₦airaland Forum

Why so mad
you make me sad
ok, sorry. I thought you were declaring victory

it's still funny though

CrazyMan: You're fool...what do you take me for an illiterate or what?

I accepted your theories and closed my own thread with my own hands and this is what I get?

I don't blame you...your likes are the ones corrupting this section with your pride and self acclaimed wisdom...

If you had any form of self respect in you, you can't post such link...I'm done with you.

Not to worry, it's kind of good that you can't figure it out...

Not sure what you mean, but read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Snarky mr anony is being snarky. Bad anony, bad

Mr_Anony: All well and good since you have come up with "natural evil" which is evil independent on morality but solely based on physical harm.

I hope you realize that by doing this, any crimes that do not have a direct physical impact become no crimes i.e. any crimes that are morally/emotionally perceived such as dishonesty, rape, slavery, verbal abuse are not evil in this regard but then things like an animal killing another animal for food becomes evil therefore all carnivorous animals are by nature evil.

I hope you can see how absurd your attempt at redefining evil gets.

I don't think it's absurd. I don't think the universe revolves around us, I think it's more the opposite actually. And how does any of what I say void dishonesty, rape, slavery, verbal abuse (especially rape which is physically harmful, and you mention that my definition deals only with physical harm). They all cause harm (except maybe dishonesty). I never discounted intelligent life from my definition of natural evil, or are we not "lesser lifeforms". Where do I state it need be physical to qualify as natural evil? I am careful to add
"or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc"
This implies it need not be physical harm. Anyways, enjoy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil
From the link above

1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Just about every dictionary definition will have something akin to number 3. Like from my local dictionary

evil: That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

"Natural evil, or surd evil, is a term generally used in discussions of the problem of evil and theodicy that refers to states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are to be avoided and not to be promoted, and for which no agent is morally responsible. It stands in contrast to moral evil. Both natural and moral evil are a challenge to religious believers. Many atheists claim that natural evil is proof that there is no God, as an omnipotent being would not allow such evil to happen to his/her creation. However, many religious people claim that natural evil exists to maintain a balance in the universe; without these occurrences, the universe could not exist."

From you, in another thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1036223/wiegraf-here-answers#12039962

Mr_Anony: Please don't push it too far my friend.......You are equating moral evil to physical evil/calamity....That is how not to argue. It is called the equivocation fallacy.

From you, in this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/4#12024113

Mr_Anony: Lol, I hope you do realize that the evil we are discussing here is moral evil. The evil described in Isaiah on the other hand is not moral evil but physical calamity and natural disaster.

I don't know, seems to me like you know what I'm on about. You wouldn't be disingenuous now, would you?

Any crimes that do not cause direct physical pain need not necessarily be evil. Homosexuality is a crime in this country, it is not naturally evil. In fact, lots of species practice some form or the other for pleasure. Not all actions that cause physical pain are naturally evil either, like pulling out your tooth. Actions or events that cause harm (Edit, especially with apparently no accompanying mitigating good, regardless, I'd argue that the mitigating good could be achieved without evil by an omnipotent being), agency or not, are evil, naturally so.

Mr_Anony: I don't understand what you mean by "fully omnixxx". Is there a competition of deities of which the winner is the one with the most omni-characters?

All powerful, All-knowing, all-loving are how we describe the nature of God i.e. attributes of His character not some ranks God somehow attains. "Omnibenevolent" is just not how to describe God. God is all-loving and it is part of His love to sometimes allow pain and we can trust Him to do what is right.

We are discussing the problem of evil. Again, you are asserting the christian god is not omnixxx, I have no problem of that. For the problem of evil to rear it's ugly head the deity/being must be all 3 omnixxxx. (though I think omnixxx is impossible, but meh, as that's the problem of evil).

Mr_Anony: You see the problem with having to disprove omnipotence is that one has to come up with illogical scenarios. If I say that God can revert gravity so that we walk on the sky with the earth above us, it is immaginable even though it is fantasy, it an inverted sky still makes sense.
On the other hand, 1+1=5 is pure nonsense and does not make any sense (You can try describing it here if you like).



You see again the paradox you provided is not a logical one as the sentence itself is undefined and meaningless since it refers to nothing in particular. It can only best be used for comedy skit

Wiegraf: this sentence is a lie
anony: what sentence?
wiegraf: this sentence
anony:what is this sentence?
wiegraf:a lie
anony:what then is the truth?
wiegraf: this sentence is not
Audience laughs.

