You still haven't really adressed my points to your argument, Sixx.



Incidentally, when I say evil, I am including things that have no will but are bad for us; disease, storms, natural disasters, even old age. The classical definition, the one used in the old testament, doesn't imply will at all; an evil is simply anything that is bad for us. This is the view of evil that I think makes the most sense objectively, and when viewed in this light, the question of why evil exists becomes far less daunting. It's certainly hard to conceive of a worthwhile existence that didn't involve suffering. Beings born into such a World, should it even be possible, would have little more personality than rocks.

thatz all fine and dandy....

i don't care if evil has will or not.....evil exists....the end....

it doesn't matter what type of evil it is, just matter that it exists....and so i ask you, where does evil come from?

answer that, and we shall talk more....

also.....again, you're reiterating ideas abound to aestheticism.....evils exists, itz good for us, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah......thatz fine....i'm an aestheticist, i agree with you....and i think you might be an aestheticist as well....you keep speakin' in itz behalf.....but like i said, aestheticism doesn't require God....it doesn't even require a necessary being....it only requires existence....itz the only argument that i know of where philosophers and theologians both agree that itz justified when concerning evil.....but the problem is, like i said, the Church doesn't want to use that argument, for there's no need for faith or belief in their diety.....even St. Augustine had a problem of justifying God's existence when he used his infamous "Bigger Picture" argument....

but anywho.....yeah, letz start with something simple shall we?

where does evil come from? or rather, how did it come into existence?

But it doesn't rule out God.

Evil things, as I define them, that is, bad shit humans do, first came into being at the Fall. Before the Fall, humanity lived more or less like animals with tools. We had tribes, clans, family structures, whatever, or maybe we didn't. We definitely had tools, but we primarily employed them for the purpose of hunting, gathering, and simple, non-surplus-producing agriculture. To me, the biblical Fall represents the ancient shift from being subject to God's laws, to trying to make our own. We built cities, learned science, and envisioned ourselves as so loved by God that we were kings over the Earth.

Harm existed before the Fall, and pain, and suffering and selfishness and sadness and whatnot. But it wasn't truly evil until we allowed ourselves to stray so far from Nature that we saw ourselves as immune to God's laws in this lifetime. We still believe(d) that we were subject to God's judgement post-mortem, and that God or god(s) could punish us within this life, but that it was possible to use our intellect and thumbs to circumvent it.

The short answer is that the first evil thing was humanity itself. Or whichever of our primate ancestors was first granted free will and developed morality. Not just because knowing better and doing wrong any way is the first evil thing, but because this creature would set in motion all later evil things.

I wouldn't say that evil is good for us. I think the definition of evil is that it's bad for us. It's the possibility of evil that entails free choice. If we're not able to make mistakes, there is no free will, and mistakes lead naturally to evil. It's possible that in the end, evil is good for us, but that's not a statement I'm willing to make. But evil is simply that; what is bad for us. It comes from our actions, our mistakes, and sometimes from random chance. Illness, death, disaster.

but itz still a problem with the logic....albeit a symantic argument.....but, you can't deny itz validity....

i mean, no matter how you go about, evil exists.....and you keep throwin' out the "free-will" argument.....i understand what this argument is, but do you understand why itz flawed?

I can deny it's validity, and I do. I've already explained why I think the supposed flaws in the argument are without validity... multiple times. I'm not sure that there's anywhere to go from here.

but you haven't....all you did was go around 'em.....

but look, this is a very hard debate to continue....you're right, there's not much further we can go.....i can only repeat over and over and over info concerning the Problem of Evil and how horrible of an argument the "free-will" defense is.....i mean, don't take my word for it, take the theologians word for it.....

but listen, if you're interested, i would suggest that you maybe read up on some more of this.....there is an actual philosophical text titled The Problem of Evil and i think itz fairly popular enough that you might find it at Borders....or at least be able to order it....and there's some other texts....Philosophy of Religion.....but anything that concerns the Problem of Evil is worth examining.....especially if you have any interest in philosophy and/or religion.....

