[_ Old Earth _] Evil-lution

[Asimov]

Which definition are you using in your previous statement?

They are all interrelated.

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

[quote:9939c]
To further aid in our discussion, it's good to review the definitions of calamity and the Hebrew word underlying calamity (Strong's #7451, ra').

[quote:9939c]ca·lam·i·ty (k?-l?m'?-t?)
n., pl. -ties.
An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster: A hurricane would be a calamity for this low-lying coastal region.
Dire distress resulting from loss or tragedy.

Ok, that's interesting, because I have a definition for ra' here:

רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

So I would say that calamity is not the only usage of the word.

1. Is it possible to describe calamity as evil (definition 1, adjective), immoral, unjust, or bad? If so, upon what grounds and is this always the case?

It is possible to describe ra' (adjective form) as immoral, unjust, or bad. If you bring calamity upon another person for no apparent reason, then you are unjustly harming that individual. If you unjustly harm another individual, then you are immoral, if you are immoral...then you could say that you are bad. That's not to say that we all don't act immoraly at times, but we are human and make mistakes. God should not.

2. Is the creation of calamity evil (definition 1, adjective), immoral, unjust, or bad? If so, upon what grounds and is this always the case?

[/quote:9939c][/quote:9939c]

I think if one were to define calamity as adversity, then no, it's not a bad thing. But adversity in life is one thing, calamity causing death, or inflicting bodily harm, or mental abuse upon an individual is another.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[Asimov]

thespunk, I find that all you're really doing is trying to make distinctions where God's actions are entirely separate from moral consideration. I also find your reasoning a little circular. God's morality is based on God's morality. Now maybe that's true, but it also makes morality arbitrary. Second problem, you claimed that calamity itself is amoral, which is true. That wasn't my point, my point was that God inflicts evil, or calamity, upon other beings.

Then you state that God is just. I don't agree with that. Someone who is just would not kill or order death, or inflict calamity without first stating his or her reasons, a trial, so to speak. Since God is not apt to give his reasons, God is not just, he merely metes out punishment for whatever transgression, that punishment is usually death. A just God would allow the punishment to fit the crime, which it frequently doesn't, since death is usually the punishment for all crimes.

Third, God's immutability is impossible. If God were unchanging, he would not be able to create the universe, as there would be a point where he is not creating the universe, and then a point where he is creating the universe, and a point where is finished creating the universe. God's emotions also cannot change, for that would mean he isn't immutable.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[Asimov]

I find that all you're really doing is trying to make distinctions where God's actions are entirely separate from moral consideration.

This is slightly inaccurate. I am arguing God's actions are always moral. They can be 'considered' but will always be found to be moral.

Then let us consider a situation.

I'll give you one, and you can analyze it and tell me how it is moral. 2 Kings 2:23-24

I agree such a proposition makes morality arbitrary. Yet, I can see no other means for God's morality to be define other than by himself. I'm willing to open to ponder other options -- within a Christian ("biblical") context.

Then you agree that morality is not really an absolute, but arbitrarily placed...

If we are discussing the Christian God then we must accept the definition with includes just. If we do not accept the definition then we are no longer talking about the Christian God.

I agree that you claim he is just, that doesn't mean he is. We base the concept of just on his actions...I don't find his actions just, therefore I don't find him just.

This is taking your standard of morality, and forcing it on God. This is making man the measure of God's behavior. This is inconsistent with Christian theology. Again, as above, God is the standard of morality.

And where do we get our idea of morality?

Who is man to declare to God what is just and unjust punishment?

A silly concept, much like a dictator. And exactly my point, that God makes the rules, therefore he can do as he wants to, making morality arbitrary and subject to the whim of God.

I was defining His attributes as immutable rather than God, Himself. This refers to things like just, good, holy, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.

Your attributes define you as a person. His attributes make up a part of God, Himself. You are basically saying that God's arm is immutable, but his head isn't...an odd thing to say.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[shernren]

Asimov wrote:
Someone who is just would not kill or order death, or inflict calamity without first stating his or her reasons, a trial, so to speak.


This is taking your standard of morality, and forcing it on God. This is making man the measure of God's behavior. This is inconsistent with Christian theology. Again, as above, God is the standard of morality.

Hate to burst your bubble Asimov but there's a big difference between you and God: God knows everything. You don't. And if your pride can't stand it, guess what's standing between you and God? ... let's say I go to a gas chamber. A technician is preparing to let loose a nerve toxin that will kill the victim instantly. How do I know whether he's being fair or not? Maybe he's a Nazi killing a Jew. But maybe, he's an executionist appointed by law to kill a serial murder. The point is, since I don't know, I'm not qualified to say whether he's being fair or not. Same to God - since you can't be big enough to see His big picture, who are you to say He isn't fair?

I hate to use this analogy since it seems like personal insult, but: we who complain God isn't fair, may be like a child who whines because her parents never let her have any sweets while all the other children can have them. But, how can she understand at her young age that she's diabetic?

Anyway this thread may be based on philosophical fallacy. How do you know that evil exists as a thing-in-itself? I may argue that evil is a necessary consequence of free choice. To choose there must be alternatives, and if the choice is not arbitrary then each alternative must differ in some way. To take the differences along the moral dimension produces "good" and "evil". Eg I can choose whether or not to kill someone. To kill him may have advantages for me, but in a moral sense to kill is an inferior choice compared to "to not kill". hope you got that (I barely do; I'm not good with communicating philosophy =P)

Therefore by logical necessity when God creates choice evil also comes into existence. In a sense it "piggybacks" on choice. So I suppose God is "absolved", as it were, from the "blame" of creating evil because to create a universe as the one we inhabit now the creation of choice and therefore of evil would be, punintended, a necessary evil. And I wouldn't really respond to "could the universe have been created in another way?" because we have no evidence that could have been possible.

