It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Look it up brother...

its a pretty simple word

How about something a little darker... Murder

Is there a good side?

Dare ye break the 6th and say it is good?





posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your assement and usage of the words ontology and epistemology is rediculous.

That isn't even a valid arguement.

Ontology is a broad subject concerning what is the nature of being or existing.

Epistemology is the nature of knowledge and beliefs.

Either one of those things applies to this case. Either be has been addressed time and time again by philosophers for thousands of years. Ontology is every bit as discussed when concerning morals as epistemology.

Spinoza for instance studying where ethics and the concept of sin cone from, the whole discussion regarding social contract is ontology. Trying to figure out what man is like in his natural state and what unspoken contracts he makes with his fellow man as humans progress through time is ontology.

Epistemology is trying to figure out what knowledge really is. That would be for instance studying why you believe something and is it even true. Does it matter if it's true if you believe it or not stuff like that.


edit on 18-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Now the main two contention I have with this argument is that it assumes that if God is omnipotent then he could prevent all evil in the world.

But He cannot. Can He? He could have in His perfect will before He created evil but not in His permissive will after He created evil. He is now committed by His own word less He becomes what He created.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I am aware of what selfishness is from my perspective it is defined as lacking of consideration for others. I am assuming you are talking about the intentions with which someone acts. So if his intentions are selfish his intentions lack consideration for others. If they are selfless they are done with consideration for others in mind. This does not prove your point as again the evil is a lack of the other so I assumed you where defining them differently.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I understand the term "moral values" as to mean my moral rules which I live by. Those are my values. Stuff like I shouldn't drink alcohol before noon. Or I shouldn't beat my children. Or I shouldn't cheat on my wife if she'll find out about it.


No, I'm joking on that last one.

Like I said before, the term Moral Values to me means my own set of moral rules. Which I don't think are objective at all.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So if your understanding of the word moral values as a reference to personal opinions about what I would call moral principles. Then obviously moral values would be subjective to you as you have defined them as something subjective. A moral principle would be something like justice, or honesty. These hopefully you can see are totally objective. There are no societies that value say dishonesty over honesty or immodesty over modesty. Though they may have different moral values as you have defined them. They may have differing opinions over what it means to be modest like a muslim would think it is modest to cover ones face and hair if a female but in the west we dont have the opinion on modesty.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




But He cannot. Can He?


Well obviously think he cannot in certain situations for example in a world where he wills to create free creatures his being omnipotent doesn't mean he could prevent all evil as his free creatures could willingly do evil and if he made them truly free he couldn't make then choose good that would be logically incoherent. I don't believe God created moral evil. I think Evil is the lack or perversion of that which is Good.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ok. So Moral Values as you're using it are the Concepts of Justice, Honesty, Loyalty, etc. in their overall General Term but not in it's specific usage???

Meaning you're saying Moral Values are those things which are understood subjectively be everyone but each subjective usage of them still is referring to the objective term. In other words Justice is an objective idea but everyone has a subjective way of using it.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Either one of those things applies to this case. Either be has been addressed time and time again by philosophers for thousands of years. Ontology is every bit as discussed when concerning morals as epistemology.


I am well aware that both apply to this, but you obviously have misunderstood everything I've written because I have been talking about moral ontology this whole time. Then these people come in here trying to make an argument that the nature of morals is subjective(realm of ontology) by giving epistemological responses of how we know what is good and evil. Society may very well influence the moral intuition of a person but that is on the topic of moral epistemology. It is only after you discuss the nature of moral principles themselves whether they exists or not that a conversation of moral epistemology even makes sense. So it is not that both cannot be applied to this topic but that they are confusing the two topics.





Spinoza for instance studying where ethics and the concept of sin cone from, the whole discussion regarding social contract is ontology. Trying to figure out what man is like in his natural state and what unspoken contracts he makes with his fellow man as humans progress through time is ontology.


My questions about Contractarianism:

1. What if one doesn't want to join the social contract?
2. What obligation is there to join the social contract?
3.The social contract seems to be based around human flourishing. Why should we think human flourishing is a good thing?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Ok. So Moral Values as you're using it are the Concepts of Justice, Honesty, Loyalty, etc. in their overall General Term but not in it's specific usage??? Meaning you're saying Moral Values are those things which are understood subjectively be everyone but each subjective usage of them still is referring to the objective term. In other words Justice is an objective idea but everyone has a subjective way of using it.


