The Futile Arguments Thread

[AnimatedDirt]

I don't see how you get that from the context nor how it would logically follow.

If you know what good is, then the opposite exists by default.  If, then, God exists and God is good, then by default Evil exists.  It is not literally "created" as the opposite...it just is.

Say I design a new cutting edge vehicle but in order to make it work it has to produce some horrible smog...am I not responsible for this by product?  So if god designs "good" and by good existing "evil" exists (as a byproduct) is he logically not creating both good and evil at the same time?

No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

[Event_Horizon]

Wait, if God is good, and God is all present, then how can evil be present? Hmmm.

[AnimatedDirt]

Wait, if God is good, and God is all present, then how can evil be present? Hmmm.

There is a presence of God, clearly you missed that in your literary studies of the Bible...more so now in the person of Christ...as one part of God.

[Recusant]

Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

If it did, then might we also be reasonably justified in saying that if a god is believed to be the source of good, then (where there is a lack of good [evil]) that the god, interacting with things in the world, created evil?

[LegendarySandwich]

Stevil, Whitney presented a point that on the surface seems to be correct, when taken literally.  I clarified the point in context.  I'm not here to prove God exists.  I think it's been well established that even the Atheist cannot imagine how God HIMSELF could prove He exists should subject Himself to prove it to "your" satisfaction.  (see Will and Penhold debate)  The point is simply that IF God, then Evil exists because Good is defined.  IF God, then objective morality exists.

If Good is defined, Evil is created by default...opposite to good.

And God defined good, so who's responsible for the existence of evil?

[LegendarySandwich]

No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

So, doing something good as, say, going to church is being God?

[defendor]

Um..the bible claims god created both good and evil; so how is the above not implied from what the bible says?

This is Isaiah 45:7  It says "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

But the thing I would like to note is the poetry used in this section.  This is a literary device known as 'antithetical parallelism.' This is shown in stark contrasts to show God's sovereignity over everything.  In the Hebrew, the word used for disaster (or calamity or evil in other translations), is a word for evil, but natural evil, not moral evil.  So it is claiming that God is sovereign over natural disasters. The thesis of this entire idea of this compare/contrast schema is "I am the Lord God, there is no other."  So basically, this is expounding on the power and presence of God in everything.  

I think this moral question is a little off-shooted.

 If morals are subjective, then why is God wrong in his morals?  If "good" and "evil" have no objective or absolute meaning, then the argument that an "all good God can't exist if there is evil" is again undefined and meaningless, for there is no such thing as objective "good" and objective "evil" to claim meaning to this argument.  

So if morals are subjective, is not God just as 'right' as you are?  Therefore, you can't denounce God on moral questions if he is not violating any set principles.

[LegendarySandwich]

If morals are subjective, then why is God wrong in his morals?  If "good" and "evil" have no objective or absolute meaning, then the argument that an "all good God can't exist if there is evil" is again undefined and meaningless, for there is no such thing as objective "good" and objective "evil" to claim meaning to this argument.  

So if morals are subjective, is not God just as 'right' as you are?  Therefore, you can't denounce God on moral questions if he is not violating any set principles.

Sigh.

I'm using your own moral standard to show that God is evil. Sin is bad, according to the Bible -- yet God created sin. Murdering is bad, according to the Bible -- yet God murdered countless thousands. Et al.

And even without using the Bible, God is evil to me, according to my subjective morals. That's good enough to me.

[defendor]

I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.  

Do you think you have higher authority than God?

[LegendarySandwich]

I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.

And I think that is bullshit rationalization, also known as "BSR".

Do you think you have higher authority than God?

Yes.

[Stevil]

Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

The shadow (darkness) was always there. The sun simply began to throw light onto areas around the darkness, making the darkness reduce to the size of a shadow.

[Stevil]

I answered the question of "God creating evil" in scripture.  The bible never says God has murdered, it says he has killed justly which I have also discussed the true definition of God's grace and God's justice.  

Do you think you have higher authority than God?

If we take the bible literally then it seems that the god of the bible killed a great many people, races, cultures etc. The great flood killed everyone except Noah and his wife. This is a much bigger attrocity than what Hitler did when trying to kill off all the Jewish people.
Only someone that believes god to be perfect and all loving can accept that god had good reason for killing almost everyone.
I'd also like to know if all the animals were seen to be evil and hence deserved being killed? If a human went around killing all the animals that they see, Society would lock that person up. It really does seem (from an outsider's point of view) that rules don't apply to the god of the bible. The worshippers just believe that god is always right and praise glory instead of question these actions.
This also seems contrary to the Christian stance of pro-life, anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti death penalty.
I mean, surely there was a better way to educate the people and teach them to be more civil rather than to drown them all.
The Noah's ark story is extremely gory, macabre, and seems totally irrational to me.

[Recusant]

Just as a thought experiment:  

1.  The sun is a source of light.
2.  When the sun's light shines on an object, an area of darkness (a shadow) is formed by the lack of light in the shade of the object.

Question:  Did the sun, interacting with the object, create that shadow?  

The shadow (darkness) was always there. The sun simply began to throw light onto areas around the darkness, making the darkness reduce to the size of a shadow.

Ah, but light was always there too:

...as long as the universe has had energy, it has had light in one form or another.

To be sure, Sol has only been shedding light for about 4.5 billion years, but I could easily have said "light from the stars (or light from the Milky Way, or whatever) shines on an object."  Anyway, this analogy is referring to the shadow (standing in for "evil"), which has a specific identity separate from any other darkness. This identity is created by the light from the sun.

My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

[Stevil]

My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

If the sun suddenly turned off, the earth would be pretty dark, with only very little light from the distant stars and less light from cosmic radiation. The moon of course would not shine. We would not see light reflecting off our earth, as it would be darkness, one very large shadow.
Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.
The concept of Good and Evil do not relate to light and dark. Good and Evil are concepts of religion IHMO and hence are only concptual. Evil is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionally detremental, where as Good is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionlly beneficial. However a neutral state could be an action or event that is neither Evil nor Good.
In this way We could say that an enjoyable beach picnic could come form the Good of the sun where-as a Sun burn could come from the Evil of the sun. Nightime could be seen as neutral for a beach dweller, Good for an astronomer, or Evil for a person with a sleep disorder.

[Recusant]

My real question to you Stevil is this: Are you saying that this analogy is too flawed to work in this context, or are you saying that the natural condition of the universe is evil?

If the sun suddenly turned off, the earth would be pretty dark, with only very little light from the distant stars and less light from cosmic radiation. The moon of course would not shine. We would not see light reflecting off our earth, as it would be darkness, one very large shadow.

I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

From Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary:

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

The concept of Good and Evil do not relate to light and dark. Good and Evil are concepts of religion IHMO and hence are only concptual. Evil is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionally detremental, where as Good is a simplistic label for actions or events that an observer may deem intentionlly beneficial.

Yes, "Good" and "Evil" are indeed simplistic labels.  That's why I think that "light" and "shadow" are useful in creating an analogy.  The analogy was intended to be clearly understood by somebody who uses the simplistic labels of "Good" and "Evil." Your attempt to persuade me that the analogy is not effective has so far failed.

However a neutral state could be an action or event that is neither Evil nor Good.
In this way We could say that an enjoyable beach picnic could come form the Good of the sun where-as a Sun burn could come from the Evil of the sun. Nightime could be seen as neutral for a beach dweller, Good for an astronomer, or Evil for a person with a sleep disorder.

This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."