A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[Quagmire]

Do you want some cheese?

Kind of early for cheese.

 

[Koldo]

Kind of early for cheese.

It is never too early for cheese.

 

[Quagmire]

It is never too early for cheese.

After an exhaustive search on the internet I was unable to locate any examples of a rhinoceros made out of cheese.

Therefore I concede the debate.

We'll played it sir.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, if all you're interested in are hypothetical solutions. That is: an equation where the solution itself has no set value.

In this equation, or actually the three equations of the PoE, a set value is assigned to each solution:

God is either :
limited,
malebolemt,
or not-God.

The point I'm trying to make is that unless or until we establish the existence of objective evil, then we're dealing with a subjective variable, one with no such value.

Therefore claiming a set value for any of the solutions for an equation including this variable is incorrect.



I did say all circumstances and from all perspectives.

There have always been and still are people who hold perspectives that run counter to this Idea.

What you're talking about is a common moral code shared by most civilized societies, but it's hardly universal.

Vikings, Monguls, and several people in several places today would laugh at you if you suggested such a thing.



No, this is still subjective.

From the perspective of every other creature on the planet, human beings flourishing and prospering has been anything but good.




No, it's an opinion.



So you consider pleasure the ultimate good?

That sounds pretty subjective.



No but it doesn't make it objective either.



No, it means it exists subjectively. It only exists within the perception of the person experiencing it, ie.,the subject.




Not at all. The PoE is obviously an objection raised based completely on subjective human values. How could it be anything else?



And all those qualifications are going to be subjective.

Which takes us back to my original point: that it isn't reasonable to try and judge what's presumed to be an omnipotent, omnifiesent being by subjective standards.

Here: Good Luck, Bad Luck: Who Can Tell?

Point of that story being thst since we can't see the ultimate consequence of any action or circumstance, there's no way for human beings to make any determinatins about good or evil in the absolute sense. All we can do is make those determinations in accordance with our personal preferences, and is it reasonable to hold and omnipotent being responsible for those?

Let's try this:

“Is God willing to prevent things from happening that I don't like, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh things that I don't like?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Basically, to me, it sounds like Epicurious is firing God because sometimes things happen that he doesn't like.

I don't think this proves anything about God so much as it proves something about us.




Absolutely.

I cannot fathom what it must be to think like you do on the subject of this "subjectivity." It is very clear, however, that the Holocaust can only be considered a subjective annoyance, as well as the deliberate starvation of nearly 4 million Ukrainians by Stalin. Slavery, it would seem, is not objectively evil -- hell, since it does some good to the slave owner, maybe it can even be classified as a social good.

(Ought to make a Jew or Christian think twice about the flood, though: since all evil is merely subjective, surely God had no business intervening and destroying nearly everything alive that lived on land to try and get rid of it.)

I guess you must be correct -- everything that we might call "evil" we call so because it happens to us, or because we care about it happening to somebody else. Still, I have that within me that makes me truly care when others are hurting. I would despair if I had so little fellow feeling in me that I could simply pish-posh it away as "merely subjective, doesn't matter to me." That seems far too solipsistic to me.

 

[Quagmire]

I cannot fathom what it must be to think like you do on the subject of this "subjectivity."
It is very clear, however, that the Holocaust can only be considered a subjective annoyance, as well as the deliberate starvation of nearly 4 million Ukrainians by Stalin. Slavery, it would seem, is not objectively evil -- hell, since it does some good to the slave owner, maybe it can even be classified as a social good.

(Ought to make a Jew or Christian think twice about the flood, though: since all evil is merely subjective, surely God had no business intervening and destroying nearly everything alive that lived on land to try and get rid of it.)

I guess you must be correct -- everything that we might call "evil" we call so because it happens to us, or because we care about it happening to somebody else. Still, I have that within me that makes me truly care when others are hurting. I would despair if I had so little fellow feeling in me that I could simply pish-posh it away as "merely subjective, doesn't matter to me." That seems far too solipsistic to me.