I think that is close..I would say justice is an objectively good moral principle. And our moral intuitions about that principle may produce different moral values(as you defined them I will keep principles and values distinct from now on adopting your definition). The nature of the moral principle would be objective. The way we view or think is indeed subjective to the person.

Now this is a new thought for me so help me hash it out. I do not believe a person could every create a new moral principle. Someone like hitler or mao could deny old ones but in my experience you cannot create a new moral principles.

PS stars for having an honest conversation
edit on 18-6-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: added ps



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That makes sense. An Objective Moral Principle is something like Fairness. Whereas determining what is or isn't Fair is a Subjective Moral Value. Correct???

That's an interesting question about is there some Moral Principle that has yet to be named or defined. I'll give that one some thought. I suppose we'd have to first list all the Moral Principles we have so far. How many can you define???

(I always try to be honest in my discussions. I think our problem comes from the different use in language and meaning. I have no intention of lying or argue just for the sake of arguing that would be pointless.)
edit on 18-6-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




That makes sense. An Objective Moral Principle is something like Fairness. Whereas determining what is or isn't Fair is a Subjective Moral Value. Correct???

Correct and as you can see our disagreement was based on miscommunication. So many people think I am here to convince them of what I believe to be true, and yes I present my position in a convincing way because I am convinced it is true but my purpose here is really to hone and sharpen my perspective on reality. My question to you would be on atheism what is the grounding for the belief that there is such a thing as Good and Evil? These moral principles on theism are grounded in the nature of God. For example Justice is good because God is just by nature. The Good is what is inline with the nature of God that can be shown thru the ontological argument. Now that doesn't mean you have to agree but that is my reasoning. So on atheism what is the Good and Evil? It seems good and evil require beings with intrinsic value rather than instrumental value.

Wiki:


An instrumental value is worth having as a means towards getting something else that is good (e.g., a radio is instrumentally good in order to hear music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth having for itself, not as a means to something else.


It seems you could make the argument for instrumental value on atheism, but what reasons could you have for believing that say humans have intrinsic value? I am not saying you cannot do this but I personally cannot think of a way.




That's an interesting question about is there some Moral Principle that has yet to be named or defined. I'll give that one some thought. I suppose we'd have to first list all the Moral Principles we have so far. How many can you define???


I mean I feel I could go on for quite awhile, but why would you need to know all moral principles to create a new one. Couldn't I just create a new one if it was possible? I feel all we could do is use a different term to describe a moral principle we are already aware of. This is part of the reason I get upset with Churches spending so much time on "how" to be Good. We all know how we ought to act most of the time. Its not like we are going to randomly discover some new way to be a good person.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well, I can't speak for all Atheists or anything but I guess the basis for morality comes from our inherent need to belong in a cohesive society. We are creatures that do better when we have each other. We create a social setting which benefits us in many ways. Alone we are very limited and would spend most of our lives simply surviving from one moment to the next. But together we are able to do so much more. We thrive, create art, music, develop technology, philosophy, etc.

But for a cohesive society to be possible we have to develop rules, both written and unwritten that establish patterns of behavior which make that possible. At least that is what I would assume to be the reasoning for them. If no man is an island then you must build stable bridges.

Value is another subjective concept too. But using your example if a Radio has intrinsic value because it allows us to listen to music then Humanity must also for without them we wouldn't have the radio nor the music to listen to in the first place.

I suppose you don't need to list all principles to come up with a new one. I was just curious what principles we could list so far as a reference.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Well, I can't speak for all Atheists or anything but I guess the basis for morality comes from our inherent need to belong in a cohesive society. We are creatures that do better when we have each other.


I suppose we should be careful here . When I say something is grounded in the nature of God or God is the basis for morality and when I ask you for the basis of morality on atheism what does the phrase "basis of morality" mean to you?




But for a cohesive society to be possible we have to develop rules, both written and unwritten that establish patterns of behavior which make that possible.


The rules society develop would be what you defined as moral values just an a larger scale. The cannot be the basis of objective moral principles as these values created by societies are based on their very idea of what it means to be just or honest or fair or modest or loving. So again I'll hold the rest of my responses until we clear up the meaning of this terminology.




But using your example if a Radio has intrinsic value because it allows us to listen to music then Humanity must also for without them we wouldn't have the radio nor the music to listen to in the first place.