Since the sentence defines nothing, it is logical nonsense.

That's part of my point. You say god cannot lie. Everything he says is truth. So can god say
"This sentence is a lie"

Yes, or no?

Mr_Anony: If you noticed, I was careful not to use the phrase free-will rather I have used free choice (there's a difference) besides being able to predict an action does not make you responsible for the action. Remember you didn't program the their actions, you just happen to know the all the possible consequences of their actions.

Not so. It is not in any way an illusion. there choices are as real as their existence.

You did program their actions. Not directly, but you programmed their algorithms and set up a huge bunch of "if(x is true) do ... else do ...". You set up all the rules, defined the parameters they can follow, the odds of them following this path or that. Once you did that, you determined their actions, and you've acknowledged that by accepting the programmer already knows what they are going to do before they even act. I do not know what you mean by free-choice, but these AI do not have free will, they are following orders.

Mr_Anony: You make it sound as if i once held that God is omnibenevolent but now i am dropping it. I never held such a view. I said God is all-loving, this is different from all-benevolent.

I never did that, at least I don't think so. Again, we are discussing the problem of evil, which deals with omnixxxx. If you assert that the christian god is omnixxx, then it applies to him. If not, then he's off the hook, and we can debate other aspects of that god.

Mr_Anony: Actually, I don't see any one that looks impossible.

Look throughout this post to see why I think omnipotent is impossible.
As for omniscient, other than voiding free will, there is also the fact that one can never know if he knows everything. Like my sig says, how does god know for sure that there isn't another even more powerful god watching him?

CrazyMan: He wiegraf I started this thread as a result of our uncompleted discussion here.

https://www.nairaland.com/1034919/things-atheists-really-hate/1#12020565

So allow me answer your questions.


Now you must note that evil didn't originate from God...you may ask if God created all things, and confessed with his own mouth that they were all good, then where did evil come from? Could it be that God is evil?

Truth is God didn't create evil, therefore God isn't evil - evil started as a result of man's desire to choose sin and selfishness. God gave man a choice, and man took advantage of that choice to go contrary to God's command just to satisfy his own desire...I would liken that to selfishness and disobedience.

Therefore, if you throw away all the sin and selfishness in this world, the world would be a better place for you and I.


Atheists haven't done anything to me...or are you sensing any form of hate in my replies to you people?

You people haven't done wrong to me in anyway so I bear no grudges against you guys...like I said earlier, God gave us a freedom of choice, and its up to you to choose what to believe.


True you guys have brought up theories doubting God's existence. But that isn't enough to prove that God doesn't exist. I choose not to believe atheists when I took a proper look at their lives.

Now look at it this way...christianity is a religion, christians love and worship God. Now somebody would take the christian bible, read it from beginning to end and mark out all the passages he feels are controversial to him, spend a reasonable amount of his life researching those passages, and draw a conclusion by telling you this God you guys claim to worship doesn't exist. If indeed he doesn't exist, you wouldn't go through all that stress to prove it to us.

Because, there are people in this part of the world that worship stones, idols, snakes, etc. Why don't you atheists go and tell them that its ridiculous to worship all that? Why are you so obsessed with christianity? What is it you guys have seen in christianity that makes you spend all your life researching?

Mr Anony, your views are also welcomed in here...thanks.

I did not notice this until today actually. As the issue is being discussed elsewhere, why not go there

www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/4

Then take it from there?

As for the other bits you said it was serious that seun is an atheist (serious what? You don't say). You then ask if nairaland needs a revival. That reads to me like there is something inherently wrong with him being an atheist, and you are considering taking some action against him (not one he would consider positive) because of that. It borders on being persecution and intolerance, though I'm fairly sure it was unintentional. That's why I asked.


Edit: btw, what does the rest of your post have to do with my questions? Anyways..

I personally don't read any of the religious texts, I don't see the need to, but there's lots of other reasons they might pick up said books. For instance, they might be victims of persecution, and want to have more arguments to show why they have been unjustly punished, they are ex-christians, etc etc.

There's no difference to me between christians and pagans in that respect. Christians have just chased god to another universe in attempt to make the concept unfallsifyable, and I'm not sure they've succeded at even that.