So much butt-hurt.

 

[epronovost]

Sorry, I guess I missed the "within your own community" part.

Even so it's still just a man-made law, and still not universal, human sacrifice being an exception.

Human sacrifices either target non members of the community like in the case of the Aztec and/or in defense of the community against disasters and the wrath of God. To protect the community, someone will be sacrificed.

I would also point out that a universal axiom is by definition objective as in no matter how you look at it. The killing of member of your own community outside of instances of self defense and defense of others is always going to impact negatively humanity's happiness, flourishment and prosperity even if you believe it won't or disagree. All markers of happiness, flourishment and prosperity will indicate otherwise in a stark and evident manner (that's why it's universal after all).

No idea. But I don't see any reason to assume that that would be any kind of an ultimate good.

If there is an omnipotent being, and he has a plan, it could very well exclude the idea of everybody having their cake and eating it too and still amount to an ultimate good.

If there is such a plan it would be beyond our ability as finite beings to grasp, and therefore any judgments that we make would be pointless.

Incorrect. If good is defined by having your cake and eating too and ultimate good is, by necessity, everybody and everything having it's cake and eating to. That's a logical necessity.

That's like saying that everybody having their belly full all the time would imply some people being hungry and even starvation. That doesn't make any sense.

Good all the time is good things happening all the time to everything and everybody.

Why should we consider suffering evil? (Other than the fact that it hurts).

Because it's not conductive to the flourishment, happiness, continuation and prosperity of humanity. When humanity suffers, it doesn't thrive and flourish. It's a condition of suffering by its very definition.

I never said the experience of suffering isn't real. I'm just saying that just because something is difficult, or painful, or ugly, or destructive, it doesn't automatically follow that it's objectively "evil"

All it means is that it's unpleasant. For all we know all the unpleasantness in the world is all part of some huge cosmic plan that resolves itself in some sort of ultimate universal good.

I'm not saying that that's what's actually going on, I'm saying "for all we know".

And since we don't know, we can't just point to individual events or occurrences and say "it shouldn't be like that".

Ultimately we don't know what should or shouldn't be, we just know our own likes and dislikes.

You don't need to everything about what's good and bad for humans to know that some things are good and bad for humans and that while there are lots of unknown and debatable areas, there are uncontroversial, universal elements where we have actual knowledge. We don't know everything about how life on Earth evolved over time, but we certainly know that it wasn't through a magical spell casted by some magical creature. The same goes for morality. Nobody knows the perfect solution to all moral dilemma, but we do know the perfect solution to some and we certainly can see that those solutions aren't always enacted or even possible to enact due to the nature of the universe we live in. Thus, we have the "problem of evil". You can't claim that because we have a lack of knowledge in some area we are without any knowledge and thus are completely incapable of understanding our world or derive any sensible moral axiom that would meet it's objective.

And since, if there is an omnipotent being, he isnt actually a member of our human community, why would we expect our morality (which as you pointed out is a human construct, not a universal principle) to be applicable to him?

Because we are judging it. We are judging its character based on our sense of morality to see if it matches it. Is it fair? Who cares, but if you want to call God "good" (or anything else related to morality), you must judge it.

There is no objectively "bad'' stuff, that's my point. There is only subjectively unpleasant stuff.

The problem with the whole concept of evil is that it's usually used as It's mostly being used here in this thread: as a designation for something that's a deviation from the way that things "should be" .

This line of thinking assumes that we have any idea about what should or shouldn't be.

What it comes down to is we humans saying, "I don't like this. therefore it shouldn't be. therefore it is evil".

Again: in order for us to make a judgment call like that and apply it to an omnipotent being we would have to know what his intentions are, what his plans are, and what role the things that we don't like play in those plans.

You will notice that if there is an omnipotent being, making those plan known and understood by everything living is trivial in simplicity yet evidently it's not the case. Thus this lack of knowledge causing pain, suffering and psychological distress is also an example of the application of the problem of evil.

