Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

[iSok]

Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.
Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

[LegendarySandwich]

Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

Generally, yes; but we can also be very charitable and selfless at times.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.

So, anytime we do something for others, it's so selfish reasons? Not buying it. That's surely the case some of the time, but not all the time.

Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

What if you buy food, so you can feed yourself and your family?

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.

It sure seems like he doesn't want us to use it in most religions.

Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.

I don't know; other animals seem to be pretty darn close to us concerning intelligence.

Do we all agree on this?

Not really.

[Tank]

Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.
Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

Failed at the underlined, God is a myth.
Also you have never owned a dog or you could never possibly have written what you wrote about the puppy.

[iSok]

Failed at the underlined, God is a myth.
Also you have never owned a dog or you could never possibly have written what you wrote about the puppy.

I said, in the case of God.
I'd rather be cripple, then to lose my intellect.
Our intellect is the most important thing we have.
Wether you believe in God or not.


I do have a parrot, but I did save a cute puppy a couple of years ago.
Nonetheles.

Every philosopher agrees that man is egocentric, selfish.

Why are you doing charity?
Because it makes you feel good.
You settle your conscience, if I take away your conscience, something that is within you, you will no longer give.
So ultimately, everything you do, you do it settle your your conscience. You give charity, you take care for someone else, because in the end
your conscience will tell you 'good job!', it'll make you happy.

For example if we kill someone, we are troubled by it. Our conscience is troubling us.

Conscience: In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms. (wiki)

Charity is the concept of giving just to feel good. So we do it for ourselves.
We are egocentric in every aspect. But I see two levels of egocentric behaviour.

Concept of giving (charity for example).
Concept of taking (materialism for example).

Do we agree?

If not.

Q: Why did you save the puppy?
A: Because he's cute and was looking sad.
Q: So why did you not leave him alone and walked on?
A: Because I would feel bad if I left him.

Conclusion: You saved the puppy because your conscience would trouble you.

[Tank]

iSok

Your world view is your world view. It won't be mine unless you can quit the head games and talk to me in the language of science and reality not mysticism and superstition.

When ALL theists believe in one God I'll start considering the arguments. Until then I'm frankly not interested in what you have to say. I've read it all before.

Regards
Chris

[Davin]

Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

People consider themselves separate from other things. However there are many people who consider themselves part of everything, so for a hasty generalization, sure. But not enough to make an absolute point off of it.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.

I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

[iSok]

iSok

Your world view is your world view. It won't be mine unless you can quit the head games and talk to me in the language of science and reality not mysticism and superstition.

When ALL theists believe in one God I'll start considering the arguments. Until then I'm frankly not interested in what you have to say. I've read it all before.

Regards
Chris

I would expect more from  a curious atheist.

I have not even started, basically I'm starting with a few points that are critical for my argument.
I just want to make these points clear before I present my argument, to make my claim understandable.
You'll see that it's not superstition or mysticism, but actually very rational.

This argument counts in every case, wether you are an poly/mony/apa/a/pan-theist, it will make sense.
Bear with me.

People consider themselves separate from other things. However there are many people who consider themselves part of everything, so for a hasty generalization, sure. But not enough to make an absolute point off of it.

Not many things are absolute, but sometimes we need it to explain certain phenomenon.

I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

And why did you save the puppy Davin?

- Because I cared for them.

Where does this concept of 'care' come from?

- From my conscience

How is your conscience formed?

- By an unknown combination of Nature and Nurture (starting at the age of 3).

So what would happen if you did not save them?

- I would trangress my upbringing, the morals laws that I have, it would make me sad.

So you were doing it, just to ease your conscience?

- Yes, I was doing it for myself.

or am I wrong? Did you have other motives?

Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

It's taking. You can get money to sustain yourself by different methods.
You can rob a bank, you can rob a store, you can steal from your neighbour, or you can work for it.

Now that you have money, a part of your possesion.
What are you going to do?