Mr_Anony: No wahala about the quoting part. Your worldview cannot be irrelevant because your argument is rooted in it. It is very dificult to argue outside your worldview

Now I don't agree with you and here's why. If we say that morality is subjective and that moral evil is just something we create, then there isn't really anything wrong with evil. Therefore it can't really be evil since there is nothing wrong with it.
For "Normal evil" meaning something harmful, I would agree that it is true but then I'll now have to ask, what is really wrong with doing something harmful to life since we already hold that morality is merely our own construct.
You see by creating the divide between "moral evil" and "normal evil" and claiming that morality is made-up, we have only succeeded in identifying the crime but then we cannot rightfully blame the criminal because in doing that, we must then objectively define what is evil about committing the act.

as long as there is "non-omnixx", "normal evil" exists but then there would be nothing evil about it. . . .therefore both good and evil disappear leaving us with a world devoid of value where anything goes.


Here, you have misinterpreted something. We hold that God is all-powerful(omnipotent), all-knowing(omniscient), all-loving. But all-loving is not the same as omnibenevolent. Benevolence refers to a God that will work toward making things comfortable for the man i.e. a Mr Niceguy kind of God better described as a genie.
An all-loving God on the other hand is one who has unlimited love. but then love is such that it may allow and even inflict suffering on man for a greater good.


Now, the laws of logic are not the same as the laws of nature. I'll give you an example

Natural law-Gravity:
Anything that goes up must come down.
I throw a stone up,
It will fall back down

Logic
gravity says that anything that goes up must come down
If my stone can overcome gravity, it will stay up.
I equip my stone with jet engines, it is held up.

I hope I have provided a good distinction for you.



omnipotent means all powerful which is that God is able to do all things that power can do i.e. He has the power to do all things.
For instance, God cannot lie, this doesn't make Him not to be omnipotent as lying is not something you need power to do.
If you said to me, that you are so strong that you cannot fall over, and I reply by saying "but you fell head over heels in love for your wife", I am only being silly and mischievous, I am not really testing your claim.


In the scenario I presented, we are omnipotent and omniscient as far as that virtual universe is concerned. Based on all the information available to us, we can predict with accuracy what choices they are going to make even before they make them

[kinda like if someone knew every minute detail of your life and all the experiences you have had and exactly how they affected you, he would also know the exact choice you are going to make next and how it will affect you and what subsequent choices you will be making as a result and how those will in turn affect you. Notice that at no point is this observer making you to make your choices.
Now imagine that this observer also has such detailed information for every single entity in the universe, you would have a picture of what it is like to be omniscient. That is the position we hold over our virtual universe, that is what determinism refers to]

Now the omnipotent bit is where we can intervene and change things in this system as we please. As long as we have that ability, then we are omnipotent whether we decide to act with our privileges or not.

The last part - Love and Free-choice: Because we love our free characters, we cannot take away their freedom of choice from them and make them love us, because once we do that then there is no love because love cannot exist without choice. The best way to solve this was to write in an antivirus which these free characters (who are all infected files) depending on how they respond to this antivirus will determine whether they will be cleaned or deleted.

If you read the some of the parables of Jesus Christ, it mirrors this reality.

Note that we as creators of this software have not played any part in forcing these free characters succumb to our will.

As you can see, the only other way to "solve" the problem of evil would be either to remove freedom of choice entirely thereby making everyone into a robot or removing a sense of conscious morality, thereby making everyone into beasts or simply killing everyone.

As long as we have conscience and freedom to choose, we are to be held accountable for our actions. We cannot blame "determinism" for our failure to make right choices.

A man once asked Jesus a question along these lines: "Master, is it only a few people that will be saved?" Jesus' answer to them was: "You make every effort to enter".





I'm glad you liked it, I knew you would.


p/s: this analogy is not exhaustive because I haven't touched on God's justice and mercy and the nature of the 'antivirus'

Phone, phone, phone... Maybe I should wait till I get a pc for proper response. Meh, if its contorted I'll clear it up later

It seems normal evil, as I've been calling it, is called natural evil by some. I think it's more fitting, so I'll be using that term from now.

