Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here? — Matt E

:sweat:

Welcome to the forum, Matt.

First, that post was not addressed to you, was it. It was addressed to god must be atheist. He had, in another thread, just make the following remarks to me (entirely unprovoked):

but this time you are fucking your own self. — god must be atheist

You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails. — god must be atheist

Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board. — god must be atheist

In this context, you can see how my robust question was entirely in keeping with the tone that he had already set.

Second, focus on the argument, not the arguer. Note in that post I helpfully explained how God must be an atheist's 'argument' is just a list of random claims and then provided some useful examples of valid argument forms.

Third, how the bloody hell is it an argument?

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good" — SpaceDweller

I am afraid I can't accept your definition.

There are things in the world which are neither good nor bad. They are neutral.

Since your proposition depended on the aforementioned definition, I can't accept the proposition either.

Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here? — Matt E

I'm forceful, but Bartricks is screamingly and obviously:
- rude
- illogical
- spews nonsense
- argumentative
- and in my opinion should have been ousted from this forum a long time ago.

His best quality is the choice of words with which he berates others. Other than that, please do ignore his opinions; they are of no consequence.

Please don't feel pressured to accept my opinion about Bartricks. Look at what he wrote about me. Draw your conclusions.

One word of advice: if you angage him in an argument, it will go on forever, and will only end because of an escalation of mutual anger, due to tempers rising. Adhering to the expression "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL" is the best and most useful way of dealing with him.

But first and foremost, please dont' feel discouraged by his remarks.

He is not singling you out. Please feel free to see his remakrs / posts in all discussions, and immediately you will see an underlying motive there. Click on his username, until you see his profile, and then read his remarks.

It's that easy.

A google search for "displestitude" reveals your usage as the only combination of those letters to exist on the internet. — introbert

Brilliant, my dear Watson.

You're correct. I did create that word, as well as "evility". I don't have a problem with that; ultimately, all words in the English langauge were created. "In the beginning there was the Word", and that was all. Other words came along by creation by man. (By men and women.)

If word creation had ever been a problem, we'd still not have a language.

Some words do get created and then discarded by lack of use. I won't take offence if that happens to "evility" and to "displestitude".

I am afraid I can't accept your definition.

There are things in the world which are neither good nor bad. They are neutral. — god must be atheist

How is that an argument?

Because there are more or less good or more or less bad things doesn't make bad = ~good false.
ex. darkness is absence of light is false because dawn exists which is false.

related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

I'm forceful, — god must be atheist

No matey, you're just rude:

but this time you are fucking your own self.
— god must be atheist

You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails.
— god must be atheist

Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board.
— god must be atheist — Bartricks

Those were opening comments of yours.

This:

How the bloody hell does that even begin to be an argument? — Bartricks

is forceful.

- illogical
- spews nonsense — god must be atheist

I am not illogical. Your OP does not contain an argument. I don't think you know what one is. That's why everything I say sounds weird to you. You can't see, for instance, that this is an argument:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore q

Which is understandable given that you think this is an argument:

1. P
2. Elephant
3. Therefore a cake.

Now, I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say in the OP. Not a clue. Are you trying to raise the problem of evil?

Most of the people on this forum are not so cantankerous as Bartricks, and in general if you post a decent opening post you will get a critical, but not rude, response. Tempers sometimes boil over, but excessive flaming is discouraged, and continual flaming is grounds for being banned. Unfortunately, Bartricks actually does post some good, if misguided arguments, and generally stays substantive, even if he is acrimonious at times.

edit: it helps to have a thick skin, however, because disagreements over certain things have a tendency to be inflammatory, such as discussions around politics. And the standard for academic criticism kind of goes out the window when you spew dogma, like nos4atu, who people have speculated to be mentally ill/stupid/etc. for his unwavering Trump support.

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good[ness]" — SpaceDweller

SpaceDweller, please don't glide over the following; it is of utmost importance that you read, and understand the following.

Is there goodness in a neutral state?

There are only two scenarios: yes, there is, and the other is, no, there isn't.

If there is, then it's not neutral, since evilness can't balance it out; evilness is lack of good, and the premise states that there is goodness in neutral. If there is goodness in neutral, then the state is not neutral, since it's good.

If, however, neutral state does not contain goodness, then it's not evil; and yet it lacks goodness.

Therefore "lack of goodness is evil" is not an acceptable definitioin, since neutrality lacks goodness, and yet it's not evil.

You have a point, but isn't your reasoning based upon that "neutral" is a state which could be put into same category as good and evil?

is neutral of same "type" so to speak, as good and evil?