 

[blü 2]

So you're saying that since humans regard God as such and such he's answerable for/as such and such?

Either that, or [he] is not to be thought of as a moral being, a moral exemplar.

If there is an omnipotent being, I doubt that we would be able to even begin to grasp his nature or his intentions, so it seems a bit absurd that we should be making rules for Him

Then we should not attribute morality to God and we should not look to God as a source of morality and we should not expect God to act in good faith in any situation involving humans?

I can see an overwhelming amount of pragmatic evidence for those views,

But as far as I've read, they're not what the bible or theology say.

 

[Quagmire]

Human sacrifices either target non members of the community like in the case of the Aztec and/or in defense of the community against disasters and the wrath of God. To protect the community, someone will be sacrificed.

I would also point out that a universal axiom is by definition objective as in no matter how you look at it.

Again Universiality doesn't equal objectivity. It's only "objective" within the limited framework of subjective human understanding.

The killing of member of your own community outside of instances of self defense and defense of others is always going to impact negatively humanity's happiness, flourishment and prosperity even if you believe it won't or disagree. All markers of happiness, flourishment and prosperity will indicate otherwise in a stark and evident manner (that's why it's universal after all).

Explain why we should be using human happiness, flourishment, and prosperity is the yardstick when measuring "good".

None of this is an absolute or an objective value. These are all just expressions of subjective human preferences.

It all boils down to the idea that if we don't like something it shouldn't exist.

It's basically the same thing as a 5 year old deciding his parents are evil for not letting him eat ice cream for dinner: he doesn't understand their intentions, he doesn't know how the world works in the same way that we don't understand how the universe works.

All he knows is he isn't getting what he wants, therefore from his perspective things aren't as they should be.

Incorrect. If good is defined by having your cake and eating too and ultimate good is, by necessity, everybody and everything having it's cake and eating to. That's a logical necessity.

That's a very Epicurean definition of "good", everybody should have everything they want all the time with no suffering involved.

Again: without knowing whether or not there's an ultimate plan or what that plan is, we have no way of determining what should or shouldn't be. All we can make any derminations about is what we do and don't want in the short term, and I think it's ridiculous to expect the universe to line up with those expectations, or to label something "evil" when it doesn't.

That's like saying that everybody having their belly full all the time would imply some people being hungry and even starvation.

Where are you getting that from?

Good all the time is good things happening all the time to everything and everybody.

"Good" is just a subjective as evil is.

Because it's not conductive to the flourishment, happiness, continuation and prosperity of humanity. When humanity suffers, it doesn't thrive and flourish. It's a condition of suffering by its very definition.

Yes it's a condition of human suffering, not necessarily an example of "evil".

At this point I think we're just going to keep going around in circles: your definition of good is that which benefits humanity, immediately. Evil being whatever runs counter to that.

My position is that on a cosmic scale, we have no idea what's good and what's evil, or whether those terms even mean anything outside of our own opinions and preferences.

That being the case judging God is a completely pointless exercise.

You don't need to everything about what's good and bad for humans to know that some things are good and bad for humans and that while there are lots of unknown and debatable areas, there are uncontroversial, universal elements where we have actual knowledge. We don't know everything about how life on Earth evolved over time, but we certainly know that it wasn't through a magical spell casted by some magical creature. The same goes for morality. Nobody knows the perfect solution to all moral dilemma, but we do know the perfect solution to some and we certainly can see that those solutions aren't always enacted or even possible to enact due to the nature of the universe we live in. Thus, we have the "problem of evil". You can't claim that because we have a lack of knowledge in some area we are without any knowledge and thus are completely incapable of understanding our world or derive any sensible moral axiom that would meet it's objective.

I'm not claiming that because we lack knowledge in some area, etc etc,

I'm claiming that in order to fairly judge an omnificent being, we would have to have absolute knowledge of everything about the universe in its entirety and absolute understanding of that knowledge.

Obviously we don't, and since we don't, the best we can with our limited knowledge and understanding is come up with a guess.

You can't convict someone on a guess.