First - My stance on moral evil being subjective becomes irrelevant to my argument actually. Moral evil requires sentience, natural evil does not. This is objective, so long as there's pain to life involved, then it is naturally evil.
Intelligent life may not be around to judge it and declare it as morally evil, but it is still injurious, suffering and pain is still involved, so it still classifies as natural evil. Moral evil can be twisted in any which manner by intelligent life (slavery, nazi's,stalin's crazy), natural evil still exists regardless of opinions (rather drastically in these examples). Even my love of delicious cow pepper soup goodness is, strictly speaking, normal evil. I just toss it out of my mind and reason that they aren't sentient, they can't reflect on the situation (mayb), so why should I care. I use morality to justify it. But frankly, as long as the poor animal had a nervous system, and felt pain, or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc, it was naturally evil.

Second - the problem of evil relates to an omnibenovelant being. If the christian god is not omnibenovelant, as you claim, then the problem of evil does not apply to him. You can then argue about how all-loving, as you've described it, he is (which is one of the things you are discussing with mazaje) and etc. Note though, you've accept the christan god is not fully omnixxx.

Third: so god could make said rocket at will? He could also revert the laws of gravity if he chose to? But he cannot make 1 + 1 = 5? If so, I still think you'll run into a lot a lot of problems with omnipotency because he cannot defy logic, but I'll have a think on it.

Fourth: I'm not too clear on your definition of omnipotent, i'll use what I imply in my 3rd note as context but I cannot see how his inability to lie does not contradict omnipotency. It is like saying god equals truth. Imagine god saying:
This sentence is a lie
You see the logical paradox here. Even god cannot skirt around this, unless god defies logic, in which case we are deeply in the domain of nonsense. Problem of evil springs up again because if he could defy logic then he might as well achieved his 'greater good' without evil (either type), definitely voiding omnibenovelence and perhaps voiding all-good (all-good as you describe it). Then again he can defy logic. Then again we are now deeply in nonsense category, and should just accept anything, or everything.

Fifth: so long as you know accurately what the AI is going to do, and you created the AI, regardless of if said AI has free will or not (though by your description it does not, as the programmer can accurately predict it's actions, therefore the AI's actions can be determined, that is not free will), then the programmer is fully responsible for the AI's actions. He both programmed it and knew what it was going to do. It carried out his will.

Sixth: as above, their free choice is an illusion.

Conclusions so far (for me), you cannot overcome the problem of evil without dropping an omnixxx.
As for the christian god, I think you're willing to concede that at the very least it's not omnibenovelent.

Random: frankly all omnixxx (except plausibly omnibenovelent) look impossible, so that would void christian claims about their god, unless they redefine these terms.

Mr_Anony: Nice reply there! For the first time in a long time, I think I am now in for a proper debate.......
(I'll skip your bonus question for now though. Please permit me)

I hope you do realize that somehow we have now moved away from the problem of evil and we are well into your bonus tangent question.
Let us work through this shall we.....


I hope you are not trying to somehow say that if there were no "gods" there would be no evil. If this is what you are saying, then your whole argument breaks down because you actually believe that no God exists therefore there is no evil to even talk about in the first place. Or that religious people made up the concept of evil and now they inherit it's problem so there is really no evil and hence no morality.
If according to you, the problem of evil is tied to the existence of God, then it follows that since you don't believe in God, there is nothing wrong with evil in your worldview. If there is nothing wrong with evil then how can it be evil if there is nothing wrong with it?
You see the difficulties you fall into once you claim that the problem of evil is not universal but only religious.

As for mazaje's complaints, yes they are merited . . . .and I've linked him to a thread that may be of interest to him.

I think from this point on we move into predestination and freewill.


God is not logically absurd. He doesn't make logical absurdities however he is not limited by laws of nature, those are subject to him. I don't buy your God 1 vs god 2 distinction I'm sorry.


I disagree.
First you have to understand the nature of God. He exists in a realm of timelessness, we exist in a realm of time. Our concept of time (past, present, future) is not the same as with Go so we cannot say that God does not have freewill simply because we assume that what is future for us must be future for Him and because we are bound by time, He too must be bound by time. This is a wrong assumption.