Can you give a real world example of neutral which would imply something that excludes both good and evil?

Can you give a real world example of neutral which would imply something that excludes both good and evil? — SpaceDweller

Examples:
I bought a quart / a litre of milk today.

You must always check the blind spot before changing lanes.

Don't worry; be happy.

When we talked about good and evil here, we use the terms in religious senses.

I bought a quart / a litre of milk today. — god must be atheist

good for you.

You must always check the blind spot before changing lanes.

Don't worry; be happy. — god must be atheist

good advices.

my argument is that something is either good or evil, in shades ofc. not absolute good or absolute evil. but no such thing as complete absence of both good and evil.

When we talked about good and evil here, we use the terms in religious senses. — god must be atheist

in religious sense "neutral" doesn't really exist.
in Christianity for ex. it's called "indifference" which is slightly evil, for ex. seeing an injured person on the street and not helping, you're indifferent (or neutral) by not helping but that's slightly evil, in religious or moral sense.

in religious sense "neutral" doesn't really exist. — SpaceDweller

What do you call it when you buy a loaf of bread or you look out the window in religious terms?

I always thought, because I have been told, that an act is good in Christianity when it pleases god; our act pleases god when we act according to his will, expressed in the scriptures as required behaviour. On the contrary, an acti is evil, when it goes against god's will, which is a plan for us which we ought to follow.

Did god plan for us to idly look out the window, or to buy a loaf of bread?

If god planned for us to look out the window, and we don't, are we evil? Or are we evil when we can bind up a broken man and yet we don't?

I don't think anyone has confessed at the confession box that they looked out the window. They confess sins, which are well defined in the ten commandments.

Is it evil, and therefore a sin, that you buy a loaf of bread at three o'clock when god had planned for you to purchase it at seven o'clock?

no such thing as complete absence of both good and evil. — SpaceDweller

I accept of course that that is your view, but you have to prove it in case you want me to accept it, and therefore to accept your definition of evil, which you said is a lack of good.

Tell that to Heidegger... — Tom Storm

if you guys are too chicken to tell him, I'll do it.

What's his phone number?

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable. — SpaceDweller

You're right, if you accept that definition. And you obviously do.

You must have a neat explanation how Satan had come into existence without being created. If you like, please write it down here. If you don't, then obviously your definition is false (since evility exists, in the created form of Satan.)

How do you define good, or goodness, in religious terms, SpaceDweller? This would be helpful in knowing how evil is created. If you accept my definition, then not following god's will is NOT always evil. Sinning is; but there are myriads of ways of not following god's will without committing a sin at the same time.

That's A. B. is that lack of goodness is evil as you say; but evil does encompass a quality of causing harm. Harm to the self, to another self, or to god. Why do we call non-harmful behaviour evil? It is your categorical claim, that no other human wants to accept. However, it follows from your definition. Would your definition be incorrect?

C is this dilemma: how do you take goodness out of an act, which has had it? If it never has, if no ill will or harmful things have ever been done, then goodness was taken out. Humans took goodness out? Humans only do what they do. They don't go to an act and take out goodness out of it. How does an act become void of goodness?

I know I answered this based on my own beliefs,, but I don't know what your beliefs are, SpaceDweller. You must have the clear idea how goodness gets taken away from an otherwise good deed for it to become an evil deed.

There is a third problem. If evility is a lack of goodness, then there is no gradation of goodness. Everything that has no goodness is evil. You can't say "this nothing has more something missing than that nothing." If goodness is missing, then how much of it is missing? That is a silly question. Therefore all evil deeds are equal in magnitude of evility. yet you insist that they are graded for magnitude.

What do you call it when you buy a loaf of bread or you look out the window in religious terms? — god must be atheist

This doesn't make sense, you're missing a context, it depends a lot on purpose, for what purpose does one look out of a window or buy bread?

I think genesis 1:3-4 is one good example:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good

So using your logic one could say "light" is neutral, but it's not, at least not in this context.

Did god plan for us to idly look out the window, or to buy a loaf of bread? — god must be atheist

it is certainly god's plan to for us to live life, that's good, looking out a window is living life but it depends on context.
perhaps the window is from your house which you earned with your own hands so you enjoy your hard work, it's god's plan that you work and earn for house and now enjoy your hard work, that's good not evil.

You must have a neat explanation how Satan had come into existence without being created. — god must be atheist

we all know satan was created by god with free will. and it choose to defy god.
but you're trying to prove that god created evil being which is not true.