Because we are judging it.

I meant with any expectation of accuracy.

We are judging its character based on our sense of morality to see if it matches it. Is it fair? Who cares, but if you want to call God "good" (or anything else related to morality), you must judge it.

Judging something you don't understand, by any criteria, seems like an exercise in futility to me.

You will notice that if there is an omnipotent being, making those plan known and understood by everything living is trivial in simplicity yet evidently it's not the case. Thus this lack of knowledge causing pain, suffering and psychological distress is also an example of the application of the problem of evil.

Again, only by your definition of evil, which I've already rejected.


Look, we're just going around and around here, and I don't think that's going to get better, so I'm just going to leave you with this and then bow out:

The problem with the Problem of Evil is that It that presumes a lot, and it overlooks a lot.

For one thing, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then each and every atom and molecule that makes up the Universe belongs to Him. They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

If anything, it's damn nice of Him to let us borrow a few for a while. If He's omnipotent, He didn't have to do that. I don't see what more proof of benevolence anyone could ask for.

The fact that Life comes with suffering and the risk of suffering doesn't negate that. It might if Life were nothing but suffering, all the the time (and unfortunately, it seems to be so for some people. Or at least, you would think so to hear them talking about it) but it isn't.

Being given Life and then objecting because there's suffering involved is like having someone let you live in their house for free and then complaining about the wall paper.

Like I said: it just sounds like whining to me.

 

[Quagmire]

Either that, or [he] is not to be thought of as a moral being, a moral exemplar.
Then we should not attribute morality to God and we should not look to God as a source of morality and we should not expect God to act in good faith in any situation involving humans?

I can see an overwhelming amount of pragmatic evidence for those views,

But as far as I've read, they're not what the bible or theology say.

Why do people keep throwing the Bible at me?

Either that, or [he] is not to be thought of as a moral being, a moral exemplar.
Then we should not attribute morality to God and we should not look to God as a source of morality and we should not expect God to act in good faith in any situation involving humans?

I can see an overwhelming amount of pragmatic evidence for those views,

But as far as I've read, they're not what the bible or theology say.

I didn't write the Bible.

You'll have to take all that up with someone else.

 

[blü 2]

Why do people keep throwing the Bible at me?

I didn't write the Bible.

It can get to be a habit on a site called Religious Forums.

And what I said indeed follows from what you said.

 

[Quagmire]

It can get to be a habit on a site called Religious Forums.

And what I said indeed follows from what you said.

That's kind of vague.

 

[blü 2]

That's kind of vague.

Vagueness has its place.

 

[Quagmire]

Vagueness has its place.

And what better place than in a discussion where people are trying to understand each other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So much butt-hurt.

I was speaking from my heart, and honestly.

If you, as a staff member, think that such a dismissive reply is appropriate, I'm guessing we can all take a hint as to how we observe the rules.

 

[Quagmire]

I was speaking from my heart, and honestly.

I can't Believe it's not butt-hurt.

If you, as a staff member, think that such a dismissive reply is appropriate, I'm guessing we can all take a hint as to how we observe the rules.

Yes everybody, if anybody ever twists one of your points beyond recogntion so that they can deliver a sanctimonious, self-serving, and off topic little finger wagging, feel free to dismiss them.

Within the rules of course.

 

[epronovost]

Again Universiality doesn't equal objectivity. It's only "objective" within the limited framework of subjective human understanding.

Then you don't believe in anything being objective at all since everything is limited to the framework of human understanding making your request non-sense.

Explain why we should be using human happiness, flourishment, and prosperity is the yardstick when measuring "good".

For the same reason that having for legs supporting a sturdy flat surface is the yardstick to have a table of some sort. It's how we define "good".

None of this is an absolute or an objective value. These are all just expressions of subjective human preferences.

It all boils down to the idea that if we don't like something it shouldn't exist.

Yeah, so what? How does this address the problem of evil. That you dislike this attitude doesn't make it less true that you wish never to feel atrocious pain and despair and that those feelings aren't conductive to your flourishment or that of humanity in general and that you would consider evil or bad all the behavior that results in those feelings and sensation being more common or even existent at all.