Now if you noticed in my reply, I used the word "free-choice" instead of "freewill" and I'll explain why God's omniscience/omnipotence does not mean that God is directly doing everything that we observe God is not like the master puppeteer who is making everyone act out a play after which he'll burn a few of His toys while rewarding the other toys with some sort of toy heaven. Omniscience is more like a master chess player who is super intelligent overlooking many complex games, Judging from the player, He knows all the possible choices and all the possible consequences but this takes nothing away from the fact that it is the players themselves making their own choices.

I'll use another analogy to to convey to you the nature of God/freewill/determinism. It's one I think you'll like; please flow with me here:

Imagine we ran a "virtual universe" computer program much like ours (or the matrix) Now in our virtual universe we program some characters to have consciousness and freedom of choice. These characters by nature of being "free characters" can mess up the program. Rightfully, they should be deleted but then we've also written into the program an antivirus code of which depending on how our free characters choose to respond to the antivirus, will determine whether they will be cleansed or deleted.

Now as far as this program is concerned, we are "omnixxx" we know everything (we know the end of the universe from the beginning) but this takes nothing away from the choices these free characters are making and the consequence of those choices.

Does this make sense to you so far?

Not really, no. Using a phone, it's difficult to quote, no vex oga.

My worldview should be irrelevant, hence we try to push it aside, either via my 'bonus' sections and you trying to limit quotes. Of course it's not really possible to fully discard them.

Let's look at evil.

My view: Morality is subjective, moral evil is a construct we create. Basically what we consider morally bad. Do you agree?
Normal evil means injurious or harmful to life. Do you agree?
So long as there's non-omnnixxx life and suffering together in a given universe, normal evil exists.
The problem of evil relates to both evils. Other crucial elements are the presence of an omnixxx, whether it created the universe or not, and that of lesser lifeforms.

So long as there's life and the omnixxx allows suffering, when it could have done something about it, then one of its omnixxx must come into question. Imagine some animal lying, dying for days and in extreme pain say from spilled guts or severe burns, wailing crying etc, while the best vet in the universe, with an infinite amount of resources, looks on without a care. The vet in this case is not omnibenevolent.

Again, the problem of evil only shows up when there's a being that is all of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenovelent while suffering, or evil, exists in it's universe. The only way I can think of around this problem is to, as you've done, redefine the properties of omnixxx.

What do you mean when you say:
'God is not logically absurd. He doesn't make logical absurdities however he is not limited by laws of nature, those are subject to him..'

Are there tasks that even god cannot do? Then you have to define (or re-define) omnipotent, perhaps shifting goal posts.

In the scenario you present, we are not omniscient as we do not know the choices the AI are going to make. We only know their available options and maybe the probabilities of which choices they will make. (To me that violates omnipotent as well, but we can excuse that, for now.) So you've more or else redefined omniscient (and by extension put a dent on omnipotent imo).

Edit: grammar and some clarity. And yup, I did like the analogy, I love me some computing ty

Double post

sbm4real: Thanks for your post but you have only answered one part of my question..there are other parts to it...in response to your submission on conscience and culture, why do babies pretend,lie and come up with different vices at such tender ages? Is that part of culture too? Aren't they too young to learn our preconceived ideas? I think there's a nature in man that knows between good and evil right from birth..

What about the perfection of the body system? DNA contains detailed coded information just like a computer program..that's d work of some man or evolution? The source of life in its self..the distance between the sun and the earth is perfect, if more or less, its catastrophic..is that science too?

Once again you need to forgive my ignorance but I don't see any reason yet why I should believe there's no God that set things in order...

If you or Macdaddy can answer all my questions and point to me that there is no God, I will appreciate

My regards..

There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in this universe. The distance of the planets orbiting these stars is determined by various factors, most notably gravity. Considering these numbers there are likely to be planets in goldilocks zones, no?

What you are displaying is what I believe is called the anthrophormorphic principle. Which is a bit like wonder, and marvel at the universe's workings and how they seem to be perfectly fit for you, life etc. The truth is the reverse actually, you were tailored to meet the universe's demands via natural selection and random gene mutations. If a dog became conscious today, he'd marvel at just how perfect his tail was, just the right length for him to chase around in a circle. Or just how great his jaws are, the right grip to suck that sweet succulent bone. He would have to take some time to reflect before he realizes that his jaw was adapted to fit his environment, not the other way round, and he really doesn't need to chase his tail (except well, it's fun).

