The problem of goodness

@divegeester said
My reply is a self evident and self explanatory juxtaposition to the somewhat shallow premise in the OP and exposes it as such.

I’m sorry that comprehending it is beyond you.

The only thing you've explained thus far is your penchant for self emulation and a vindictive predisposition.

@secondson said
The only thing you've explained thus far is your penchant for self emulation and a vindictive predisposition.

Those are long accusatory words aimed at two of my posts on the previous page, and by someone incapable of understanding my first.

@divegeester said
Those are long accusatory words aimed at two of my posts on the previous page, and by someone incapable of understanding my first.

You appear to be overly hypersensitive. All I said was that your reply to the OP was more bizarre than the OP, and that you must be confused.

What's the big deal? You got even didn't you?

@secondson said
Have you read the thread?

Yes. When I asked you, you hadn't addressed any of your posts to the OP poster or addressed what was said in the OP. You had only been passive-aggressive with the poster who had replied to it.

@secondson said
You appear to be overly hypersensitive. All I said was that your reply to the OP was more bizarre than the OP, and that you must be confused.

What's the big deal? You got even didn't you?

If all you want to do in this thread is pretend that you don’t understand dj2becker’s OP or my reply to it that’s OK with me.

@divegeester said
Alternatively;

The solution is not that there is good in the world, the solution is that there is evil. Because otherwise who would know?

divegeester (Lockdown Season 1)

Great answer to one of the main arguments skeptics use against the existence of God: The "problem of evil."

@tom-wolsey said
Great answer to one of the main arguments skeptics use against the existence of God: The "problem of evil."

I am an agnostic [or implicit] atheist but my lack of belief in "revealed" Gods does not really rely on the "problem of evil" issue that concerns 'hard' atheists [a.k.a. explicit or positive atheists] such as Ghost of a Duke.

The "problem of evil" is, I believe, a human problem to which I see no supernatural dimension.

Having said that, religious beliefs and ideology give rise to definitions of "evil" [and "good" at the same time] and this contributes to social values, standards and laws which in turn form the individual moral compasses which, ideally, lead to what is perceived and agreed is "goodness" and to what is perceived and resisted as "evil" by communities and societies.

There is no "problem of goodness". There certainly is a "problem of evil".

@fmf said
I am an agnostic [or implicit] atheist but my lack of belief in "revealed" Gods does not really rely on the "problem of evil" issue that concerns 'hard' atheists [a.k.a. explicit or positive atheists] such as Ghost of a Duke.

The "problem of evil" is, I believe, a human problem to which I see no supernatural dimension.

Having said that, religious beliefs and ideology give ...[text shortened]... unities and societies.

There is no "problem of goodness". There certainly is a "problem of evil".

You raise a great point, but the quote-unquote "problem of evil" I made reference to is more the philosophical argument against a God, or at least a good God, because no actually good God would allow for the existing of evil. Leading into a similar, well-known argument involving "the problem of suffering." Just the mere existence of evil and suffering seem, on the surface, to paint God as immoral. But the statement divegeester put out there is an excellent refutation to both.

It's easy to attack a straw God. But our viewpoint is minutely parochial, and from my recent observations, we are not much farther along than cats squabbling in the street, and I'd wager we squabble much more than they do!

What if there were a Cosmic Intelligence who thought "Behold" but Whose only intent was "Let's see what happens."?

@caesar-salad said

What if there were a Cosmic Intelligence who thought "Behold" but Whose only intent was "Let's see what happens."?

I read a book once that suggested the reason for suffering is perhaps because God set out to, through us, experience the full spectrum of human existence. That somehow from a perspective we can't even understand, the suffering is just as sought after as the triumph. Even the mundane stuff. All part of the full experience. But if it's true, wouldn't it be infinite? There can't be a finite number of human experiences, can there? So it would go on for eternity.

@tom-wolsey said
You raise a great point, but the quote-unquote "problem of evil" I made reference to is more the philosophical argument against a God, or at least a good God, because no actually good God would allow for the existing of evil. Leading into a similar, well-known argument involving "the problem of suffering." Just the mere existence of evil and suffering seem, on the surface, to paint God as immoral.

