ignorance. If you are going to go around asking question, you better be sincerely about being curious and wondering.
Fourth, Descartes tried to use logic to prove God and failed… The only thing he seemed to figure out during his whole wasteful slothful meditation was that he existed by definition. His lack of curiosity and mental ability in his “Meditations on First Philosophy” was stunning. But, what can we expect from descendants of pagans? It seems as if though their genes force them to believe absurdities. A square circle is an absurdity, and could only exist if logic wasn’t true. If God is more powerful than logic, then It can create square circles, if it must follow logic, then logic can be used to prove God. Once our study of logic is complete, it would be absurd not to believe in a logical God, unless the study of logic shows that logic is absurd.
Fifth, let’s do a thought experiment; Imagine you create a fish tank; you dump in a bunch of fish and make them unable to escape the tank (they would die). The fish tank is parallel to our Earth. Now imagine yourself dumping a bunch of infectious organisms and sharp objects into the tank with the fish you love so much. Let’s pretend you do it out of love your infectious automatons (pathogens) and sharp objects (natural disasters). You plan to, in the future, get rid of the dangers that face your lovely fish by annihilating the pathogens and disasters you love so much… why is that? How could you be following logic or reason? What this character in our thought experiment seem to be following is pure stupidity and arbitrary emotional decisions. Not to mention that other than loving gold-fish, you also love piranha’s and all sorts of other predators… You also love watching the piranha’s eat and harm the gold-fish…but you plan to end all that in the future, when you’ll stop loving the harm that comes to gold-fish, and maybe even stop loving piranhas; whom you plan to leave in the fish tank, after you rapture the gold-fish, and kill by pouring acid into the tank water. How lovely. There is no difference between allowing others to commit evil, and committing it on their behalves. The evil still gets done, especially if you are the ultimate cause and authorization of it.
Sixth, The questions about how the ultimate cause being can exist without being created and sustained do not lead to the biased question of who is God, such a question baselessly assumes that God has a personality which is comparable to humans. God is that which should be worshiped… that has always been the common definition among all people except a few exceptions who define God first as “The Creator” of evil and good, as good can be seen as the absence of evil.
Seventh, it’s not just my subjective opinion; good and evil exist by demonstrable definition. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to lie and brush-off the objective reality of why people believe in good and evil, they are observed and defined.
Eighth, the argument from Ultimate Perfection is, in fact, dubious. Yet you are wrong because the ultimate question cannot be “Who” but “why”. Your ridiculous assertion that we must ask “who” is God, is tantamount to asking, “who is that (cosmological argument) cause?” or “who makes 1+1 equal 2” or “who makes trees grow.” It is an obvious absurdity to think that something is a “who” simply because of emotional stress and the lack of curiosity to ask “why?”
Ninth, I was not stating the Cosmological argument verbatim, but giving the general gist of it as the ultimate cause argument, which is far easier to infer from the title alone. Therefore, you are criticizing me for an absurd mistake and need on your part.
Tenth, it is absurd for you to infer anything about the atheists, other than their lack of belief in gods… whether or not they chose to believe in good and evil is up to the way they define such words. Unlike theists, atheists do not have the “God makes it arbitrarily so”, excuse. I have met and heard many atheists other than Chango.
Eleventh, that is correct; I obviously don’t know anything about you or your doctrine of God. I was going from the doctrines that have been explained to me, and yours hasn’t.
Twelfth, it is rather clear that if you convince me then you have “proven to me” something. The reasons you could have for wanting to prove to me that good and evil are not just that powerful, is to better explain to me why you refuse to believe in good and evil as independent concepts, and must cling to ridiculous Cosmological believes to ease your cognitive dissonance and thus remain sane and not turn psychopathic. That would be one possible reason, as I am highly curious about what makes up your phenotype.
Psychoanalytic enough for you? …Brevity is the material for vagueness and lack of depth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