 

[Asimov]

It is clear, after rereading much of this discussion, that you are attacking a God which I do not believe in. And inso, we are arguing past one another. Therefore, I suggest we agree to use the definition of God I have presented, or we let this discussion end. After all, it is off-topic.

That's mighty funny. We ARE discussing the same God. I just don't think he is what you think he is. Simply because I state that I do not consider God just, or good, or moral, does not mean that you can claim that I'm talkin about a different God.

Let's say we're talking about a friend of yours, Jack. And because Jack's your friend, he treats you with respect kindness and love. But he treats everyone else like crap. Then let's say we're havin a conversation, and I mention what a jerk Jack is. You are then going to tell me that since you think Jack is a nice guy, I must be talking about a different Jack.

 

[Asimov]

Hate to burst your bubble Asimov but there's a big difference between you and God: God knows everything. You don't. And if your pride can't stand it, guess what's standing between you and God?

Oh no....I'm crushed....ruined....my pride is in shambles, and I'm a broken man....

... let's say I go to a gas chamber. A technician is preparing to let loose a nerve toxin that will kill the victim instantly. How do I know whether he's being fair or not? Maybe he's a Nazi killing a Jew. But maybe, he's an executionist appointed by law to kill a serial murder. The point is, since I don't know, I'm not qualified to say whether he's being fair or not. Same to God - since you can't be big enough to see His big picture, who are you to say He isn't fair?

Considering I don't agree with the death penalty, I would say that they aren't being fair.

I hate to use this analogy since it seems like personal insult, but: we who complain God isn't fair, may be like a child who whines because her parents never let her have any sweets while all the other children can have them. But, how can she understand at her young age that she's diabetic?

Right, well sometimes parents aren't fair to their children, because they think they know best.

Anyway this thread may be based on philosophical fallacy. How do you know that evil exists as a thing-in-itself?

It doesn't, it is an action (or inaction) itself that is evil.

I may argue that evil is a necessary consequence of free choice.

And I may argue that evil is not necessary, and I may argue whether or not we have free choice.

To choose there must be alternatives, and if the choice is not arbitrary then each alternative must differ in some way. To take the differences along the moral dimension produces "good" and "evil". Eg I can choose whether or not to kill someone. To kill him may have advantages for me, but in a moral sense to kill is an inferior choice compared to "to not kill". hope you got that (I barely do; I'm not good with communicating philosophy =P)

I always enjoy it when theists try and rationalize evil. You can have choices, without having the "evil" alternative there. There are things that God has dictated that we do not choose. Our existence, for one. Where we live, for another. What situation we are put in when we are born. Our genetic make-up, how we die, when we die, where we die. What happens to us when we die is not a choice but a matter of destiny. All these things are not of our choosing...so really...what's your point?

Therefore by logical necessity when God creates choice evil also comes into existence.

No, not by necessity.

And I wouldn't really respond to "could the universe have been created in another way?" because we have no evidence that could have been possible.

No we don't, but I assume an all-knowing, all-powerful entity would be able to.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[keebs]

The God of the Christian faith is, by definition, just.

Something cannot be just by definition. Please, explain to me how if I call something just that means it is just? Just to show you how faulty your logic is, let me define myself: I define myself to be God. Does that make me God? It certainly doesn't. You can't just define beings to have certain attributes...the world just doesn't work like that.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[keebs]

The definition of a term is the expression of the concept which the term is intended to convey.

Yes, but that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that cannot claim that the God of the Christian faith is just because of definition. What makes him just? Just defining something to be just does not make it just...I'm sure God doesn't care what you define him to be, he'll be whatever he wants.

So, you're telling me I cannot define the concepts which I wish to express?

I never said that...I said you can't define something to have a certain attribute. It has the attribute whether you define it so or not. You have to have better proof that "...by definition...," if you want to win an argument. Do you know how I know? Because I am, by definition, your mother. Now, go to your room and pray.

 

[Asimov]

[The confusion here is between definition and perspective. I am defining God. You are expressing your perspective on God. The God of the Christian faith is, by definition, just. This is not a matter of perspective as you suppose. It is a matter of definition.

The problem is that you AREN'T defining God. You are applying a secondary characteristic of God, and stating that it is a definition. Once again, you are saying that by definition, God is an arm.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[keebs]

When one formulates an argument, he/she can make any assumptions he/she so chooses.

No, they aren't. You're argument is useless unless the assumptions are true.

I then pointed out the Christian God (i.e., Christian denoting the concept of God being dealt with in the argument) is incapable of unjust, immoral, or bad acts because of His very definition.

How is he incapable of those things, though? You keep saying "by definition," however that proves nothing. The way he acts in the bible sure seems to prove that he is anything but just and moral. Do you have any other reason to assume he is just and moral than your false definition of him?

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!

 

[keebs]

False definition? You're telling me Christians do not define God as just?

It doesn't matter how Christians define God. God defines himself through his own actions, not through how his followers view him. Obviously his followers are going to say he's good, or else they wouldn't follow him.

 

[thespunk]

Disappear! Oh please disappear!