How do you define good, or goodness, in religious terms, SpaceDweller? This would be helpful in knowing how evil is created. — god must be atheist

I don't have a definition but I would certainly not limit good to morally right since the bible ie. mentions good things which don't necessarily deal with morality.

I know I answered this based on my own beliefs,, but I don't know what your beliefs are, SpaceDweller. You must have the clear idea how goodness gets taken away from an otherwise good deed for it to become an evil deed. — god must be atheist

I'm no longer religious even though it difficult to get rid of old values.
and I don't think good deeds can become evil by simply taking good out of them, deeds are either good or not.

There is a third problem. If evility is a lack of goodness, then there is no gradation of goodness. Everything that has no goodness is evil. You can't say "this nothing has more something missing than that nothing." If goodness is missing, then how much of it is missing? That is a silly question. Therefore all evil deeds are equal in magnitude of evility. yet you insist that they are graded for magnitude. — god must be atheist

but we know that not all good deeds or things are not equally good and same is true for evil things.
evil lacks all shades of good and consist of one shade of evil.
problem with your reasoning I think is that you compare good and evil with 0 and 1, but 0 and 1 don't have shades.

but we know that not all good deeds or things are not equally good and same is true for evil things. — SpaceDweller

If you accept this, then you accept that evility is MORE than just a lack of goodness. Your definition was:

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable. — SpaceDweller

You have to choose between the two. Either you accept your own definition, or you reject your own opinion on evility.

Of course you don't have to do this for yourself, but you have to do this for the sake of your OWN argument. You can't say that something is all red and the next minute say that that thing is all green. You can't say that evility is the lack of goodness, and you can't say that there are degrees of lacking. It lacks only if it isn't there.

I showed this to you right away, and you kept insisting that your definition was okay. Now that you got caught on the horn of your own dilemma, now we are at the same spot as eons ago. How long will this go on? Quo usque tandem abutere Cataline, pacientia nostra?

I don't have a definition but I would certainly not limit good to morally right since the bible ie. mentions good things which don't necessarily deal with morality. — SpaceDweller

I think genesis 1:3-4 is one good example:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good

So using your logic one could say "light" is neutral, but it's not, at least not in this context. — SpaceDweller

these two clearly show that you haven't noticed the Aristotle-defined fallacy in argument you have in your own mind, the fallacy of equivocation. Two things, two different condepts have the same word, and the speaker treats the two concepts as one.

problem with your reasoning I think is that you compare good and evil with 0 and 1, but 0 and 1 don't have shades. — SpaceDweller

The problem is differnt. You can't see that if one has 3 goodnesses, or 6 or 93848 goodnesses, those are different. But their lack, can only be 0 or zero goodness. This is not negotiable; if something is missing, then it does not matter how much of it is missing, it is not there, period.

Therefore I may accept that goodness can be great or little, but evility can only be on value, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION. Keep in mind that I use YOUR defintion to disprove your argument, not any other definition, since you are compelled to accept your own -- otherwise you would not make it if you did not believe it, would you.

we all know satan was created by god with free will. and it choose to defy god.
but you're trying to prove that god created evil being which is not true. — SpaceDweller

Is it in the scriptures that Satan had free will, or you made that up along with the people whose values you still embrace? Please tell me the book and line number where it is explicitly stated that Satan had free will.

In my readings I encountered that the christian god gave man (humans, men and women), and man only, free will. No other creature has free will. Now all of a sudden Satan has it-- this is suspect that you only say that to prove your point, without any substantiation but hearsay which serves the skewed version of the true logic that your argument so stubbornly (but unsuccessfully) keeps on trying to defy.

If you accept this, then you accept that evility is MORE than just a lack of goodness. — god must be atheist

You have to choose between the two. Either you accept your own definition, or you reject your own opinion on evility. — god must be atheist

and you can't say that there are degrees of lacking. — god must be atheist

OK, I got it, my definition excludes degrees of evil
I'm not sure what other definition could be made.

Is it in the scriptures that Satan had free will, or you made that up along with the people whose values you still embrace? Please tell me the book and line number where it is explicitly stated that Satan had free will. — god must be atheist

in the book of Enoch trough parables for ex. a lot can be found.
what I found in the book of Enoch is that angels are able to sin, and we know to sin one needs free will.

2 Timothy 2:26 states satan has will (not god's will but his own will)

I could find better matches than this with additional research for sure, for ex:
https://www.gotquestions.org/angels-free-will.html

Thanks for the referenes on the free will of angels, I'll check it out, gimme some time, please.

Right. According to the bible, Satan has free will.)

