Philosophy Now Forum

"For in the secularist world, "contradiction" isn't an "evil" either. There are no brownie-points for consistency"

he's right, A to the J, but here's how u counter that. indeed we might not be able to call god benevolent or malevolent, good or evil, but if his actions are contrary to our wishes - he creates a world in which pain existz and we suffer - that's enough to establish god as an opposition.

remember how i said what u call the suffering - good or evil - is irrelevant. it's the fact that there is suffering at all that's the humdinger here bro.

what more do i need to know than that god either could prevent suffering and did not, or wished to prevent suffering but could not? 

stop tryna defend the christian god IC cuz it's embarrassing man. you're better than this dammit.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:47 pm "For in the secularist world, "contradiction" isn't an "evil" either. There are no brownie-points for consistency"

he's right, A to the J, but here's how u counter that. indeed we might not be able to call god benevolent or malevolent, good or evil, but if his actions are contrary to our wishes - he creates a world in which pain existz and we suffer - that's enough to establish god as an opposition.

But under secularism, "opposition to wishes" also isn't wrong. In fact, ordinary physical reality itself is "opposed" to many things we would "wish"...such as the ability to flap our arms and fly, or to have an infinite pot of revenue, or a lifespan of indeterminate length.

Moreover, opposition to "evil" (if the secularist could define such a thing) would be good. So now the secularist has to establish that what he "wants" is "good," and thus that any opposition to it would be "evil." The problem continues, as you can see.

So that's a dead issue too. By secularism's lights, nothing is objectively evil. Not one thing, including not getting what one wishes. Therefore, there are no grounds of complaint if things don't go the secularists' way.

But all this is stupid becuz u got me talkin like the Christians now about some imaginary intelligent creator who we may or may not be obliged to be angry at... and this is just childish nonsense.

What I'm doin is going into the christian zone so that I can demonstrate the results and consequences of conceiving of god as an intelligent creator with personality and morals and stuff.

So I'm sayin 'god don't exist, but if he did, this and this follow logically'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 4:19 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:30 pm The problem in hand is much simpler, much more universal: what is the concept of "evil" that makes rational and sponsors the claim 'the god/the universe is guilty for including "evil"?

Why is there a need to create "evil"?

You've missed the question, Gary. It's not about "creating evil." It's about how the people who insist on using the term, and want to use it to launch an accusation along the lines of the theodicy problem, ground it in some kind of reality. Because if it's unreal, then there's no accusation of god/universe allowing "evil." The word doesn't refer to anything.

Evil isn't real? Is that what you're saying? So were I to kill someone and eat them because that's what I wanted to do, then it would NOT be a real act and I would not be evil for doing so? If I kept a pet dog in a cage where it died miserably from starvation because I didn't care about it, that wouldn't be an act of "evil" toward that animal? Is that what you are saying?

Is it "petulant" to fear death? Is it "petulant" to fear Earthquakes? If it is then BE THE FIRST ONE TO FUCKING GO SIT IN A VOLCANO, FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT HYPOCRITE! YOU"RE DISGUSTING!!!!

Correct IC, but your words are no argument here. In fact, what u recognize makes matters even worse; not only is there no god, no right and wrong, but all this is natural itself and the entire universe is out to get us.

Like your homeboy McConaughey told Woody in True Detectives

A giant gutter in outer space.

Settle down Gary. We got this.

Stop attacking IC just cuz he's being attacked in general. You're like a fuckin wolf man. Relax for a minute.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:09 pm Settle down Gary. We got this.

Stop attacking IC just cuz he's being attacked in general. You're like a fuckin wolf man. Relax for a minute.

Oh, well excuse me for my "petulance"! I guess Jews must have been "petulant" for not going willingly to the gas chambers that the Nazis constructed. Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were "petulant" because they likely opposed being killed and eaten by a man doing evil. Or maybe there's just no "evil" at all. It isn't "real". What kind of fucking sicko is IC?????????