Read this if you're free, it's relevant. Bear in mind it's speculation but it deals with seemingly perfect numbers
www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html

Simple to complex occurs everywhere in nature, like weather for instance. If only complex could create complex then you end up regressing to the point where you ask what complexity designed the designer? If you assume he was complex from the get go, then why couldn't nature be complex from the get go as well? Google fractals and the game of life to see some fairly interesting examples of simple to complex.

And I personally am not interested converting you, all I ask from people is that they don't use religion as an excuse to be d1cks, it's highly annoying. Especially when it actually doesn't have the answers despite what some of its adherents believe. 'Faith' based religions especially.

Mr_Anony: You are mistaking something here which is the nature of God's creation i.e. if a potter makes a glass cup, the very nature of it being a glass cup means that it can break. You seem to be here blaming the potter not for making a glass cup but asking why he didn't make a plastic cup instead.
I hope you do realize that if God had created a man-shaped creature devoid of free choice, then it will by nature be something else other than man.

No, I have not implied any such thing. All-powerful is not the same as All-doing. Again, God did not create evil. Did He know that evil would arise? Yes He did. Did He provide a remedy? Yes He did


Lol, God is both omnipotent and good. I don't see the logic that brought you to the conclusion that because evil exists, therefore God automatically becomes evil.

Now let me help you a bit.

First I'd like you to note that the problem of evil isn't merely a "religious problem". It is a human problem.

Now God created human beings giving them free-choice knowing that by giving them free-choice, the very nature of free-choice means that man can possibly do evil. . .but then without free-choice, man cannot possibly be good either.
God is love and even though He is all-powerful, His nature does not allow Him to force His love upon us.
God's solution to the problem of evil is the sacrifice of Christ because only through Him, can man find redemption. When a man rejects that sacrifice, God will not force the man into Heaven against his will.

......He is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 2 Tim 1:9

The problem of evil is a religious one. Without god(s) there isn't a problem. You probably meant to say it isn't strictly an abrahamic one, I never said that either. But it's particularly worrisome to the abrahamic religions because of the omnixxx. You also say this then quote the bible... I confuse. We talking in biblical terms? Cause if so mazaje's complaints have merit. It was all his will, good and bad, no excuses. He created and predestined everything, even if via proxy. Though I'll take that section as being similar to my 'bonus' sections.


Ignoring any particular religion:
I think you're saying omnixxx cannot do the logically absurd. Like say, it can't make 1 + 1 = 3, is that correct?

Let's have two gods,
God - can make logical absurdities
god - cannot, he's limited by natural laws like logic and math. He is still extremely powerful, and can do just about anything except logical contradictions, like make a stone he cannot lift, etc. This god is not all powerful per say (and clearly needs our help for something). Note again, even if god is limited, he is still much more powerful than say our scientists (he's like say a star trek Q but even more powerful, geek).

You also seem to be saying freewill exists.

There's no such thing as freewill for God. God himself does not have freewill, let alone his creations. He would already know what he was going to do ahead of time, yet be unable to stop himself. Even his future thoughts would be known to him. Then again he can make nonsense turn to sense. God's only excuse for the state of this universe is some sort of troll he will reveal later, so there's no point mentioning God again.

god can exist with freewill, but only if he throws away omniscience. Else he faces the same problems God faces as with regards to his thoughts and those of his flock.

Agreed?


Bonus: assuming no omniscience.
god is responsible for his creations actions, good and evil. He shouldn't have made the cup if he knew the cup was going cause such incredible amounts of pain. Whatever the purpose it was to please him, not us. He did not have to make the cup. No one forced him. We flawed flock of his would not allow a scientist to arbitrarily kill even lab rats in some countries, regardless of the greater good. They'd have to be humane about it or face the wrath of tree hugging hippies among others. We have ethical standards.

@fellis, it's like you have a worse case of INTP than I do... Do you usually have like 20 wiki pages open at once? And you think you have S in you? If I had my way I'd never sleep, really. Oddly, I usually accomplish little still

Kay 17: Consequently, both the Devil and yahweh are gods but with different perspectives and both are almighty creators, right?

Faiths that have numerous gods without any of them being omnixxx can avoid the problem of evil. Somehow the abrahamic ones think their system is more logical. Well maybe not more logical, but superior, yet they've had to create the devil to fill in the role of antagonist (maybe like a hades, ie if hades was considered evil, not sure). However a problem arises, yahweh is omnixxx unlike zeus et al. He personally created the devil, and by extension evil. It is exactly what he wants. That's as sadistic as it gets. Like the good pharaoh , how's any of this his fault?

