[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]
End of objection.[/quote]
Does you statement mean that evil doesn’t exist until defined by humans? Or that evil exists regardless (even prior) of human definition, belief, opinion, or even whim? Let’s shed some light here.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]
Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?[/quote]
Their free will.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will[/quote]
I take it you’re of the “illusion of free will” camp?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]
End of objection.[/quote]
Does you statement mean that evil doesn’t exist until defined by humans? Or that evil exists regardless (even prior) of human definition, belief, opinion, or even whim? Let’s shed some light here.[/quote]
I’m saying that evil is defined by humans, but the process of defining evil doesn’t equate to doing evil. Every priest on the planet has his own definition of evil, and many disagree with one another, but that doesn’t mean they actually do evil according to their own or another priest’s belief system. Definition is not causation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]
Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?[/quote]
Their free will. [/quote]
That’s not what I asked.
Free will is the free exercise of will.
But what causes the will itself? Where does the will come from?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will[/quote]
I take it you’re of the “illusion of free will” camp?[/quote]
Not necessarily. If we are entirely created, we cannot logically have free will. Logically, free will is only possible if the part of us that makes choices has always existed.
So have our wills always existed? I doubt it, but it’s theoretically possible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]
End of objection.[/quote]
Does you statement mean that evil doesn’t exist until defined by humans? Or that evil exists regardless (even prior) of human definition, belief, opinion, or even whim? Let’s shed some light here.[/quote]
Forlife, I consider this a pivotal set of questions so I will restate.
Do evil actions exist? If yes see number 2.
Do you believe that evil comes into existence with humans defining what actions are evil (prior, just being actions)? If yes, than you must refrain from defining or adopting definitions as to what is evil, so as to not support, maintain, and be responsible for it’s (evil’s) existence. Or, your objection was bunk. If no, see number 3.
Sorry, you believe in a transcendent moral law/definition above human definition. How about them fairytales now?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m saying that evil is defined by humans, but the process of defining evil doesn’t equate to doing evil[/quote]
So long objection.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not necessarily. If we are entirely created, we cannot logically have free will.[/quote]
Uh, you realize we didn’t create ourselves through force of will, correct? Through dumb processes alone, or through dumb processes set into motion by an intelligence, we were brought into being. You either deny free will under both possibilities, or neither.
Uh…
No, it’s not. Not by a natural/materialistic explanation. Your ‘will’ is an emergent property of an organ supported by other organs. Which in turn display emergent properties of tissues, and then cells the simplest unit of life. Brain dies/doesn’t exist, no will. So no, you don’t accept free will. In which case morality too is an illusion to you. There are only actions, reactions, and risk assesments.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality. The issue is not with your god defining evil, but with your god creating the universe and everything contained within it, good and evil both.
It’s a copout to say god created everyone with free will, because it ignores that little something that causes someone to choose good vs. evil. Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. Hence, your god is ultimately responsible for the evil choices that people make. How could it logically be otherwise?[/quote]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.[/quote]
Truth doesn’t depend on what I “find better”, I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency. Any theory that posits a prime mover definitionally makes free will impossible. Think about it. What is the ultimate cause for a person’s choice to do evil? Whether it’s a bad soul, or a sickly conscience or whatever, that something was ultimately created by the hypothetical prime mover.[/quote]
How so.
I will agree that God giving his creation free will means at some point in time, some of them will chose to do evil, but the allowing of his creatures to chose to do evil doesn’t eliminate free will it validates it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]
Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.[/quote]
As I’ve pointed out, religion is full of logical inconsistencies. For example, a prime mover is logically impossible because nothing created it…the whole idea is predicated on the necessity of a creator and the created, but it logically fails to answer what created the creator.[/quote]
You are misrepresenting the cosmological argument, it looks at the causal chain of created things and states that no cause or an infinite regress(which is begging the question) are both less plausible than a first cause.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]
We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]
Answer the question.[/quote]
Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]
COME ON! Seriously… Sloth, I can confidently say that you are not this stupid.
I am not omnipotent.
Omnipotent - Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Having ultimate power and influence.
The concepts of right and wrong existed long before I did. But, they did not exist before your god, as you define him. The difference here is the most vast divide conceivable. [/quote]
Just because God is all powerful does not mean he doesn’t have limits on himself, otherwise known as characteristics. God is good, nothing that is not good is in Him. God cannot create a rock so heavy God couldn’t pick it up, it’s illogical. God cannot create evil, he created free will and knowledge, we choose knowledge over immortality.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]
Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
How does the Catholic Church not provided actual proof?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
To put it another way:
In my model, right and wrong are defined by their effect on the survival and success of the species. Because of this, I have no motivation to eliminate either as concepts.
In your model, right and wrong are not only externalities, but they have significance beyond the grave. At some level wrong = eternal damnation. So, you are most certainly could be motivated to eliminate the concept of wrong to the extent that you can. [/quote]
Sorry for entering and being late with this discussion, I have been busy studying and still am for a physics 2 test and organic chemistry.
