The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

It is only a fallacy if that survey results is part of a syllogism to an argument.

If it's no part of your argument, then it's worse than a fallacy...

It's an irrelevancy. You were totally off topic: and there was no reason for you to mention it at all in the first place.

But I know what you want to do...you want to reimport it under the heading "hint," as if we aren't going to ask, "Hint at what"? The minute we do, the argument you allege you're not making reappears; and if it doesn't, then you're back to irrelevancy again.

So which do you prefer your comment to be: fallacious or irrelevant?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is only a fallacy if that survey results is part of a syllogism to an argument.

If it's no part of your argument, then it's worse than a fallacy...

It's an irrelevancy. You were totally off topic: and there was no reason for you to mention it at all in the first place.

But I know what you want to do...you want to reimport it under the heading "hint," as if we aren't going to ask, "Hint at what"? The minute we do, the argument you allege you're not making reappears; and if it doesn't, then you're back to irrelevancy again.

So which do you prefer your comment to be: fallacious or irrelevant?

I never presented any formal argument that included the hint.
So in a way you admit you are ignorant of how a fallacy is to be used.

Note that is a survey of philosophers not laymen thus has some degrees of relevance as a hint or an abductive hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

The original point is you stated you agreed with Peter Holmes' moral anti-realist views which are against my moral-realist views.
Thus as a quickie to throw doubt into your agreement and your claim, I stated in a survey 56% of philosophers agree with me while only 28% agreed with Peter Holmes.

Polls are very useful and had influenced people in some ways thus has relevance, but they are always questionable and thus must be taken with its known limitations.

What counts for any truths or facts is that they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

As for my proper argument that moral facts exist and thus morality has an objective basis, I have provided justified arguments in the Ethical Theory section.

I have also argued [proper] your theistic moral system is groundless which is based merely on faith upon an illusory God that is impossible to be real.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Immanuel Can]

So which do you prefer your comment to be: fallacious or irrelevant?

I never presented any formal argument that included the hint.

Yes, you tried to sneak it in informally. But the implication was that it was somehow relevant to your argument...which, apparently, it wasn't...or it was fallacious.

[gaffo]

I affirm evolution and survival of the fitest for all animals per the mechine of evolution.

Then you affirm violence and the spirit of devil-take-the-hindmost, in addition to whatever sociable instincts you also advocate. For both of those things are instincts, and both, said Darwin, are central in survival-of-the-fittest.

YES - instinct, for animals/man serve the co9lective. so instincts are "good". per the species.


in general. those outside of are weeded out via evolution-death for not being colective enough.


i.e. execututed/etc.I personally appose execution due to State Power - being a Libertarian i do not affirm the State the power of DEath nor Life. not anoti life via bleeding heart - i am no namby pamby - i afffirm reciprocity fully. just if you tak the asshole life do it by you and not the State for you.

evil = infinate selfishness.

Says who?

tha tis my view - and if you read your book - the bible - you would concure wiht my veiw on th nature of evil.

Heh. I do read my book...every day, always. But its view of evil is different from yours, I would say. Biblically speaking, some actions are just plain evil, and "good" is not necessarily oriented to survival.

The greatest Person in the Bible died because He always did the right thing. Of course, He rose again. But he also instructed his followers to lay down their lives for each other and for the truth. So that's certainly not Darwinian.

---------------thanks for reply - i lik eyou you have honour and heart and is a kind person - so i like taling to you.

Absolutely, likewise. I think the way we are able to talk to each other is evidence of the fact that two people can disagree about some things, agree about others, and get along with civility and mutual respect. And I thank you for your part of that.

PS - you asked me "what makes instinct evil" - nothing!

But the instinct for violence, or the unrestrained sexual appetite, or the instinct to anaesthetize oneself with chemicals, or the instinct to mistrust strangers, or the instinct to steal...these are not "evil"? They're all instincts that do have survival value...except, perhaps for the desire to indulge in chemicals. So what do you make of them? Are any evil?
[/quote]

my take is that evil is the same as selfishness. that is the nature of evil.
2 cents.

you are a good man and so me being also a good man i like you, you also have a mind as so why i like you.

i welcome future discourse, but to be honest i've found this forum lacking in good men - more place for soapbxx (egos)- so may not show up here much longer - sadly...................

I'd welcome a place to disscuss, but it seems that my not be so in this forum

[Immanuel Can]

I'd welcome a place to disscuss, but it seems that my not be so in this forum

It's good and bad here. Most people are fairly reasonable, but you do get the odd person who just goes off. I suppose it just depends on how thick a skin one can keep. But at least here, the discussion keeps going fairly regularly. Many boards are pretty dead.

[gaffo]

I'd welcome a place to disscuss, but it seems that my not be so in this forum

It's good and bad here. Most people are fairly reasonable, but you do get the odd person who just goes off. I suppose it just depends on how thick a skin one can keep. But at least here, the discussion keeps going fairly regularly. Many boards are pretty dead.

As i posted here when i joined 3 yrs ago, facefuck/etc "collective forums" (ad/personal tracking/$nooping supported sights) - have taken over to the point where there are now few independant forums - of any interest from philosphy to history to gerdening............all all over the net in the 90's and 00's, now all nearly gone.

so ya.

but this forum to me seems to be more a pissing contest and disscussion.

you are one of at most 4 here that i respect and value conversing with.