Mr_Anony: Small misconception here: For starters, God did not create evil. God created a good world. Evil is the damage. It is like when a potter makes cup if it breaks, you don't blame the potter for creating cracks in the cup.

For your bonus question about God hardening Pharaoh's heart, I can give you an answer but we'll fly off on a tangent so I won't. If you are willing, you can check out Romans chapter 1.

Back to the issue: If God is good, why evil?
Well, since we now know that God did not create evil, the question now is: What is God doing about it? Do you agree?

Sorry about that good sir, I was away a bit.

Let's go back to he did not create evil. If the potter knew the cup was going to break ahead of time, and he could have made an unbreakable cup just as easily, then undeniably yes he's culpable, as he did it purposely. Even a fallible potter, that didn't do a reasonably good job has to share some of the blame. It was, after all, his responsibility.

You imply he's not omniscient, and by extensions omnipotent (if omnipotent is a super set of abilities which includes omniscience). You imply he did not know he was going to create evil, or that it would be a byproduct of his actions. If he knew he was creating evil, and was omnipotent, then why did he do it if he didn't want to? (Just for giggles? Or to frustrate himself? He then turns around and keeps on breaking said cup for eternity, over and over, punishing it either for his mistakes or for doing what he told it to. Let's not forget our cup is conscious and can feel pain, but that's another issue, even if closely related).

If you accept he knew evil would arise and he chose not to do anything about it despite having the power to easily destroy said evil, then he's at the very least unconcerned, not benevolent. If his will is being done everywhere, then he's undeniably 'evil' as well as 'good'. Especially if, as you imply elsewhere, he himself confirms there's evil in his universe.


You have to drop some of these omnixxx in order for this to stick. He cannot be both omnipotent and the standard definition of 'good' alone, so long as 'evil' exists he is also evil and really shouldn't be complaining let alone dishing out judgment. Perhaps you could define the omnixxxs.

Mr_Anony: Lol, perhaps you may want to clarify for me what the problem of evil is so that i can answer you appropriately.

Going with the abrahamic religions, though the abrahamic religions aren't the only ones to propose this, god created everything in the universe including what he/it etc has claimed is evil. Said god is also purportedly omnipotent, omniscient (these are impossible, but we can leave this for another day) and omnibenovelent. How could a 'kind' god create evil?

Bonus: To make matters worse, he punishes those who he has arbitrarily and irrationally declared as evil in a particularly cruel fashion for eternity. This despite the fact that they were only following his orders. The only way this behavior could be excused were if he were not omniscient/omnipotent, or if he were 'evil'. Consider, for instance, the now infamous in secular culture 'hardening the heart' of the pharaoh. In essence, he sets up people to fail (as it's all his will) then punishes them.

Even when I watch someone playing say gta wantonly kill random AI I feel the need to stop him, talk less of real people.

Mr_Anony: Lol, we really shouldn't go into arguments we cannot find an end to.

My stance is that If the kid has the ability, no one should deny him the position. Note: I am not affirming that the kid has the ability, neither am I saying that he doesn't. All I am saying is that ability is the denominator here not age.

You on the other hand is saying that it is unlikely that the kid has the ability. Note: you are also not saying that the kid has the ability or that he doesn't have the ability. What then are we arguing about?

Unless you are ready to hold the position that merely by being 11 years old, a kid should not be given certain responsibilities irrespective of whether he has the ability or not, then we really have no bone of contention.

But what of my ego?

I'll bump older thread, re: problem of evil

www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/4#12022774

Good sir, if you will, do you see a resolution to the problem of evil?

Reyginus: He is in a better position to. If he's not been singled out,it would have been different.

I think the argument is so glaringly weak it doesn't justify a response, no offense to the op. That's why I ask. If I make a weak post, I don't expect a reply, I imagine the op would feel the same.

Mr_Anony: "ridicule" and "unlikely mature" says absolutely nothing about ability......Yeah I'll leave it at this as well.

