God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

If you'll look above you'll see that I've already addressed this issue . It's not that black and white because nobody has complete knowledge about God or the way He operates. We can infer a lot from scripture but at the end complete knowledge about His activity is unknowable. Therefore you cannot make a conclusion like that because you don't have all
the required information.It would be like concluding that water is wet when you've never even seen or interacted with water yourself. You can have an idea of what it might be like based on what other people tell you but you can't really make a decisive conclusion about it simoly because you don't know.A better analogy would be with President Obama. You can see the results of how his Presidency has affected the United States, and draw
Conclusions about his political plans and agenda from that, but if you've never sat down with him over toast, face to face and listened as he went in depth about his plan, or read a document entitled "The Great Overarching Goal of the Obama Administration," you wouldn't accurately be able to say "President Obama is ineffective at X." X may not even be his goal at all, but you wouldn't know that, since you don't have the info. Haha I can see why you'd think so. But that's not what I'm trying to do, I swear. I'm just saying that yes, it is complicated. Thats's ok. The reason isn't really inexplicable, just unknowable at this time. That's whay this debate is even happening, because its complex. The reality is that life doesn't happen in a state of us always easily understanding fully every single occurrence and situation. That's nonsense. We tend to approach this argument in the same way, expecting there to be perfect answers, but sometimes that's impossible. As I stated earlier, we've done the same thing in science - admitted there are certain things we do not know yet. There's no shame in that. So why attack that fact when science does the same thing? Not really, I'm afraid.
We don't know how God operates
We don't know if He has a greater justifiable goal or not
if so we don't know what that greater goal is fully
we don't know how time is measured from his perspectiveTherefore you actually can't make a (cogent) logical conclusion; you don't have enough facts to accurately conclude whether God is evil or not.You could conclude though that He appears or seems to be evil from your reasons, and that would make sense. But that becomes a totally different argument .Regards! - Raph

Phat writes:
......and hear from Him in many unique ways.Tangle writes:
I often hear this from believers and I always ask them what their particular experience has been. So far I've never had a coherent explanation of it. What's yours?...and it doesn't look like I'm going to find out now.

Every time anyone says anyone else is evil, it's always "in the most arbitrary subjective way." That's the way morals work, they're subjective.
The judgment is always as useless and as powerful as that. Only as far as I chase your side comments down irrelevant rabbit holes.
I'm still on point, and you still haven't said anything that detracts from my main statement:

quote:

---

IF God exists.
IF God can easily prevent a rape.
IF there is no safety risk to God in preventing a rape.
IF God understands what rape is and that a particular innocent victim would not want to be raped.
IF "evil" includes not helping others when you're quite capable of helping them at no risk or loss of resources to yourself.
IF God does not prevent rapes given all the above,

​

THEN God is evil.

---

Your closest attempt is with saying that God needs to consider the rapists' interests as well.
This only makes sense if God does not care about free will.The rapist is choosing to remove the free will of the victim.
If God cares about the rapists' interests... then God is allowing the removal of free will of the victim.God is prioritizing the rapists' interests over the victim's interests... well, that sounds evil. If I had the chance to cure cancer, but all I had to do was rape an innocent victim... I'm not sure if it would be worth it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be evil for me to make that decision.What makes you think curing cancer is worth raping innocent victims?Or, regardless of that... what makes you think God can't stop a rape from occurring and still allow the rapist to cure cancer?Even if I concede that God isn't evil when He allows a rape to happen so that the rapist can go on to cure cancer... what about the scenarios (like the one I provided) where this doesn't happen, where the rapist goes on to live out the rest of their lives exactly as they would if the rape occurred... it's just that the rape doesn't occur? Is God evil then?