He's sayin u have no right, as a relativist, to say god is mean unless u have some objective criteria for what can be good or evil... but if u do, that criteria must be established by god, in which case God would exist and your relativism would be erroneous. It's a clever trap, Gary, but it don't work if u just lose the words 'good, bad, evil, righteous' and consider only the unpleasant nature of suffering of any kind... which a creator would be responsible for.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:25 pm He's sayin u have no right, as a relativist, to say god is mean unless u have some objective criteria for what can be good or evil... but if u do, that criteria must be established by god, in which case God would exist and your relativism would be erroneous. It's a clever trap, Gary, but it don't work if u just lose the words 'good, bad, evil, righteous' and consider only the unpleasant nature of suffering of any kind... which a creator would be responsible for.

If that's what he's saying, then he's still full of shit. That's like saying a father who raped and killed his daughter wasn't "evil" for doing so because he was simply exercising his absolute dominion over her as her "creator". BTW, I'm not a "relativist". IC is full of shit.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm Evil isn't real? Is that what you're saying?

No, that's what the secularist has to be saying.

He cannot be saying anything else, unless he has some way of grounding his conception of "evil" as objective.

I don't say it. Secularism does.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:25 pm He's sayin u have no right, as a relativist, to say god is mean unless u have some objective criteria for what can be good or evil... but if u do, that criteria must be established by god, in which case God would exist and your relativism would be erroneous.

I haven't said so much. All I've pointed out is the obvious fact: that secularism, insisting as it does that "evil" is not objectively real, is in no position to make cogent the theodicy argument.

If that's a "trap," it's a trap of secular making, none of mine.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:33 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm Evil isn't real? Is that what you're saying?

No, that's what the secularist has to be saying.

He cannot be saying anything else, unless he has some way of grounding his conception of "evil" as objective.

I don't say it. Secularism does.

What the hell is "secularism"? Define "secularism"? Who is a "secularist"? Who believes that suffering isn't real? Does anyone (including a psychopath) believe that?

"That's like saying a father who raped and killed his daughter wasn't evil"

it wuzzint 'evil' tho. it sucked for the daughter, anyone who might miss her, and the father if he got busted, but none of this is 'evil'. just forms of suffering.

and u can be a relativist...  or rather u can have groups of relativists agree on a preference - that fathers raping and killing daughters sucks and shouldn't happen - and decide, collectively, not to allow it. and they have the power to do that... just as pops had the power to rape and kill homegirl.

all your confusion (and IC's) is comin out of this conceptually unworkable idea of 'evil'. u have to be sdtrongar, Gary. Sdtrong enough to see zee vurld as vhat eet is... zee vill to powar.

Your preferences and opinions are all that matter. Only this pleases Shtirner.

please note the german accent is for effect.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:47 pm Also, your redundant personal judgements of me which has nothing to do with what I think and which you couldn't possibly know about, only show what a loathsome disgusting little smut speculator you turned out to be.

Why I … now hold on a sec … wtf?!? … I … THIS MAKES ME REALLY ANGRY!!

I … I … I am planning TERRIBLE RETRIBUTIONS. What they are … what they’ll be I know not yet! Ooooooh I am so mad!!!!

(Wait, smut speculator?!? Seriously!?! Schmutzspekulant??? Now this is really getting serious! Du kriegst gleich was auf's Maul! This … this … IS AN OUTRAGE!]

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:50 pm "That's like saying a father who raped and killed his daughter wasn't evil"

it wuzzint 'evil' tho. it sucked for the daughter, anyone who might miss her, and the father if he got busted, but none of this is 'evil'. just forms of suffering.

and u can be a relativist...  or rather u can have groups of relativists agree on a preference - that fathers raping and killing daughters sucks and shouldn't happen - and decide, collectively, not to allow it. and they have the power to do that... just as pops had the power to rape and kill homegirl.

all your confusion (and IC's) is comin out of this conceptually unworkable idea of 'evil'. u have to be sdtrongar, Gary. Sdtrong enough to see zee vurld as vhat eet is... zee vill to powar.

Your preferences and opinions are all that matter. Only this pleases Shtirner.

Note: German accent for effect.