No no no no, come back. This isn't a technical issue, it's one that requires experience with real life issues, ability to deal with people on various complicated matters. Elect an 11 year old as presido, ok lga chairman. How do you expect a pre-pubescent to legislate on issues like morality? Subjective topics? Yes. But still, odds of him being any good are astronomically low, unless the topic is one of little merit like the martian facetiously implies. Such as the best strategy to use while playing cops and robbers, ten ten, which is the most powerful power ranger? Etc, etc

And now the merry-go-round begins, ie assuming you as immature as I am

Mr_Anony: Mehn, Chelsea were resoundingly thrashed by Falcao (don't worry we'll soon buy him). I've been in mourning for my club since.....Oh well, never mind.

Back to the argument: I am glad that you do realize that you can't objectively determine the abilities of a kid until he has been tested. It doesn't matter if the kid is ridiculed. What matters is that the child has the ability and you cannot judge his ability merely by observing his picture
......That's what I have been trying to get macdaddy to understand. Unfortunately his bias blinds him to reason.

Actually if you're cool with the ridicule, you aren't giving me much to work it. Still unlikely mature enough, etc, but I'll leave it... For now

MacDaddy01: I tried reading the first link and couldnt.


But allow me to state the best rebuttal to ray comfort.


The banana fits well in the human azzhole. Does that mean that it was created for that purpose?

Mayhaps he could provide a demonstration, ie if he agrees.

The links should be working, that's odd.

Edit: it was the lenght? Wiki article is shorter



http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

I'd just like to spread the gospel of cargo cults (a group of religions, to those unfamiliar)

www.damninteresting.com/john-frum-and-the-cargo-cults/

And the much feared bananapocalypse

www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life-of-the-banana/

How relevant? It demonstrates certain interesting biological processes at work, plus there was a time creationists claimed the banana's perfect shape, feel etc were signs of a creator

www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/03/can-ray-comfort-really-prove-god/

Who are you asking, theists only?

Reyginus: Let the accused defend himself.

Does he need to? Well, if he's bored then why not?

CrazyMan: I had answers but you guys bombarded me with so many questions that I had to run for my dear life...I believe that in a one on one challenge, would fare much better.

Cheers

Please, feel free to address the problem of evil then. Don't forget you were the one who made the challenge. Also answer the other questions in my earlier post, ie, what have atheists done to you? And, are you willing to throw away all the contributions the heathen atheists have brought to your life? If yes, I'm assuming you're willing to do that just because they have different beliefs to yours, is that correct? Thanks

Reyginus: Even better

At what?

Trollface.jpg?

Mr anony, I used to think you were being dramatic when you claimed persecution, but it seems you've amassed quite a following.

Come and defend yourself

CrazyMan: Is Seun also an atheist ?

This is serious Nairaland definately needs a revival?

You still talk like that crazyman? Despite the fact that you don't have the answers?
What have atheists done to you?
Best get ready to throw out a lot of the stuff science has given you if you're going down that path.

There is no surviving text by his (alexander) contemporaries, but there are many based on those. Texts from other cultures, including asian as well. Archaeological evidence a plenty. Corroboration from many sources.

Anyways I'm no expert, I'm curious as to why jesus' resurrection is regarded as the cornerstone of christianity. I've seen it mentioned before, I don't get it. Could you tell me why?

Mr_Anony: As long as he/she knows his onions. Yes.

An 11 year old cannot know his onions as far as being a community leader is concerned. He simply cannot be experienced enough, and leadership of that sort requires experience as well as technical skill. For instance, there's no way he could have a sufficient grasp of emotions at that age, and emotions play a key part in peoples motivations/actions. He'd likely be inexperienced with dealing with folk from other cultures/backgrounds as well. Etc etc etc. Even the good ol' despots, who were sometimes revered as gods, usually weren't allowed to rule at 11. There'd be some sort of system responsible till the kid turned 16 or so.

I will admit I've said nothing objective here, but it's highly unlikely an 11 year old could have the qualities required to be a community leader. If internally you guys were happy with it then well, who are we to talk. But if you had to deal with other groups and you sent out an 11 year old to represent you you'd be ridiculed.

Then again, I see muslims make posters of some kids. Supposedly the kids are special because they memorized text (gibberish to those who don't speak arabic) along with their abcs. What's that about?

Random: wth I skipped d match thinking friendly, so meh. Wth happened to chel$ki?!