This, however, opens up another can of worms. I claim that the ultimate responsibility for sin and evil lies with god. Not that he had created it; but he created a venue in which it was possible to create evil.

God gave (and therefore first created) free will to man and to angels; and god knew it will lead to evil doings, but he still created it. He pre-knew about evil, and that it's inevitably going to happen. He created the thing that made it possible for it to happen, nevertheless.

Therefore your argument in OP should be reformulated to:

1. Free will may lead to evil
2. God gave free will
3. God let his creation (humans and angels) do evil

Which doesn't imply that:
A) God is evil
B) God allows evil
C) God created evil

Because:
A) Giving free will is good, taking it away is evil
B) We know god doesn't allow or tolerate evil
C) Beings with free will create evil

Which doesn't make god evil character.

I agree with the first two sets of claims/assumptions. In that sense, like I said, God is the only one responsible (but not the committer) of evil.

In law, sometimes the responsible person is just as guilty as the committer. For instance, a woman may hire a hired gun to kill her husband. She is not guilty of murder, but she is just as responsible for his death as the assassin.

Your third set is false in the A part. "Free will is good, taking away free will is bad." Without free will there is no evil; therefore the lack of free will is desireable.

There is no good use of free will.

Therefore I don't agree with the A part of the third set.

The B part is even more false.God allows evil in the world. That is blindingly obvious. And he tolerates it, too. This B part is not good. God PUNISHES (according to the scriptures) evil, but he does not stand in the way of evil deeds. Where did you get that?

C is questionable. In the thrid section. For a creation, evil is a noun. But humans, the ones with free will, do not create an object of evility. Thay act in evil ways. Evil is not a physical entity. Creating it is not a creation of something physical.

Keeping true to this thread, you may say that evil is a concept, an abstraction, that humans create. True. But not by being evil, not by their free will. Evil as a concept is created to describe evil deeds. The very essence of evil is not an entity, but its descriptor is an entity.

Your third set is false in the A part. "Free will is good, taking away free will is bad." Without free will there is no evil; therefore the lack of free will is desireable. — god must be atheist

how is lack of free will desireable?
without free will we would be 100% slaves, no freedom no nothing.

God PUNISHES (according to the scriptures) evil, but he does not stand in the way of evil deeds. Where did you get that? — god must be atheist

because otherwise it would violate our free will.

how is lack of free will desireable?
without free will we would be 100% slaves, no freedom no nothing. — SpaceDweller

We would still have thoughts, and pleasure; we'd all live in harmony; no evil. Isn't that what the Christian ideal of Heaven is? Free will is responsible for Evil. Isn't your idea of a good world to live without evil?

because otherwise it would violate our free will. — SpaceDweller

Maybe. But that still does not negate the obvious, that god allows evil to happen, something you claimed falsely.

without free will we would be 100% slaves, — SpaceDweller

isn't slavery evil? But no free will, no evil. You were adamant about that.

And there is no free will in that hypothetical world. That's one of your claims. How can evil exist without evil existing?

Now you have to decide whether life without free will is evil, or evil only exists in a world where there is free will.

We would still have thoughts, and pleasure; we'd all live in harmony; no evil. Isn't that what the Christian ideal of Heaven is? Free will is responsible for Evil. Isn't your idea of a good world to live without evil? — god must be atheist

would you like to sing songs to god all day, wash feet of poor people, give your wealth to the poor, go to church and all this stuff without the right to complain and so all day and every day until your death?

I think this sucks so bad, I prefer free will and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

isn't slavery evil? But no free will, no evil. — god must be atheist

slavery is evil and god would be an evil god if it gave us no free will but instead enslaved us to do only as god wants.

would you like to sing songs to god all day, wash feet of poor people, give your wealth to the poor, go to church and all this stuff without the right to complain and so all day and every day until your death?

I think this sucks so bad, I prefer free will and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. — SpaceDweller

You have no concept of evil. Suffering. If it's suffering, it's evil. So stop complaining about the lack of free will. There are no negatives in a world that lacks free will. You can't deny that. Because all suffering is the consequence of free will.

isn't slavery evil? But no free will, no evil.
— god must be atheist
slavery is evil and god would be an evil god if it gave us no free will. — SpaceDweller

I think you are losing it. God is evil BECAUSE it gave us free will. He is the alpha and the omega; his creation of free will results directly in evil.


Because slavery is evil, and all evil things are the result of free will.

here is NO SLAVERY in a world with no free will. — god must be atheist

you would be a slave of god.

just go out ask 10 random people "would you like your free will to be taken away from you?"

but we're on right track, free will is closely related to evil and good:
https://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-give-us-free-will.html