Yeah. Like you said, it boils down to "Raphael trusts God" and "Stile does not trust God." And, no, I do not think we will change each other's minds. If the idea of a God works for you, and the Bible "rings true" to you as well, then yes, I would agree that you have adequately defended my argument from the Biblical standpoint. I try not to attack another's faith. I think such things are important, and people should believe in the things they feel are true, for whatever personal reasons they hold.Of course, since I do not trust God, and neither does the Bible "ring true" to me... I find your defense personally unsatisfactory.
I would suggest that my argument does indeed hold water as long as one does not put such trust in God and the Bible. My argument is more... mundane. And it is those mundane issues that I choose to argue against.If you're going to say "but I believe in God." Then I am forced to simply accept your belief.
But... if someone says something like... "I believe God never lets bad things happen ever!"... well, there's a mundane aspect in there that I can argue against. Because obviously, bad things do happen.But, well, that's the difference. You trust in God to have things figured out, and I just... don't.
I am open to learning about God's ideas, though. If God ever lets me in on the secret of how things actually are "figured out"... then I wouldn't hold anything against Him.You asked a few questions for curiosity's sake, I'll try to answer those as honestly as I can: I think the idea is skewed a bit here.
Yes, I do not think there is such a thing as "absolute right".
But no, this does not mean that *any scenario* can be found "right" just because there's no absolute.That is, I don't think there's ever a circumstance where (a God) creating/coming first would ever make an action right.Again, I think "right" is defined by those who are affected by the action.
This creates an absolute frame-of-reference for myself where I am now restricted.
I mean, it's not based on anything concrete... I just made it up... but within that context, there are absolutes.Therefore, in order for something coming first and being "right" is concerned, it would have to be more of a by-product and not really be based on "coming first." Like this:Let's say God created a world, and all the humans were very happy and approved the world they lived in and were extremely thankful that the God had made it the way He did.Then... since the people affected (the humans) by the action (God creating the world) judge the action as "good"... then God's creation was good.Here we have God creating/coming first and ending up good.
But the "good" isn't decided on God creating/coming first... it's decided by those who were affected by the action. It's just a point-of-interest that God happened to create/come first. The creating/coming first doesn't have any bearing on the good/bad judgment. I agree. But I wouldn't say that they are "undeniably wrong." I would simply phrase it as "pretty much everybody agrees that they don't want these things to happen to them."And, well, why would they?Who wants to be killed?
Who wants to be raped?
Who wants to be a slave?
Who wants to be discriminated against?I don't think everyone is against such actions because they are wrong.
I think that these actions are wrong because everyone is against them.

I've said many times that "free will" is an empty concept. Why? What makes you think it isn't?

The rapist has their interests - they want to rape someone.
The victim has their interests - they do not want to be raped.The rapist wants to involve other people and force them to be a part of the rapist's interests to get what they want.
The victim does not want to involve other people or force other people to do anything to get what they want, they just want to be left alone.That's the difference.Evil = when your actions affect someone else and the person affected deems those actions to be unwanted.So, we have 2 possible outcomes:1 - The action takes place - Is it evil? The victim (here) doesn't want to be raped, so yes.. the action is evil.
2 - The action doesn't take place - Is it evil? There is no action, so the event cannot be evil.Given the event taking place above, God has His choice:3a - Take no action - Allow the evil action to happen.
3b - Prevent the evil action.Prioritizing the rapist's interests (evil action) over the victim's interests (not evil) is condoning evil.
Unless, of course, there is something preventing you from doing so - like a risk to your own personal safety.What would prevent God from doing so and be a satisfying excuse for allowing the evil to continue? --- That's the question. Maybe there is no satisfying answer and God is evil. Maybe there is an answer and we're just not privy to it because God is mysterious. But, it doesn't look good at this point if we look at the information we do have available to us. Because it involves hurting an innocent victim.Edited by Stile, : Some stuff got deleted.Edited by Stile, : Ah, nvm... I was using an arrow (<-) and it messed up the coding for the message. Took it as a comment for the coding of the page, maybe? Not sure.

So it's evil to make your children eat their vegetables. It's evil to prevent a suicide. It's evil to vote for a different candidate than somebody else. What if the victim isn't innocent? Is it okay to rape a murderer?