It's basically the same thing as a 5 year old deciding his parents are evil for not letting him eat ice cream for dinner: he doesn't understand their intentions, he doesn't know how the world works in the same way that we don't understand how the universe works.

All he knows is he isn't getting what he wants, therefore from his perspective things aren't as they should be.

Where your analogy fails is that we aren't five years old who don't understand anything. We are nine years old who spotted adults being unfair and saying: this is wrong. We don't know much about morality and fairness, but we got that part correct.

That's a very Epicurean definition of "good", everybody should have everything they want all the time with no suffering involved.

Again: without knowing whether or not there's an ultimate plan or what that plan is, we have no way of determining what should or shouldn't be.

What's with this obsession of yours of thinking if there is a omnipotent deity that there must be some sort of plan. That's not even a given. For all we know that omnipotent being could have created the world on a whim, with no plan and for fun. It could also be evil and desired suffering. For your argument to stand you would have to demonstrate that an omnipotent being required a plan and that this plan involved the greater good and that somehow the greater good would look exactly like the opposite of the greater good as in everything and everyone suffering a lot and constantly. We don't need to know everything, just to know that one thing that is shouldn't be.

Where are you getting that from?

From you. You are claiming that it would stand to reason that our universe could be heavenly, as perfect and good as it could possibly be. To you, it's reasonable to say that a world in which people die of despair, killed in random accident, suffer at the hands of others and are force to kill or be killed is necessary "for the greater good". That's basically your argument. There is no evil because everything could be for the greater good and the world can be reasonably assessed as heavenly since we don't know what good and evil is despite those being invention of ours somehow (I am a bit confused about that)

"Good" is just a subjective as evil is.

Correct.

Yes it's a condition of human suffering, not necessarily an example of "evil".

Since suffering is evil then yes.

At this point I think we're just going to keep going around in circles: your definition of good is that which benefits humanity, immediately. Evil being whatever runs counter to that.

Correct

My position is that on a cosmic scale, we have no idea what's good and what's evil, or whether those terms even mean anything outside of our own opinions and preferences.

We can apply a definition of good and evil to any scale. The goal of morality doesn't change on scale only the scope and consequences. It doesn't mean anything outside of our preferences of course or if it does, it's going to be the preferences of some other agent instead of ours with similar results, but the parameters and the objective is unchanged.

That being the case judging God is a completely pointless exercise.

If your God isn't good then your God isn't subject to the problem of evil. The problem of evil doesn't apply to amoral and/or "weak" deities. It mentions it clearly in its formulation. If you can't judge a deity then it can't be good. If it's not good then it doesn't have to answer to problem of evil.

Epicurus did believe in a god, but he didn't believe it was good. He believe it was too alien to our senses to have any sort of identifiable moral quality and no interest in human affairs.

I'm not claiming that because we lack knowledge in some area, etc etc,

I'm claiming that in order to fairly judge an omnificent being, we would have to have absolute knowledge of everything about the universe in its entirety and absolute understanding of that knowledge.

Obviously we don't, and since we don't, the best we can with our limited knowledge and understanding is come up with a guess.

You can't convict someone on a guess.

It's impossible to know everything about anybody or anything (see the Godel's incompleteness theorem), but that doesn't make our judgement a guess or impossible. That would be making a fallacy of excluded middle. That of reasonable evidence based assessment. We do convict people based on the analysis of observable facts to us. Why not your hypothetical God? His behaviors have consequences and those consequences can be assessed to pass a judgement on their worth on a moral scale.

Again, only by your definition of evil, which I've already rejected.

How can you reject it if you uphold it at the same time? You consider good the people who do stuff to you and others which you find lead to your personal flourishment, happiness and prosperity and bad those who do the opposite. You do the same at a larger scale when you consider your own community as a whole. That's unless you are a big fan or indifferent to the idea of getting tortured for example which you almost certainly are not. You used it a couple line lower on two different occasions on that vey post I'm quoting from.