Give or Take.
You can give, by donating to charity to feel more happy. The money you give, will represent the time you had to work for the money. Eventually you give the time you've worked to earn the sum of money.
You can take, by buying a new flatscreen. The time you've worked for money will be taken by you, to make yourself more happy.

No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

Okay, delete God and fill in 'Nature'. (On a side note: I don't see why God and evolution can't be co-exist, I see it as absolutely critical for God, I don't see an argument for atheism in evolution)

If I ask you, what is the most importang thing that you treasure?
You'll answer most likely, that it's your reason.


Nonetheless the question you people ask here is:
"Why did God have to make evil?"

As it says, in the case of God.
I will give an argument why 'evil' has to exist in the case of God and also in the case of no God.

[iSok]

Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.


1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.


Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

[Tank]

None whatsoever. I'd much rather you were posting here than somewhere that might actually be paying attention to you. Feel free to waffle on if it pleases you  

[iSok]

None whatsoever. I'd much rather you were posting here than somewhere that might actually be paying attention to you. Feel free to waffle on if it pleases you  

Did I say something wrong, that I deserve this personal attack?
If you have any objection towards my claims, then enlighten me.

[fester30]

Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.


1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.


Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

I don't agree that the egocentricity of man is so absolute.  There are many animal species that do things for others that don't seem to have an egocentric motive.  A dolphin saves a human from drowning.  To get food or positive emotional stimulation?  Or is it just because a life needed saving?  I've thrown money into a hat of a homeless man before without even thinking about it.  I didn't receive emotions from doing so, nor was that my intention.  I was just hoping the dude would be able to have a meal.  You say that doing work and receiving money for it is taking.  That's providing one service in exchange for another... NOT taking.  It's either mutual giving or mutual taking or both, but not exclusively taking.  I was just throwing money in.  Nor do I agree that life is about developing, but that developing is just part of life.  However, I'll humor you for now.  Is there a point in our near future?

[Whitney]

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

You do realize that you said the purpose of life being to be happy is not objective yet went on to say the purpose is to develop because developing makes us happy.  Sounds like you think the ultimate purpose is to be happy too.  Of course each individual takes a different route to try to achieve happiness.  Not everyone is able to nor cares about development though...some are happy sitting on their butts watching tv all day eating junk until their belly pops.

[iSok]

I don't agree that the egocentricity of man is so absolute.  There are many animal species that do things for others that don't seem to have an egocentric motive.  A dolphin saves a human from drowning.  To get food or positive emotional stimulation?  Or is it just because a life needed saving?

Sure, it's not absolute, as I said before: we need to view it as an absolute to understand it a bit.
There are of course examples that do not fit within this model.
But it certainly explains a lot, on how man thinks and acts.

The Dolphin could have saved the human being out of instinct. The instinct that he has to protect his family, could now
be used to save a human being.

I've thrown money into a hat of a homeless man before without even thinking about it.  I didn't receive emotions from doing so, nor was that my intention.  I was just hoping the dude would be able to have a meal.

If you do it a lot, you won't think about it any longer.
There are a lot of things which we don't think about but merely do, it's because we often did it and now it has become casual, like brushing your teeth.
The reason that you hope, comes from conscience.

If you'd grown up in a different environment, you wouldn't do that any longer.
So somehow this signal comes from you and if you do not accept the signal, you'll be troubled by yourself.
Egocentricity doesn't mean that we're bad..It only explains how we do things and why we do it.

You say that doing work and receiving money for it is taking.  That's providing one service in exchange for another... NOT taking.  It's either mutual giving or mutual taking or both, but not exclusively taking.  I was just throwing money in.  

I understand that in order to make money you've to work.
But once you own the money, the choice is their. Give or take?

You do realize that you said the purpose of life being to be happy is not objective yet went on to say the purpose is to develop because developing makes us happy.  Sounds like you think the ultimate purpose is to be happy too.  Of course each individual takes a different route to try to achieve happiness.  Not everyone is able to nor cares about development though...some are happy sitting on their butts watching tv all day eating junk until their belly pops.