Yes, I did adress the problems directly. And I didn't go around them. Please don't try to condescend to me. If you disagree with my analysis, that's fine and dandy, but I do not consider the arguments that you've raised strong, nor any stronger because some crusty old men have agreed with you. Don't try to say "ask the theologians" like there's this uananimous council that agrees with you (as if that would be an argument if there were).

Hmmm, it all breaks down to one short statement....

"Thou art God"

i wasn't trying to condescend you....

all i was merely addressing is that you keep spoutin' off "free-will" this and "free-will" that and then you're coverin' your tracks by applyin' the aesthetic argument....you're not actually justifying the "free-will defense"....you're crossin' over into another argument.....

yes, it is a very symantic type of argument....God cannot break the rules of logic, God can't create a circle with corners, can God create a rock so heavy he couldn't throw it, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah....how powerful is this all-powerful God....and yes, it is a symantic argument, but everything boils down to symantics....always has....thatz what philosophy is.....discovering the ultimate definition....so logically, God isn't all-powerful.....if humans are to blame for evil, for whatever reason, then they are the god of evil, not God.....

but all i'm sayin' is that you're not rightly justifying the argument at hand....you're mixing arguments.....and i haven't really seen you justify anything.....all i've seen you do is state humans are the cause of evil (the free-will defense), but you haven't even touched on the subject of God with this argument; because you're then sayin':

and thatz the aesthetic argument....so you're startin' with one argument and then quickly jumpin' to another argument.....the aesthetic argument doesn't support the "free-will defense"......

as for theologians and whatnot....i've heard people use this before....."don't rely on others to prove your argument".....well, psht! do you know a better way to argue philosophy?.....i mean, i take it you study philosophy? philosophers almost always rely on some other philosophy and/or philosopher in their argument.....thatz what philosophy is....this philosopher says A, which correlates to philosopher X's view.....then this philosopher says B, which correlates to philosopher Y's view.....then the rest of the philosophers either agree with the first guy or the second guy and argue and argue and argue until eventually someone comes along with something so justified, itz hard to argue....but it is always possible.....but the point is, if credited scholars and religious philosophers have yet to justify the "free-will defense," what makes you think you can? and that is, i s'pose, how i'm condenscending you.....so my apologies....

i love this argument, i truly do.....but one thing i've learned is that itz the most difficult argument to have with people.....you toss a philosopher and religious person in the same room, and try to have this argument, and you'll get nowhere.....the philosopher will say "hey, i'm right! theologians even agree i'm right....and theologians are on your side!".....the religious person will say "nope, you're wrong...and i don't care what theologians say"

all in all, itz a very difficult argument to have.....i mean, i don't mind continuing this discussion.....but i don't wanna attack each other.....let's just attack the arguments......now, here's the thing....your argument, what is it? where did you learn it? and i know so many people get pissed at me because i'm always tossin' out my schooling on the subject out there, but i'm sorry, itz all i know to do.....i spent 5 yrs studying philosophy and The Existence of Evil was one of my fortes......

but i don't mind continuing this discussion......but no personal attacks....agreed? and if you felt i attacked you personally at any time, my apologies....

First of all, I think the group-lumping of philosophers is stupid and doesn't accomplish anything. Very nearly by definition, ten different philosophers are going to have ten different opinions about ten different topics, and each views themselves as right. So to try to claim some kind of unanimous backing in this field is completely ungrounded.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they did. Philosophy is not a matter that is determined by precedent. Nor should it be. You should stand under the strength and rationale of your arguments or not at all.

What makes me think I can solve a question that no one else may have been able to answer adequately (and I'm not sure that no one else has pointed out the holes in the logic of this counter-argument, but irregardless)? The same combination of arrogance and optimism held by anyone that ever thought of a new idea. I guess I also simply don't hold the human race in as high regard as you. I long ago lost faith in the idea that there are these great titans, morally and intellectually gigantic, who were capable of squashing any quandary, undefeatable masters of logic. I don't think I'm infallible, but I would still match myself intellectually against any human that has ever lived, because every other human is also imperfect to the extreme. Simply because someone is recognized and well known as a forward-thinker doesn't mean that they can't miss the obvious or simply talk out of their ass.