For one thing, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then each and every atom and molecule that makes up the Universe belongs to Him. They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

That's your opinion based on your personal value of property rights, but you don't even follow that logic when it comes to other sentient beings. You probably don't consider that your own parents have all rights against your person, including to torture or kill you on a whim even though they made you. You probably would consider wrong treating your children, if you have any, as your personal property over which you have all rights. Yet you would have made them. They would not exist without you. Even if you did, them having a will would grant them the ability to judge you even if you owned them. You can't stop them from doing it and while an omnipotent being could it doesn't.

If anything, it's damn nice of Him to let us borrow a few for a while. If He's omnipotent, He didn't have to do that. I don't see what more proof of benevolence anyone could ask for.

While its true that if there is a creator God he didn't need to create anything, if he had indeed it would have had no effect just as much as you can't make me suffer prior to my birth. You fail to provide a proof that creating stuff as opposed to creating nothing is benevolent.

Also I would like to point out that you consider such an action benevolent specifically because you like being alive. You think living is helping you flourish, makes you happy and is conductive to your prosperity (which is all true btw). You are using the criteria of the definition of benevolence and applying it. Don't tell me you reject the definition of good and evil and then apply it yourself to defend your own position. That's a pretty clear double standard. If creating life is good, ending it is bad. That's just simple logic.

Like I said: it just sounds like whining to me.

Indeed, because your life is good, thus life must be good. Your sense of morality is heavily tied to your personal preferences and assessments. Of course it doesn't take into account that your life could be better and for some life is definitely not good. The problem of evil remains if you want an all powerful being to be good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can't Believe it's not butt-hurt.

Just so you know, this is not a term that I have any familiarity with, so I don't know what you mean.

Yes everybody, if anybody ever twists one of your points beyond recogntion so that they can deliver a sanctimonious, self-serving, and off topic little finger wagging, feel free to dismiss them.

Within the rules of course.

I don't believe that I am twisting your words. But then again, all I have to work with are you words, and as I pointed out above, nuanced communication doesn't seem to of much interest to you -- at least with me.

The fact is, human history and human philosophy (and human religion) are all rife with the problem of trying to secure "the good" for people and to avoid what is thought to be bad. Utilitarianism is an example -- and of course a failed example because there was no real way to articulate what might be the maximum good for the maximum number. Too often, that resulted in being able to demand sacrifice of a few for "the good of the many."

Yet we continue to try. We build our legal systems, from the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta to Charters of Rights and Freedoms around the world based on trying to prevent "evil" -- or if you'd prefer, unwarranted harm -- happening to people. In the US, the Republican Party of Lincoln beat out the "Know-Nothing" party in part because of its insistance on preventing the spread of slavery (not abolition, at first).

But your own words, in many posts above, seem to be saying that since "everything is subjective, why should we expect anything," and that since we are just an inconsequential part of the universe, "[...]we have no idea what's good and what's evil, or whether those terms even mean anything outside of our own opinions and preferences."

Yet, from my point of view, we are objectively part of something called the human species. We do try to create laws, charters, constitutions and the like with the primary aim of increasing the overall good to us all, and to foreclose on the ability of some arbitrary few to take injurious advantage. We use our laws to prevent hurt, we use our science to alleviate suffering and hunger.

Now if all of that is what you mean by "butt-hurt," well then, guilty as charged. But I call it caring.

 

[Neuropteron]

“
Please discuss.

Evangelicalhumanist:
The first, which is really very easy, is that free will has nothing whatever to do with natural calamity. An undersea earthquake raises a tsunami that kills a quarter million innocent people, including infants, children, nuns and murderers alike. Unless we are going to assign "free will" to the earth (and call her Gaia), this is simply not applicable.
...
The argument that natural calamities disprove the notion of free will is flawed, because there exist no relation between the two.