But, of course, I know all this and it is exactly why I raised my "great point". The succinct way you said it before was fine. I'm not sure why you have now repeated it in a more long-winded way ~ and even conceding that it is a "well-known argument" ~ in a reply to me. Did you think you'd been misunderstood?

@fmf said
But, of course, I know all this and it is exactly why I raised my "great point". The succinct way you said it before was fine. I'm not sure why you have now repeated it in a more long-winded way ~ and even conceding that it is a "well-known argument" ~ in a reply to me. Did you think you'd been misunderstood?

Well, when you said, "The 'problem of evil' is, I believe, a human problem to which I see no supernatural dimension." You spun "the problem of evil" out of context and applied your personal view, subtracting God from the issue. Since you seemed to misunderstand what I said, yes, I thought I'd been misunderstood.

@tom-wolsey said
Well, when you said, "The 'problem of evil' is, I believe, a human problem to which I see no supernatural dimension." You spun "the problem of evil" out of context and applied your personal view, subtracting God from the issue. Since you seemed to misunderstand what I said, yes, I thought I'd been misunderstood.

No I didn't misunderstand. I put "the problem of evil" in what I think is a more credible context and then I expressed my view on the aforementioned "problem". We are all here to express our views. At the beginning of the post you originally replied to, I said this:

"I am an agnostic [or implicit] atheist but my lack of belief in "revealed" Gods does not really rely on the "problem of evil" issue that concerns 'hard' atheists [a.k.a. explicit or positive atheists] such as Ghost of a Duke."

And now you are trying to frame this as somehow misunderstanding what you meant? Don't be silly. You should try to be a bit more principled about the way you interact.

@fmf said
No I didn't misunderstand. I put "the problem of evil" in what I think is a more credible context and then I expressed my view on the aforementioned "problem". We are all here to express our views. At the beginning of the post you originally replied to, I said this:

[b]"I am an agnostic [or implicit] atheist but my lack of belief in "revealed" Gods does not really rely on the ...[text shortened]... at you meant? Don't be silly. You should try to be a bit more principled about the way you interact.

The "problem of evil" I spoke of has nothing to do with a generic or personal interpretation or extrapolation. That doesn't mean your atheist opinion doesn't count. It just isn't relevant to what I originally said. I explained why, you took offense at me having to explain, and went straight back to an out of context, irrelevant rant, prompting further explanation of context. I suppose if I continue down this disturbing trip down the rabbit hole, deep into the recesses of your mind, I will have had to explain my original comment, and why your replies have been irrelevant to it, about a dozen times. Typical. It amounts to a game of chicken where one side eventually has to give up and move on. Oh I know. It sure as hell won't be you, eh?

@tom-wolsey said
The "problem of evil" I spoke of has nothing to do with a generic or personal interpretation or extrapolation. That doesn't mean your atheist opinion doesn't count. It just isn't relevant to what I originally said. I explained why, you took offense at me having to explain, and went straight back to an out of context, irrelevant rant, prompting further explanation of con ...[text shortened]... where one side eventually has to give up and move on. Oh I know. It sure as hell won't be you, eh?

I didn't misunderstand. I didn't take offence. I didn't rant about anything. I didn't say anything irrelevant to the notions regarding "the problem of good" and "the problem of evil".

There is no "game of chicken" going on here, as you put it, at least on my part. And any "rabbit holes" you perceive are perhaps in your mind. You appear to be trying to poison the well by introducing all these gimmicky rhetorical notions. You should try to post in a more principled way.

I don't see how explicit atheists attributing their disbelief to "the problem of evil" amounts to anything very convincing with regard to the existence of a supernatural being because it really is nothing more than a critique of particular religious concepts and assertions promoted by theists.

I see theists and atheists arguing about whether "the problem of evil" - as if it proves or disproves the existence of God - as being a debate that resides in a discursive cul-de-sac. This is certainly not "out of context", as you claim.