God & The Problem of Evil

You are always off track from my points and creating straw man.

I claimed;
If something cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

Rationally = reinforced with Philosophical-proper.

It is possible for a God to exists in the following restricted conditions;

  1. A God can exists based on pure thoughts and primal reason [kindergarten].
  2. A God can exists with a Morality framework,
  3. A God is real to a mental patient, schizophrenic, epileptic
  4. A God can be induced and experienced using hallucinogens and drugs.

BUT;
If God cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible for it to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

And by stating that YOU HAVE RATIONALLY ERRED in the exact way that I pointed out, REALLY.

And there is only one “REALITY”. It is certainly rational in the sense of being logical, but “empirical” is a subjective issue. To be empirical means that it can be seen, and certainly not all of reality can be seen.

Note my response to your very shallow and narrow philosophical views here.
viewtopic.php?p=2686305#p2686305

Nietzsche: “there is no truth, only perspectives”
neamathisi.com/new-learning/chap … y-of-truth

There are no facts, only interpretations.
from Nietzsche’s Nachlass, A. Danto translation

An absolutely one “Reality” is an impossibility.

Shows you how little Nietzsche actually knew, huh.

Yet another horribly naive presumption and preaching from the Prismatic pulpit.
:icon-rolleyes:

I would ask you to prove that, but … geeezzz… =;

Arminius wrote:

What do YOU mean by required?
What would make them require an evil God?
Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just explain that life at times just has no satisfactory, answerable questions as to why things happen though showing cause and effect in many cases may have just explained those things away?
Anyway, I wonder if any explanation would have sufficed?
We humans always need a scapegoat.

Those who wrote the OLd Testament - many during many centuries - had to find a “consensus”, and the consensus seemed to not allow another option than an evil god, a furious god.

Fear, angst, anxiety, awe, deep respect …

Yes, but not to them (at that time).

Yes, but not at that time (to them).

Instead of “we humans” I would say “a majority of the humans”.

Arminius,

Hmmm…I wonder why that would be? Instilling fear instead of love as a way to insure proper behavior?
Things still have not changed. Many Parents are still doing that to their children.

The OT God is also shown to be a loving, compassionate and forgiving God at the same time.
Perhaps the different writers of the OT perceived their God in different ways.
Perhaps those who were of a furious, unforgiving and judgmental nature, saw God in that way and those who were the opposite saw God in loving compassionate ways.
Who knows?
I think that for the most part, God is all about projection.

How can awe and deep respect conjure up an evil God?
Those emotions may cause one to desire to worship and to be faithful to their God but to instill a feeling of dread and fear?

I do not understand why. Although I do not believe anymore, subjectively speaking, I still see that there is much wisdom in the OT.
I suppose that a great deal of it WAS written as it was to inflict fear and to bring the people to their knees.
BUT I suppose that back then painting God as an evil one may have seemed to be the only way to get the people (not all of them) to live a moral purposeful life and to obey the Ten Commandments.

Well, perhaps I was wrong above. I think that for many of them a better more “realistic” explanation might have sufficed.
But then again, with the negative outlook, many may have simply said “What the hell! I’m going to be forever damned by God anyway.”

You have a point there. There are some who would probably never use others as scapegoats.

The use of others as “scapegoats” is part of an old strategy. In a more primitive way, “higher” animals also use others as “scapegoats”.

Does the author of the OP realize that “evil” is a metaphysical assumption that presumes a “good” against which it can be measured?

I understand there are two categories of “evil” i.e.

  1. Empirical evil, i.e. evil acts related to evilness.

  2. Ontological/Metaphysical Evil - related mostly to the theological, e.g. represented by Satan and the likes.

The OP is not related to ontological or metaphysical evil rather it refers to empirical evil as evidenced by empirical acts of evil.

My definition of “evil” is;
Evil is the nature of human acts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
What is ‘net-negative’ and “well-being” will be explained in detail.
There is a degree to evil acts, i.e. from low [petty crimes, lying, etc.] to very high [serial killing with torture, mass rapes, genocides, etc.]
To avoid confusion with theological-based ontological evil, this definition of empirical evil must be supported by a “taxonomy” of empirical evil acts by humans.

Do you have any counters against my argument based on the above terms of reference?

It’s not necessary to have a counterargument. Evil defined as a “net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom (sic.) humanity” is meaningless without a supreme good against which it can be measured.

As defined, Evil is the nature of human acts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
I have given examples of the range of evil acts.
Are you saying the genocides by Hitler, of the Yazidis by extreme Islamists, the mass rapes, and the various evils are meaningless?? so we do not bother these evil acts?
The wisdom is there is no need for a definition of ‘supreme good’ in this case to understand the above listed acts are evil and thus the need for actions.

I am not sure of your ‘supreme good.’ If you are referring to God as the ‘supreme Good’ then that is baseless and illusory.
Nevertheless I do agree an idea of ‘supreme Good’ can be relevant depending on how one use the term.

The concept of evil is a two-edged sword. As defined, “evil” is an arbitrary metaphysical concept. True, it does pose a problem for theism, but it also poses a problem for secularists or “world citizens.” Who in your world determines what constitutes a “net-negative”? You? What makes you qualified to to meet the highest interests and welfare of the universe and the children of time? How do you propose to coordinate and harmonize the world’s rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms without a universally accepted ideal? Are the “progressives” on college campuses doing you any favors by shutting down free speech?