With 'objective claim' I meant, that  'enjoying life' might be the purpose for many of us.
But where lies the happiness of life, the source of 'enjoyment'?
I think in a few keywords: Experience, curiousity, overcoming obstacles  are some of our sources for example.
Development sums these sources in my opinion pretty much up.

As for the couch potatoes, they might watch television, they experience something new and out of that they get happiness.
They do develop, in a way that many of us would not like, nonetheless they do develop.

Why do we want children for example?
Because we want to experience the love that we will have for them, to see them walking around, to experience their innocence.

[Davin]

I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

And why did you save the puppy Davin?

- Because I cared for them.

I did not care for them at the time I adopted them.

Where does this concept of 'care' come from?

- From my conscience

Don't know, I however would not assume that I have a conscience.

How is your conscience formed?

- By an unknown combination of Nature and Nurture (starting at the age of 3).

So what would happen if you did not save them?

- I would trangress my upbringing, the morals laws that I have, it would make me sad.

It would not make me sad just as not saving the other millions of animals that need saving doesn't make me sad.

So you were doing it, just to ease your conscience?

- Yes, I was doing it for myself.

There is no easing of my conscience, because it does not require easing.

or am I wrong? Did you have other motives?

Yes, you were wrong. Do not put words into other peoples mouths, you asked the questions, I answered them. Just because you work a certain way does not mean everyone works like you. Remove this assumption that you can understand someone else by looking inward.

Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

It's taking. You can get money to sustain yourself by different methods.

Yes you can. You can also get the things by other methods.

You can rob a bank, you can rob a store, you can steal from your neighbour, or you can work for it.

Robbing a bank and/or your neighbor is still work, as well as being rewarded for ones risk (unless they get caught, then they are punished for taking the risk).

Now that you have money, a part of your possesion.
What are you going to do?

Trade the money for stuff.

Give or Take.
You can give, by donating to charity to feel more happy. The money you give, will represent the time you had to work for the money. Eventually you give the time you've worked to earn the sum of money.
You can take, by buying a new flatscreen. The time you've worked for money will be taken by you, to make yourself more happy.

Trading.
Do you just go in and pick up the TV? No, you give them something for the TV.
What is that thing you give them in order to take the TV? Money.

You are not just taking a TV, you are trading money for the TV. How you acquired that money is a different topic and doesn't change the fact that you're trading money for a TV.

No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

Okay, delete God and fill in 'Nature'. (On a side note: I don't see why God and evolution can't be co-exist, I see it as absolutely critical for God, I don't see an argument for atheism in evolution)

God and evolution can co-exist. The point was that there is no reason to posite a god, while there are many reasons to posite scientific theories.

If I ask you, what is the most importang thing that you treasure?
You'll answer most likely, that it's your reason.

Right now I'll answer nothing. Nothing comes to mind that I treasure.

Nonetheless the question you people ask here is:
"Why did God have to make evil?"

He did not, if the god was all powerful, then by that definition; the god doesn't have to do anything.

As it says, in the case of God.
I will give an argument why 'evil' has to exist in the case of God and also in the case of no God.

Just make your case already, but please look it up to see if it hasn't already been disputed several times before.

Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.

You should just propose your thing, people not telling you they object to your claims does not solidify your claims.

1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

I disagree. For the reasons I stated earlier: buying things is trading for those things, almost everyone is trading their time and work.

1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Giving doesn't make me feel good. Hardly anything makes me feel good, but that doesn't mean that I only do the things that make me feel good.

Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.

I do not understand this, I've never been troubled by a conscience. Please describe this.

Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

Age. So life is about getting older.

I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

Even when many elderly lose their developed mind?

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

This doesn't make "enjoying life" a subjective claim and "enjoying life" may very well be objective. The means by which one enjoys life may be subjective, but gaining enjoyment from life seems to fit almost every single person. While "development" fits hardly anyone.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

Yes, still all my old ones and these new ones.

[The Magic Pudding]

Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.

I'm sure there was an objection or two, but what the fuck trundle on.