What you're missing is that I don't have a single counter theory. I don't have one theory of the Universe that I can say with total confidence is what I believe. There are aspects where I'm firmly decided, but not a whole picture. I believe in multiple possibilties. It's possible that evil is a necessity for the creation of good. It's also possible that that isn't the case. In either example, evil is usually a simple product of mistakes we make as human beings. In either case, the argument that because evil exists, God must either not or must not be both all good and all powerful remains weak, for reasons that I've already stated, but which can be summarized as; being all-powerful does not need to include things that do not have truth value, nor does it need to include failure. Saying that humanity is the god of evil is like saying that humanity is the god of losing Tennis games; probably true in some abstract sense, but irrelevant. God doesn't lose Tennis games. But the possibility for games and for both winning and losing them was created by Him/Her. Yet that does not mean either that losing a Tennis game is outside of His/Her jurisdiction, nor does it mean that losing is part of the nature of God.


I really do have a hard time believing you've actually read my arguments up til now, because you repeatedly assign to me things that I have not done or said, or ignore others. I would ask you to go back and re-read what I have said as a favor.

i have read your arguments....i've read them several times....even last night, when makin' my response, i went over them a few times....and quite frankly, you were confusing the shit out of me.....and to assume that i wouldn't read your arguments kinda belittles me....

i mean, there i was arguin' fine with Guy, but you were just confusing me....and you kinda just answered why you were confusing me...

and thatz fine....i'm the same way, but when arguin' it is best to take one possibility at a time and justify it.....the way you were wording it (to me) is A + B + C = X because of C......well, what about A & B......thatz kinda where i was gettin' tripped up at......i think you knew what you were tryin' to argue, but i don't think you were gettin' your point across, or i was too ignorant/confused to understand the point....

your last post is your best yet....i finally have a better picture of what your argument is aiming to do....

first off, philosophy does work that way....i do stand under the strength and rationale of the arguments.....itz like, take for example empiricism.....itz flawed in itz logic....it will forever be flawed in itz logic....you'll never have a philosopher ever justify empricism as an eternal truth....ever

the same goes for many philosophical arguments.....including the Problem of Evil....itz an old argument that philosophers and theologians have been trin' to justify for centuries.....so itz not like itz sumtin' they haven't given a great amount of time thinkin' about....

but thatz besides the point....

so anywho.....your argument is that:

1. evil is usually a product of mistakes we makes as human beings

2. sayin' that humanity is the god of evil is like sayin' humanity is the god of losing tennis....the possibility of losing or winning a game was created by the player, but losing the game doesn't mean that itz out of the players jurisdiction and is in the nature of God....

3. in either case, the argument that because evil exists, God must either not or must not be both all good and all powerful remains weak; being all-powerful does not need to include things that do not have truth value, nor does it need to include failure.

therefore, God and evil exist simultaneously....

the problem with your first premise is that term "usually".....evil is not necessarily caused by humanity....and we've already discussed this and know this.....a deer that dies in the woods because of a forest fire created by heat lightning is a type of evil in itself.....so you have the difference between what is generally refered to as "natural evil" and "sentient evil".....both exist....