The examples of evil you give reflect a much deeper problem than you are willing to admit. The world is filled with lost souls, not lost in the theologic sense but lost in the directional meaning, wandering about in confusion among the isms and cults of a frustrated philosophic era. Too few have learned how to install a philosophy of living in the place of empirical authority.

Note I have already stated there are two concepts of ‘evil’ i.e.

  1. empirical based evil acts and
  2. the Metaphysical/ontological evil

I have already the OP is not about the Metaphysical/ontological evil which is proposed by theology-God and such evil do not exists.

Empirical based acts of evil are those acts that can be observed and identified as ‘evil’.

If you want to insist on evil in the Metaphysical and Ontological sense, you will have to open up a separate thread. Btw, ensure you prove such evil exists before anything else.

It is not “me” to determine what is net-negative. This project will be done by the collective of all humans as far as possible.
We can start this exercise by assigning rating to a list all known evil acts.
Then we produce a list of agreed evil acts starting with the acts with the highest degree of evilness.
Now if I proposed ‘genocide’ mass rapes, serial murders are net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and to humanity, I am confident all normal human beings will agree to that. Do you disagree?
We then work down the list to obtain 100% consensus for as man as possible and somewhere down the list there will be contentions and disagreements.

The point is we will be able to have a reasonable list of acts that are agreed by all normal [not psychopaths and the mentally ill] human beings as net-negative evil.
Where are are disputes of various degrees we can work at it to establish greater consensus, where we cannot then we will leave it as “agree to disagree” in the meantime.

Another critical point is you cannot assess what I am proposing based on our existing [2017] collective state of morality which on average is very low and bad.
What I am proposing is for the future, say 75-100-200 years’ time when we have an established Framework and System of Morality & Ethics with a very high average Moral Intelligence within humanity. What is critical is we must start now to establish the foundation.

Yes, at the present we are in a bad state relative to normal expectations and ideals. What is critical is you cannot give up hope that there is a possibility of continual improvement and progress.
I have given evidence [babies, mirror neurons], all humans has the potential drive for higher morality.
This is proven by the obvious trend of improving moral standards and practices over the last 100, 200 and > 1000 years, e.g. emergence of the Golden Rule, banning of slavery, etc.

While I am optimistic with potential positive systems, Why are you so pessimistic and defensive on there is a potential for all humans to improve and progress in Morality and all other fields of knowledge and technology?
With your defensiveness, you are not a net-positive citizen of humanity.

Human beings like scapegoating their own actions on ridiculous extrapolations of gods and devils concerning so called evil because it helps themselves not looking at themselves in a mirror. It helps saying something else is the cause of all of our problems rather then ourselves and the success of religion throughout the ages reaffirms this.

The concept of evil is an elaborate conception or ruse of historical collective irresponsibility. It is an irrational reaction.

You did not read my link?
The concept of evil [empirical based, not ontological] is getting very popular within the philosophical community. Note this from SEP;

As I stated the OP has nothing to do with metaphysical or ontological “evil” as represented by the existence of Satan the Devil in the Abrahamic religions.

What I am referring as ‘evil’ is related to evil acts, e.g.

Yeah, I view it all as the same thing. It’s all purely manufactured useless conjecture as a way of keeping human beings from looking inward into themselves.

The moment you describe anybody as being evil all debate, criticism, questioning, or analyzing becomes silenced.

Sez who? Hitler and Pol Pot thought they were doing the world a favor. Aside from human perceptions and experiences, good and evil do not have objective existence.

If we need the concept of evil, then we need the concept of good – and that’s where you run into trouble. Who or what is the final arbiter of the good? (Genuine goodness is a positive act, not merely refraining from doing harm.)

You have yet to prove there is such a thing as “empirical evil.”

What’s “normal”? If history is any indication, normal is people killing people and their host planet.

I think I see my problem, now. I lack the blind faith you have in human beings.

I certainly hope not! Why would I want to be citizen of a collectively insane species?

I have posted somewhere in detail [see earlier post and below] on how we can establish what is objective evil based on consensus as a guide to manage and control evil.
‘Rape’ is recognized as an act of evil [as defined] which can be supported by empirical evidences.

For this purpose the concept of good can be sufficiently be represented the concept of ‘absence of evil acts’. If one do not commit any evil acts, one is doing good.

AS for goodness in terms of positive human values, e.g. compassion, empathy, love, co-operation, etc. I have done extensive research on this to establish how to ground what is ‘good’. I won’t go into the details on this.
I am with Thinkdr who is into quantifying good human values so that we can manage it more effectively and as a basis to promote continual improvements.

It is so obvious that genocide, mass rapes, murder, etc. [empirical evil acts] can be proven empirically with evidence where corrective actions can be take to prevent, deter or if possible eliminate such evil acts.

What is ‘normal’ is those who people who are not officially recognized [as in psychiatry] as mentally sick in relation to this issue of evil, e.g. psychopaths, etc.

What blind faith?
What I have presented is based on evidence and rational projections.

You do not consider yourself an human being?
No wonder you are so anti-human and anti-progress for humanity.
It is your discretion to be indifferent, I prefer to contribute something positive [hopefully] to humanity.

Consensus is not a reliable metric for determining the objectivity of any thing because that particular methodology is flawed
Objective existence of something has to be demonstrated for it to be shown to be true regardless of how popular it might be
But because evil pertains to morality and morality is itself not objective then evil cannot be objectively demonstrated either