The argument doesn't require complete knowledge about God. It is a simple exercise in deductive logic. Sure, but the argument would be like this:Being wet is the property of having no resistance to shear stress.
Water has no resistance to shear stress.
Therefore water is wet.That also does not require having complete knowledge about water. It is a simple exercise in deductive logic. Because the argument doesn't actually require full knowledge of the situation.The existence of evil is logically incompatible with a God that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.You cannot be all-powerful and all-good and also allow evil to exist.If you are all-powerful and you let evil exist, then you are not ALL-good.If you are all-good and evil still exist, then you are not ALL-powerful enough to stop it. So, since you cannot deny the logical deduction, instead you are claiming that we can't really know stuff like this about God.Perhaps God just breaks logic.So, maybe water really isn't wet. Since we cannot know everything about water, we cannot conclude that it is wet because maybe it breaks logic.Sorry, but that's a cop-out. Actually, Stile admitted just that. Even if God, for some illogical reason, actually doesn't really count as being evil, under these conditions (the premises that he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent) we can conclude that he is evil for allowing evil to exist.Now, being evil does not mean that he cannot also be good. He's just evil too. And He's admitted as much:"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Sorry for the long response, ringo. I know you like the shorter replies. I just got to rambling and decided to keep all of it. It's more just for discussion in general than a direct response to you.Morality is a very complicated subject, it's difficult to keep things short. No. I did not think it was necessary to clarify that we're talking about consenting adults, my apologies.
Dealing with children and those you're supposed to teach is a difficult area because so many lines get crossed. I don't think I'm ready to tackle that arena, yet. That depends on if the person decides they actually did want to continue living at a later time or not.
If the person never, ever is thankful for you saving them... then yes, it was evil to prevent their suicide. Why wouldn't it be?
That's why (in Canada, at least) we're currently changing laws so that suicide is legal and acceptable. Other people shouldn't be able to force you to live if you really want to die. I'm a proponent of that. It's figuring out whether you "really want to die" or not that's the hard part. But it's certainly wrong to have others make that decision for you if it's not in your best interests. No, it isn't.
Me voting for someone you don't like isn't an action (in and of itself) that affects you. It's just an action that I do that you don't like.
That's not the same thing.Now, the person-voted-into-power may decide to take actions that affect many, many people.
Some of those people will judge the action(s) to be evil.
Some of those people will judge the action(s) to be good.
When this happens, the action in and of itself is never "good" or "bad" on the whole. It's simply divided up for each and every single person involved. For every person who's affected that is hurt... the action was evil. For every person who's affected that is thankful... the action was good.But, since moral judgments are imaginary, this is as expected.
And, of course, this is a large source for most of the moral conundrums we all run into on a daily basis.
When running into these sorts of scenarios the proper course of action is to try your best, investigate the results, and adapt your behavior accordingly for future similar scenarios. This question no longer deal with the evil/good judgment of the action. It's now asking if the rapist is justified to do the action anyway.
Even if the victim isn't innocent... the action of raping them when they do not want to be raped is still evil.
But can the evil action be justified? I can't think of an example off the top of my head for rape, but one does likely exist.But even if an evil action is justified... that doesn't make it "a good action." The action itself is still evil. You just decided to do it for whatever reasons you decided on. Others are still free to accept your justification for doing the evil act or reject it. You yourself are free to think it was justified for you to perform the evil action. The point is to remember that you are not the one who decides if the action is evil or not... that is out of your control.
And then, regardless of whether or not you feel justified or everyone around you says you're justified... the "evil/good" of the action is still only decided by the person who was affected.The point is to have a system that works, while at the same time resists corruption.
By having other people judge good/bad for your actions or justified/not justified for your actions... the system is incorruptible.You can certainly "not care" about what others think... and form societies with like-minded people...
But calling something "not evil" or "justified" just because you personally think so is a breeding ground for corruption of the system and manipulation of weaker individuals.If you're looking for nuances... the craziest is that people are quite capable of changing their minds.For example, let's say:I just met a new friend at work.
We get to talking, they let me know that they've never had chocolate before (just go with me, I'm tired... ).
We go out after work to relax and I buy some chocolate and give it to them when we meet up.1. They are very happy to receive the gift. They finally get to try some chocolate! --- The action of me giving them chocolate is a good action.
2. Unfortunately, they turn out to be allergic to chocolate. It upsets their stomach and they end up missing their child's recital. They are upset that I ever gave them chocolate in the first place --- The action of me giving them chocolate is an evil action.
3. Turns out, that their allergy to chocolate was just an initial reaction. They get over it, and their immune system learns to deal with chocolate and it becomes one of their favourite snacks. They are again very thankful than I started them on the chocolate road. --- The action of me giving them chocolate is good again!!Morality is not a simple or easy subject.
That's because morality is about dealing with other people (or "intelligent beings," even).
And people are not simple or easy subjects.This may not be the best system possible, but it's certainly the best I've ever heard of.