Anyways if I chose to do something that has a positive or negative effect on the survival and success of our species why would that make me right or wrong according to your model? Wouldn’t it just state that what I did just happened to have had a positive or negative effect on the survival and success of our species. Evolution doesn’t care if it is successful or not or whether an entity does something that is wrong or not, it is just a mindless process.
I will also assert that there are many things that we as a society see as good and evil, or for you right and wrong that totally flies in the face for what is good for the survival and success of our species.[/quote]
Insightful criticism and questions.
I think that this deserves more explanation. Ultimately, I view the terms “right” and “wrong” as purely cognitive judgements. I think that the framework with which we have assigned relative values comes from what are inherited genetic tools. Does this make sense?
Basically, I’m saying that right and wrong only exist inasmuch as we define them. There are certainly more successful and less successful strategies and behaviors in terms of evolution, but natural selection is the judge here.
This may actually place me somewhere in the camp of descriptive moral relativism. As I have stated from the outset, I am very eager to find a camp!
To the assertion in your last sentence: Yes. We fuck up some times.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]
End of objection.[/quote]
Does you statement mean that evil doesn’t exist until defined by humans? Or that evil exists regardless (even prior) of human definition, belief, opinion, or even whim? Let’s shed some light here.[/quote]
Forlife, I consider this a pivotal set of questions so I will restate.
Yes. Evil actions are actions that contradict a person’s moral code. Not everyone agrees on what is evil and what is not, but that definition is different from the act itself.
The act of defining morality is necessary but insufficient to the act of violating morality. Calling something good doesn’t nullify the damage caused by the act. I could refuse to label anything evil, but that wouldn’t eradicate the negative consequences of the act. The definition is a helpful tool in producing desired consequences, but it doesn’t actually produce those consequences in and of itself.
Fairy tales posit the existence of something in the universe, whether natural or supernatural, without providing evidence for the claim. Values are not fairy tales, but the hypothetical existence of a supernatural being is.
[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
to my fellow atheists :
i’m starting to think you do not understand the meanings of the words “choice”.
or maybe you love bad sophistry.
there is nothing inconsistent in Christian Theology, as long as you accept their definition of Free Will.
and if you don’t, you are not arguing their position internally but externally, and you should stop pretending.
[/quote]
Am I missing something in this:
"I’ll help you out, because I do know a bit about christian theology: the reason why your god is not responsible for evil is exactly because he is omnipotent. This grants him the power to absolve himself of responsibility.
This in itself is such a clusterfuck of logical fallacy that we could spend the next ten pages of this thread arguing about it. What it will come down to, though, is that the power of your god falls outside of the realms of logic and reason. And, here we will have reduced the argument to its end. "
[quote]forlife wrote:
Fairy tales posit the existence of something in the universe, whether natural or supernatural, without providing evidence for the claim. Values are not fairy tales, but the hypothetical existence of a supernatural being is.
[/quote]
Show me these values in the universe. If you say ‘feelings’ or ‘opinion,’ well, you’ll have stalemated yourself with the religious.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]
We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]
Answer the question.[/quote]
Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]
COME ON! Seriously… Sloth, I can confidently say that you are not this stupid.
I am not omnipotent.
Omnipotent - Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Having ultimate power and influence.
The concepts of right and wrong existed long before I did. But, they did not exist before your god, as you define him. The difference here is the most vast divide conceivable. [/quote]
Just because God is all powerful does not mean he doesn’t have limits on himself, otherwise known as characteristics. God is good, nothing that is not good is in Him. God cannot create a rock so heavy God couldn’t pick it up, it’s illogical. God cannot create evil, he created free will and knowledge, we choose knowledge over immortality.[/quote]
Right… honestly, I was just trying to point out the illogicality of god as the prime mover.
I think it is safe to say that much of christian theology falls outside of the bounds of logic. That’s fine. I really do not begrudge anyone for believing on something that is not logical. My mind doesn’t work that way, though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Fairy tales posit the existence of something in the universe, whether natural or supernatural, without providing evidence for the claim. Values are not fairy tales, but the hypothetical existence of a supernatural being is.
[/quote]
Show me these values in the universe. If you say ‘feelings’ or ‘opinion,’ well, you’ll have stalemated yourself with the religious.[/quote]
And, this is the point.
Again and again… we come to the point where many of the core assumptions of christian theology can not conform with logic.
Perhaps, you can understand the supreme level of frustration that I experience when a theory that I present which is soundly logical is assailed as illogical, based on it not conforming with one or two of these core assumptions… which can not conform to logic. It’s really mind-numbing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality. The issue is not with your god defining evil, but with your god creating the universe and everything contained within it, good and evil both.
It’s a copout to say god created everyone with free will, because it ignores that little something that causes someone to choose good vs. evil. Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. Hence, your god is ultimately responsible for the evil choices that people make. How could it logically be otherwise?[/quote]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.[/quote]
Truth doesn’t depend on what I “find better”, I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency. Any theory that posits a prime mover definitionally makes free will impossible. Think about it. What is the ultimate cause for a person’s choice to do evil? Whether it’s a bad soul, or a sickly conscience or whatever, that something was ultimately created by the hypothetical prime mover.[/quote]
Are you saying something that is omnipotent can’t make freewill? If God can make sons of Abraham from rocks, he can make free will.