- my "Daughter" (2nd one - 1st one died on 7/7/7 at 19) "fidget" i had to euthenize on christmas eve at 13.5 yrs, after 3 months of vet bills to try to help her and understand why she was losing weight. by late oct/early nov i understood the weight loss was more than "old age" - she being "stout" for all those yrs from 07 to 6 months ago.

i did my duty from one frind to another, and spent 750 bucks trying to figure out what her illness was in order to fix/help it. all the tests showed "fine" - but clearly not fine. so eventually seeing her suffer, i had a vet whos full time job is Kavorian - to kill her - the last 1/2 week was bad, she would wake me up 2-4 times a night crying out in pain - asking me to end the pain (to a cat (my cat) i am her God/mom - can fix all things, i wish i could).

15 minuts - 2 drugs, first pain killer - Fidget felt good the first 7 minutes, with the first drug, started to "suckle" (regrerssed to good feelings/babyhood", second drug as the overdose, first 3 minutes slowed here breathing to "skipping" - i though she stopped breathing, thon saw she took her final breath a minute alter, then the heart keeps beating for another 3-4 mintues. the vet had a stethoscope, she checked 2 times, my feeling at the time was on the second check she though my baby was dead, but she let me know "her heart is still beating, but slower" - by third check the heart had stiopped, and my buddiy of 13 yrs was dead - Chrsitman eve)

I predug the hole in my by 2 weeks proir, and buried here within 5 minustes of her death.


I cost me 330 bucks (100 more for Christmas itself - which was the original date (I called on the 24th moring, and they were booked up, so said ok 430, then they called an hour later saying there was a cancellation, so i ok the 24th).

no way would i cage my girl for a trip to the vet to die in far in a foreign place to save 300 bucks.


some form of cancer was the most likely culprit.
................

anyway you are a good man and i will miss you if/when i leave this forum.

peace to you.

[gaffo]

Cat people affirm Dogs

but not vise versa.

as a cat person i like Dogs. FYI.

there is a bias. sadly.

[Immanuel Can]

- my "Daughter" (2nd one - 1st one died on 7/7/7 at 19) "fidget" i had to euthenize on christmas eve at 13.5 yrs, after 3 months of vet bills to try to help her...some form of cancer was the most likely culprit.

That's bloody awful. So sorry, man. I've been there.

They say every pet you loose takes a piece of you with them. I guess that's really true, in a sense. I've never felt the same after I lost one, and I've never forgotten one I lost.

Still, there's this: it wouldn't hurt so bloody much if you didn't really love them. And the ability to feel that pain is a tribute to what you had with them. That doesn't make it feel any better, but it does make it mean something important.

Best thing to do: defy the pain by stepping up and getting another one. Then put your heart into caring for it. It's the right way to pay tribute to what you had, and the right way to heal the heart and keep the memory after a loss.

[bahman]

The "Problem of Evil" has been claimed by many non-theists [atheists] to be the 'silver bullet' against the theists' claim God exists.

Over the years, theists had offered loads of defense against the Problem of Evil and all had failed.

What is the latest and strongest defense from theists [with references and links] to counter against the Problem of Evil.

They claim that human is given free will to choose good or evil. Therefore, all arguments against good God fail. There is however the problem of natural evil and animal suffering that they cannot give a solid answer to it.

[Immanuel Can]

They claim that human is given free will to choose good or evil. Therefore, all arguments against good God fail. There is however the problem of natural evil and animal suffering that they cannot give a solid answer to it.

Actually, we can.

But first, we should see if you accept any part of their explanation at all.

Do you believe humans have free will?

[bahman]

They claim that human is given free will to choose good or evil. Therefore, all arguments against good God fail. There is however the problem of natural evil and animal suffering that they cannot give a solid answer to it.

Actually, we can.

But first, we should see if you accept any part of their explanation at all.

Do you believe humans have free will?

Sure we have free will. But what our fault has to do with animal suffering?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you believe humans have free will?

Sure we have free will. But what our fault has to do with animal suffering?

Patience.

If human beings have free will, then in what sort of environment must they live?

[bahman]

Do you believe humans have free will?

Sure we have free will. But what our fault has to do with animal suffering?

Patience.

If human beings have free will, then in what sort of environment must they live?

They should suffer because of evil. But what is the animals' fault? They have no rational mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure we have free will. But what our fault has to do with animal suffering?

Patience.

If human beings have free will, then in what sort of environment must they live?

They should suffer because of evil.

You misunderstand. I'm sorry: I didn't explain precisely.

I wasn't asking for you to judge them. I was trying to ask, what sort of world is compatible with the idea of free will?

Could you have, for example, free-will-having people, but living in an environment in which only good things happening is possible? So that, for example, if a man decided, with his free will, that he wanted to hurt another person, or perhaps an animal, or harm the environment itself, he simply could not do it? Would that be free will?

Or does the free will of a man entail that he has to have the possibility of doing good and doing harm?

[bahman]

Patience.

If human beings have free will, then in what sort of environment must they live?

They should suffer because of evil.

You misunderstand. I'm sorry: I didn't explain precisely.

I wasn't asking for you to judge them. I was trying to ask, what sort of world is compatible with the idea of free will?

Could you have, for example, free-will-having people, but living in an environment in which only good things happening is possible? So that, for example, if a man decided, with his free will, that he wanted to hurt another person, or perhaps an animal, or harm the environment itself, he simply could not do it? Would that be free will?

Or does the free will of a man entail that he has to have the possibility of doing good and doing harm?

If the story of Adam is true then he deserves evil because he chose it. Why we should suffer? We didn't choose evil. The animal cannot choose evil. So why they should suffer either?