Sure it does. It's a collective evil. How does that absolve the individuals of complicity in the evil? So there's "evil but justifiable"? Can we say then that God is evil but He is justified in the evil He does?Is there a corresponding "good but unjustifiable"? That statement seems to be treading pretty close to absolute morality. Separating good and evil from justifiable seems to be treading pretty close to absolute morality. If good and evil are truly in the eye of the beholder, then the topic is meaningless.

No, it doesn't.
The voting doesn't affect you (unless you're a candidate).
The putting-into-power of someone doesn't affect you (unless you were in the running). When the person in power decides to do something that affects you... now we have an action that involves you (or the person who's complaining about your vote).That action can be evil or good.
And in that context (getting back to your point) you would not be absolved of all complicity in the action.
Your part will be "lesser", of course, since you voted them in and didn't do the action itself... also depending on if you knew they were going to go ahead with such actions or not... But it's still there.THEN, your vote can be indirectly evil or good.
But, without an action that's affecting other people... there's no evil or good.Writing a name on a piece of paper doesn't involve other people... there's no evil or good.
If it leads to involving other people... well, then what did it lead to? What action involved other people? THAT action is what's evil or good.It's like... if I were to give a present to my wife and she loves it, then the action of giving-that-present-to-my-wife was good.
Someone else can be very upset that I gave a present to my wife.
But... since the action I took only involved my wife... that other person's feelings are irrelevant to the morality of giving-a-present-to-my-wife.Now, if the present I gave to my wife was a gun and she shot someone else with it... now we can consider the morality of giving-a-present-to-my-wife again from the perspective of the person who was shot. However, notice how this extension requires an action that involves a consequence that affects that other-person.Same with the voting.
Voting in-and-of-itself doesn't affect other people.
But, when actions do affect other people, we may be able to trace it back to the voting. If so, then the voter can have a hand in the evil/good action. Of course.
Take a classic mine-cart moral example:A mine cart is going down a track, you control which track it goes on, but cannot stop it.
Track 1: It will kill 2 people.
Track 2: It will kill 3 people.Both options include evil and good (assuming all the people involved want to live).
Assuming everything else is equal... killing 2 people is better than killing 3 people."Better" doesn't make killing 2 people "good."
Killing 2 people is still "evil."But choosing to kill 2 people instead of 3 can be justified by choosing "the lesser of two evils." Of course. You just have to explain the justification. That's the entire basis for my question from the previous thread. Maybe God is justified for allowing evil in the world. I'd just like to know how, given all the qualities about Him that He's supposed to have.What is the justification? Huh. Good question.I guess it would be more familiar as "good, but unintentional."
Like if someone was trying to hurt a person, but whatever-action-they-took ended up helping them instead.It's good, but unintentional. Good, but unjustifiable. I'm not sure what you mean.
It is treading pretty close to allowing corruption to enter the system again.
Unless, of course, the justification is judged by other people... that's the part that resists corruption. Good and evil are always in the eye of the beholder, that's the way people work. This part isn't made up by me, it's a simple fact that different people judge situations differently.The point of my system is simply to say that "the beholder" should never be the person who's initiating the action.
That's what leads to corruption.As long as "the beholder" is other people... hopefully the one affected by the action... then corruption is restricted.Or, if you're talking in some sort of absolute sense of "meaningless"... then I must agree. In this sense, all morality is "meaningless." It's only as meaningful as we intelligent beings care to give it meaning.