I think you have misread. A radio has instrumental value because it is good for listening to music. It is good as a means to an end. In your example here we could say a human has instrumental value when it comes to making radios but this does nothing to give that human some kind of inherent value. As I said I see that you can get instrumental value but I find it hard to see any reason to believe some kind of intrinsic value with atheism as the starting point.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Cooperativeness then. The basis for why we would bother is our inherent need for a functioning social environment.


You still haven't given a valid reason for why God is needed here IMO. Objective Principles if they exist, let's choose Justice for example, is still subjective in how it's measured. How can Justice be Objectively measured??? Justice is about balancing the scales of Right and Wrong but none of those are things that can be objectively measured without subjective interpretation.



But using your example if a Radio has intrinsic value because it allows us to listen to music then Humanity must also for without them we wouldn't have the radio nor the music to listen to in the first place.


I think you have misread. A radio has instrumental value because it is good for listening to music. It is good as a means to an end. In your example here we could say a human has instrumental value when it comes to making radios but this does nothing to give that human some kind of inherent value. As I said I see that you can get instrumental value but I find it hard to see any reason to believe some kind of intrinsic value with atheism as the starting point.

What intrinsic Value is there in God??? First of all God is obviously a Subjective Concept. I realize you don't think so, but that doesn't prove otherwise. Do you find any Intrinsic Value in Krishna???

What starting point??? Atheism doesn't give you a starting point or set of values like Religion does. That is up to you to figure out for yourself.

Why do Humans have Intrinsic Value only if God made us??? Because he said so??? Your Argument hinges on Good=Anything God says is Good. Or anything God allows. But I'd hardly agree with that. Not to mention Which God because they all have a different idea of what's good and what's not.

Value once again is Subjective as well. What if anything has intrinsic value then??? How would we know unless we are able to subjectively become aware of that value??? Who decides??? If something has intrinsic Value but it's never recognized then it's irrelevant.
edit on 18-6-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If you don't want to use the social contract you live outside of its benefits to you or the morality issue arises of using one as a means to an end rather than an end itself.

The categorical imparitive. If you act you think what would the consequences become if this was universal action. If everyone did it.

This is logical morality. Atheists dig it.

Using a society that people created and maintained as good or bad as it is requires a buying in, a revolution, or to live outside of its benefits. Anything else is tacid support or out right theft.

If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil. Baruch Spinoza

Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad. Baruch Spinoza


edit on 18-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here ya go Ragman:

"Belief" is not "religion". "Religion" is about the worship of unseen deities. Atheists don't believe in or worship unseen deities.

I have lots of beliefs, but I don't believe in nor worship any deities or gods.


Ragman? That's funny, you are attacking me
Belief acted out in the belief or disbelief of the unproven supernatural is faith, ergo religion.
If you said you didn't know, then yes, no belief
You have chosen a belief, in this case disbelief, you are acting out in faith

I see you everywhere in these religious forums, acting on your dis beliefs, furthering dis beliefs agenda, holding the ideal up on a pedestal for all to see, that's a form of worship

You argue for your faith, worship.

Your disbelief is your deity



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

my argument is based on mirroring the atheist argument, of course it's fallacious, it's insane,
Obviously.
To suggest all atheists are a kind of despot megalomaniac is absurd and ludicrous, don't you see that
It's the argument that I read from atheists about all christians
It's a stupid argument, it was meant to be, a reflection of the opposing stupid argument
A wiser person may have read that luthier

I don't believe in a theocracy, why the lecture
For the most part I am happy to accept and enjoy atheists and their opinions, just not the fundamental types

Yes ethics, the word itself is subjective, it's been said many times in this thread
You have offered nothing of substance, just rhetoric

Mao had a consensus, hitler, pol pot, consensus.
Stalin a consensus, Genghis khan a consensus, yours is rhetoric, morals are derived from the strongest most ferocious power of the time

Your argument is based on a logic formed after a terrible international incident like those listed above
The incident is forgotten and starts again

Your argument is that of a naive 21st century school student dreaming of one day going into a degree
It's local and modern, it's childish



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Your disbelief is your deity


Its' really simple. Someone proposes the existence of a deity, and calls it God. I reject that proposed deity's actual existence as well as the qualities that are being proposes that said deity possesses. I haven't met, nor heard of a description of a supernatural deity yet that exists or whose powers I "believe in".

You know what they say...."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".




edit on 18-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Astyanax: In over two thousand years, no theologian has ever provided a satisfactory answer. You are not going to be the first.


ServantOfTheLamb
>crickets<

Heh heh.


edit on 18/6/16 by Astyanax because: heh heh.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join