The definition of Free will in this context is that our Creator allows us to decide for ourselves between good and bad actions whilst we are still alive. It does not in any way give us superpower or make us invulnerable.
It is not absolute but relative and as such can not be applied to accidental or calamitous death.

 

[Quagmire]

Then you don't believe in anything being objective at all

Not at all, I think there may) actually be objective truth in the universe, I just don't think we subjective beings have any way to recognize it or grasp it.

I think the problem is that you seem to have this idea that if you can't see it it must not exist, or might as well not, and you're assuming everyone else thinks the same way.

since everything is limited to the framework of human understanding.

See what I mean? Everything isn't "limited to the framework of human understanding". There are plenty of things that exist outside of our ability to perceive or understand them.

Saying that everything is "limited to the framework of human understanding" is the same as saying that nothing exists outside of our ability to understand it, or "if I can't see it it must not exist".

making your request nonsense.

It's not nonsense, the point just went over your head. Of course you can't fulfill the request, that's exactly what I was trying to show you.

You can't produce an example of objective evil, only subjective preferences and opinions, and it's ridiculous to try and use those to make claims about a being that by it's very nature isnt subject do anything.

(See? round and round and round . . .)

For the same reason that having for legs supporting a sturdy flat surface is the yardstick to have a table of some sort. It's how we define "good".

Subjectively, yes

Yeah, so what? How does this address the problem of evil.

How does the definition of evil address the problem of evil?

Not sure what to do with that question.

That you dislike this attitude doesn't make it less true that you wish never to feel atrocious pain and despair and that those feelings aren't conductive to your flourishment or that of humanity in general and that you would consider evil or bad all the behavior that results in those feelings and sensation being more common or even existent at all.

So basically, "if I don't like something it shouldn't exist".

Where your analogy fails is that we aren't five years old who don't understand anything. We are nine years old who spotted adults being unfair and saying: this is wrong. We don't know much about morality and fairness, but we got that part correct.

What's with this obsession of yours of thinking

Oh, we're going to start playing that game, huh?

if there is a omnipotent deity that there must be some sort of plan. That's not even a given. For all we know that omnipotent being could have created the world on a whim, with no plan and for fun. It could also be evil and desired suffering. For your argument to stand you would have to demonstrate that an omnipotent being required a plan and that this plan involved the greater good and that somehow the greater good would look exactly like the opposite of the greater good as in everything and everyone suffering a lot and constantly. We don't need to know everything, just to know that one thing that is shouldn't be.

No, that's not necessary at all.

All that's necessary is the possibility that there may be a plan, and therefore justification and a purpose to suffering.

Whether or not there's any reason to assume that there is one is beside the point.

The point is that the PoE assumes that there isn't one, ie., that there's no purpose to "evil", otherwise the objection fails.

The whole objection is predicated on the idea that evil shouldn't exist.

In order to make that claim legitimately we would have to know for a fact that evil serves no necessary purpose.

From you. You are claiming that it would stand to reason that our universe could be heavenly, as perfect and good as it could possibly be.

Now I'm seriously curious to see what I actually did say.

To you, it's reasonable to say that a world in which people die of despair, killed in random accident, suffer at the hands of others and are force to kill or be killed is necessary "for the greater good". That's basically your argument.

No, that's basically a simple minded and snarky psuedo-interpretation of my argument.

There is no evil because everything could be for the greater good and the world can be reasonably assessed as heavenly since we don't know what good and evil is despite those being invention of ours somehow (I am a bit confused about that)

Ok, now you're just being ridiculous.

Guess I'll just go with the old adage that if someone has to misrepresent your position in order to address it, they've already lost.

On that note I'm going to leave this for now.

I'll try and wade through the rest of this Russian novel you left for me when I have the time.

Points for creativity though (especially the parts where you 'explain" my position to me. Very imaginative )

 

[viole]

righteous judgement.

Righteous killing of a few months old kid in a car?

Any person that would leave that to happen, without intervening, would be considered a criminal monster.

As I said, His only excuse is that He does not exist.

Ciao

- viole