now, you're mainly concerning yourself with "sentient evil" with your second premise.....the tennis players go into the game on their own free-will, and it just so happens that whatever the outcome, it is because of their own doing......but the way this sounds, is that the outcome is not set in stone.....both players could refuse to play, thus avoiding the outcome.....but, in order to be a tennis player, one must play.....so the outcome is set in stone....how? well, you have to dive into the realm of "fate".....now, the free-will defense doesn't usually concern itself with the idea of fate for obvious reasons....but it should.....and here i go again, usin' another Philosopher's logic, but i think itz quite interesting.....Hume had a rather interesting idea concerning fate.....for most people, fate seems to be something that is set in stone to happen....you got fired....it was going to happen, it did happen, etc.....this is known as A to B fate.....however, it was Hume's theory that perhaps fate is more of B to A......that is, why did you get fired? because you didn't go to work.....the best way i can describe it is: you wake up in the mornin', and you can decide to either go to work or not go to work, and lets say you decide to go to work.....did you truly have free-will when making your decision? well, yes....however, there is still an underlying sense of fate....because you chose do X over doin' Y, you created the fate from your decision.....never, ever, could you have done Y because you didn't do Y.....can you buy that? if not, thatz alright.....but, just bare with me for a second....so, you have two tennis players who decide to play (free-will), if you win (good) you created this fate; the same goes for if you lose (evil), you created this fate......so there is a sense of fate when regarding a tennis game, because no matter what, someone must win (good), someone must lose (evil).....now, it is up to you to decide (free-will) if you're going to win or lose......you must decide your own fate.......now, i can see how this argument sounds: win (good) or lose (evil) is the fate of the outcome, and it is up to you to decide (free-will) which fate you create......and this is a pretty good argument when concerning the "free-will defense," i mean it is essentially the argument in itself, but the problem lies in the notion that there is this fate, even though you create it, but why is it there? why must someone lose, why must someone win? because these are the outcomes of the game.....okay, but why are they the outcomes? because thatz the way the game was designed, thatz how tennis players engineered the game.....so, not only are the tennis players responsible for the outcome overall, they're responsible for their own free-will and their own fate......hence, tennis players are the god of tennis.....therefore, humans are the god of their own fate and of evil.....and you say that although this may be true in an abstract sense, it's irrelevant.....but i don't see how itz irrelevant....how is anything irrelevant in the world of philosophy? every little subject must be considered in understanding the object....now, Guy Person used his epistemoligcal argument, which the best that i can understand, means that the subjects do not always need to be considered......is this what you're also saying?

also, if tennis players are responsible for the outcomes and their own fate, then doesn't humanity work in the same way? i mean, if humans are their own god of evil, are they not their own god of good? is tennis players decide whether or not to win or lose, don't humans decide whether or not to be good or evil? well, yes....thatz the "free-will defense"....but if this is the case, if humans make their decision which creates their own fate, then why even need a God? why consider God to be one or the other? how would we know? we say, "oh, well there's good in the world, something must have created it....letz call it God.....and oh, there's evil in the world, something must have created it....letz call it satan, or better yet, lets call it humanity!".....this seems rather absured and illogical....i mean, if tennis players designed the outcome of the tennis game, then surely humans designed the outcome of humanity.....or did they? if they didn't, a part of the outcome must be outside of their jurisdiction....yes? tennis players might decide the outcome, but if they didn't create the outcome entirely, then surely a part of this is outside of their jurisdiction.....

then you stated "God doesn't lose tennis games".....so, the problem here lies in the idea of fate as well.....does God create his own fate? well....no, not in the same way tennis players or humanity create their own fate....God's fate isn't B to A fate, it's A to B fate....of course God always wins.....winning is good, God is good, God must win.....so God doesn't have free-will naturally, nor can he create his own fate via free-will, but humans do......so this has to have some relevance when concerning the existance of evil.......

but, now your argument is switching over to your third premise.....being all-powerful doesn't need to include failure....well, i don't see how....of God always wins, then this does include failure, because the fate of God always winning doesn't allow God to lose.....itz biased....his fate is biased....that is itz failure.....so being all-powerful does include failure of some kind.....it includes the failure of God being able to lose, of God being evil....

Well, ok, we have a paradox. I grew up Baptist, southern Baptist but don’t worry I escaped mostly unharmed. While I was a teenager and I was trying to reconcile the very extreme views of my church with, what’s the phrase… common sense. Yes, while I was trying to apply common sense and logic to the completely illogical teachings of my small town southern church I came up with this theory. It is based on biblical ideals but don’t worry, no bible thumping will occur. This is just how I see it. I don't claim to be right but it works for me.