Of course it does. Don't be silly. Even if it's indirect, it affects you. Neither does firing a shotgun on a crowded bus. But we can't assume that everything else is equal. Some of the people may have dependents. Some may be rapists on their way to discovering a cure for cancer. Now you're getting onto slippery semantic ground. You're lucky I don't use argumentum ad dictionarium. Next you'll be saying that something can be higher without having height. Absolutely? Killing six million people "can be justified" as the lesser of two evils. Words seem to be losing all meaning in your argument.

Voting = one person writing a name on a piece of paper. No other people involved.
Firing a shotgun on a crowded bus = doing something that affects the crowd around you.I don't see how your analogy is working.
How are you claiming that these two things are similar?I mean, it could easily be my example to show you how the two things are different... one involves yourself and a piece of paper and no other people. The other involves you setting off a really loud noise in a crowd of other people who are affected by the noise.They are not the same. Exactly.
People are not systematic and absolute, they are fluid and constantly changing.Therefore, the system for morality that governs "dealing with other people" needs to deal with that fluidity and constant change.Again... your tone seems to imply that you're arguing against me, but everything you say is actually agreeing with me 100%.
I find this incredibly confusing.We can assume "everything else is equal" if it's my example and I set the parameters.
I certainly agree with you that real-life isn't that easy and it takes investigation and motivation to learn how you're affecting other people.The inclusion of investigation and motivation to learn how you're affecting other people is a good thing for a moral system to incorporate. But... I am, very specifically, using "argumentum ad dictionarium."I've been very clear about the fact that I've made up these definitions for evil and good and morality. Where else would they come from?The thing is... everyone who speaks of morality or good or bad is using "argumentum ad dictionarium." We've all made up our own definitions for good/bad things. That's why morality is so difficult, because different people each have their own ideas. Some will agree on certain things, and others won't. But none of it is "absolutely incorrect" because such a thing simply doesn't exist for a subjective topic such as morality. Absolutely not.1 - We must be using the definitions I've provided.
2 - The people being killed must not want to be killed (easy to assume, tough to prove without them around any longer...).If both of those can be shown to be true, then yes, it would be "absolutely, within the context of morality as I've defined it."If you mean in some sort of global, objective sense... well, of course not... morality is not absolute like that. Of course they can.
As I've said, in order to keep corruption out of the system, the justification needs to be judged by other people in your society.And, again, justification does not make the action "not evil." It just means the group of people you live with probably won't punish you for your actions.I don't see how any of this gets anywhere close to my words losing meaning.
If anything... it's any other moral system at all that has words "lose meaning."How would any other moral system deal with the same action wanted by some, but despised by others?
--If it's a definitive "good" or action, we're left with people not liking good things? How does that make any sense? Who decides that it's a definitive "good" action in the first place? How can we verify it?If good/bad are to have honest meanings.. they must be decided on by the person affected by the action. Otherwise, they're useless.

I can see that you're confused. You seem to understand that morality is subjective and relative, yet you also seem to think that rape is somehow absolutely bad and that allowing rape to occur is evil. Huh? It's society that decides what's good or bad.

I do not think rape is absolutely bad. That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.
That's not absolute, it's just highly likely.Allowing rape to occur being evil is also not absolute. I've provided a list of qualifications for when it would be evil. Exactly. And society is made up of people affected by actions... which is who I'm saying decides what's good or bad. We seem to agree on this.