The problem:
God is all-powerful, sees all things, knows all things and is everywhere.
This creates the contradictions because God can no more stop being all-powerful than men all over the world could just stop looking at porn all at the same time. (I know, it’s a bad analogy but I couldn’t think of any other comparable constant of reality.) But yet, we have free will.

So how can this paradox exist in the same reality? The answer is found in the very beginnings of most holy texts. Like in the bible and many other faiths the story begins with The One, not played by Keanu Reeves but some form of mystical being that exists in a state outside of what we now know as reality. In the beginning there was God, just God and nothing else but a void, that kind of thing. Then in most stories something happens where The One creates the universe from nothing. Here in lies the key to our paradox.

In order to create a universe like the one we live in with the clockwork precision that goes down to the subatomic level operating in multiple dimensions the creation of the universe had to be done using the rules it would then follow through the course of its life cycle. So nothing was simply created as we all know the laws of physics prevent anything from truly being created from nothing or being completely destroyed but instead in this universe things can only change. Solid to gas, gas to plasma and so forth and so on. We have established that in order for the universe as we know it to have become what it is today it had to be built on a foundation of converting something into something else.

Back to The One, this entity that exists in almost all faiths with nothing in the void but itself. In order to create the universe this being must have used it’s own personal essence, the focused totality of all energy and matter in the current universe concentrated into one mass making up the ‘body’ of the one was released in a carefully organized pattern to create the universe as we know it.

In this way The One, who you can call God or Odin or whatever you would like is indeed everywhere, in everything, is all knowing and is all powerful but also because the consciousness of The One is spread through out all things in the universe we are all subject to the laws the universe was built on. No mountain moving miracles, no smiting your enemies with fireballs from your fingertips and so forth. By using the essence of The One as the foundation for the make up of the universe we get both free will and omnipresence.

Now what’s the point of this you ask… You do ask…. Please ask?
Ok! Good! I'm glad you asked!

The reason for all this is what I like to call the Breath of God. As an overview there was the Big Bang where the energy of God created the foundations of the universe then life happened, all things in the universe from the smallest quark to the most complex life forms now exist as points of perspective for The One or God. We are all points of view, a function of experience gathering. One day the universe will move into a state science calls ‘Heat Death’ where all the energy of the universe is expired and things begin to collapse. Eventually where the universe began as a big bang it will end in a big crunch where all things fall towards the center.

The Crunch will result in the return of The One with all the new experience of all forms of existence, living and non living, matter and energy, alien and human, all of it in one point of consciousness. Then, the process begins again. This is the breath, from bang to crunch we are in but a breath of The One. Next time life is getting you down or you are thinking too hard about the meaning of life just remember that you learned everything you needed to know about life in first grade.

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

speakin' in philosophical and some theological terms, we call that the "necessary being".....but, you're considerin' this being as havin' sentience...thatz highly debatable...

um....no

for, if this "God" exists then there is no such "void".....void = nothingness = non-existence.....God/necessary-being = something = existence......now, i know what you're tryin' to say, but you're mixin' your terms up......i think what you're meanin' to say is "there was only God (metaphysical entity) and a lack of the physical reality as us humans have come to understand"


anywho.....thatz purdy interesting philosophy you have there....itz been used before....especially your "clock" example....i believe that falls under the "Cosmological Argument," which is basically sayin' the universe is as complicated as a clock and needs a maker, etc. etc. etc........i know there's some problems with the logic, not sure on the specifics though, but i know one of them is basically what you seem to not concern yourself with....which is fine.....but basically, the main problem with this argument is whether or not this God/necessary-being/clock-maker is indeed sentient or "knowing" of itself and what it has created.....

Well of course he was talking of a metaphysical being without physical dimensions...doh and I understood it that his God was sentient or there wouldn't have been a 'consciousness' to creation that he stated.