If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[spetey]

Acceleration and velocity are dependent upon perspective and so velocity and acceleration could remain zero on a top bottom top rotation while changing for the observer of a clockwise rotation. So where does perspective come into it all?

I think they forgot to specify "relative to a frame of reference". Philosophers aren't always the most careful physicists, as I've said!


spetey

[Curious]

I think they forgot to specify "relative to a frame of reference". Philosophers aren't always the most careful physicists, as I've said!


spetey

It seems to me that most philosophers use complex language in an attempt to mystify rather than clarify. I really dislike trawling through reams of abstruse jargon to find that a couple of well written sentences IN ENGLISH would explain it so much better.

[harvey1]

It seems to me that most philosophers use complex language in an attempt to mystify rather than clarify. I really dislike trawling through reams of abstruse jargon to find that a couple of well written sentences IN ENGLISH would explain it so much better.

I think you need philosophy in order to gain a full grasp on what is being proposed and whether those concepts make any sense. On the other hand, philosophers need to concentrate on making their profession as accessible as science. It's a little disheartening to see philosophy sections of bookstores shrinking while "metaphysics" take the bookshelf space. I think philosophy has lacked the popular appeal that science has, perhaps for reasons that you mention. Pure evil stuff. (Gotta say something to make my comments apply to this thread!)

[spetey]

It seems to me that most philosophers use complex language in an attempt to mystify rather than clarify. I really dislike trawling through reams of abstruse jargon to find that a couple of well written sentences IN ENGLISH would explain it so much better.

You're quite right that some "philosophers" do indeed use complex language merely to mystify. If you listen to them enough, you can surely get the impression that all of philosophy is that way. But this unfortunate phenomenon is hardly unique to philosophy! Every field has its bull****ers. In good philosophy, just like good physics, you try to be as clear and as de-mystifying as you can. But sometimes, the problem is very hard and very mysterious, and that often means using very technical, precise terms in very technical, precise ways to try to get clearer about it.

Imagine someone reading a technical piece from a physics journal, and saying this:

It seems to me that most physicists use complex language in an attempt to mystify rather than clarify. I really dislike trawling through reams of abstruse jargon to find that a couple of well written sentences IN ENGLISH would explain it so much better.

Of course there are usually ways to simplify those physics papers "in English", but at the expense of a lot of precision. Believe it or not, the same is true with philosophy. Some problems in philosophy are just really hard--like trying to state the precise relation between physical states (like C-fibers firing) and mental states (like pain). You can say "in English" that the mental states depend on the physical states somehow, without being identical. But if you are interested in the details of how exactly they so "depend", and what exactly it means for one thing to "depend" on another, you need to do some more technical philosophy of the type that might need a fair amount of background and training to understand. For example: does this dependence mean that the mental is reducible to the physical, the way chemistry seems reducible to physics? That's a hard question that starts you on the road toward supervenience.

Remember: just because your brain hurts the first few times you look at something, that doesn't mean there's nothing to understand there! We all know this when it comes to physics or math or whatever, but for some reason it's often assumed that any level of technical philosophy should be immediately accessible to anyone. Just like introductory physics, introductory philosophy is accessible to anyone. And just like physics, intermediate and advanced philosophy require a little background!

Now the problem of evil does not require technical terms to state. It's an "introductory" problem, often taught in intro courses. It's this easy: why didn't God prevent the 2004 tsunami? Is it because God was unable? But then God is not all-powerful. Is it because God was able but didn't feel like it? But then God is not all-good. It seems, given countless tragedies like the 2004 tsunami, we have to conclude there just is no all-good, all-powerful God.


spetey

[spetey]

I think you need philosophy in order to gain a full grasp on what is being proposed and whether those concepts make any sense. On the other hand, philosophers need to concentrate on making their profession as accessible as science. It's a little disheartening to see philosophy sections of bookstores shrinking while "metaphysics" take the bookshelf space. I think philosophy has lacked the popular appeal that science has, perhaps for reasons that you mention. Pure evil stuff. (Gotta say something to make my comments apply to this thread!)

It's nice to agree on something for a change, Harvey! I agree completely.

[Curious]

Now the problem of evil does not require technical terms to state. It's an "introductory" problem, often taught in intro courses. It's this easy: why didn't God prevent the 2004 tsunami? Is it because God was unable? But then God is not all-powerful. Is it because God was able but didn't feel like it? But then God is not all-good. It seems, given countless tragedies like the 2004 tsunami, we have to conclude there just is no all-good, all-powerful God.


spetey

Then what about a parent who applies antiseptic to their child's cut? The application may sting but is ultimately of benefit. Does this show that the parent is not "all-good"? Of course not, it just shows that the medicine hurts.

[spetey]

Then what about a parent who applies antiseptic to their child's cut? The application may sting but is ultimately of benefit. Does this show that the parent is not "all-good"? Of course not, it just shows that the medicine hurts.

Right. In that case it was net good for the parent to apply the antiseptic. We can give reasons to think such an action was good. (Contrast a case where a parent applies antiseptic in a perfectly sterile environment, over and over, just to hurt the child. Then we think it's (net) bad, right? That's because there's only pain and no good effects to outweigh the pain.)

Now: do you have reason to think the 2004 tsunami was similarly (net) good, without assuming ahead of time that God must have had something good in mind? If you do think the 2004 tsunami was (net) good, do you hope for more of them, and other similar natural disasters--perhaps nearer your hometown?


spetey

[Curious]

Now: do you have reason to think the 2004 tsunami was similarly (net) good, without assuming ahead of time that God must have had something good in mind? If you do think the 2004 tsunami was (net) good, do you hope for more of them, and other similar natural disasters--perhaps nearer your hometown?

spetey

I have no reason to believe one way or the other. What I am trying to illustrate here is that we don't know all the factors involved and so any assumption is just that. This is my bug-bear with much philosophical argument, that assumptions are made from a very narrow perspective. Take Pascal's wager for example. We should believe because:
a) If we believe and it is true we gain
b) If we believe and it is false we lose nothing
Therefore we should believe.
Ok lets introduce c and d.
c) If we believe we might sell ourselves into slavery for eternity.
d) If we disbelieve we remain free.
Now what should I do?

[spetey]

Now: do you have reason to think the 2004 tsunami was similarly (net) good, without assuming ahead of time that God must have had something good in mind? If you do think the 2004 tsunami was (net) good, do you hope for more of them, and other similar natural disasters--perhaps nearer your hometown?

I have no reason to believe one way or the other.

Really? Are you sure? You have no reason to think the tsunami was bad? Here is something that sure looks like a reason to think the tsunami was bad: it killed hundreds of tousands of people, including innocent children, in a terrifying and painful way. It left hundreds of thousands more to grieve, suffer debilitating wounds, and / or devastating financial loss. These all seem to me like horrible, bad things. Now as for reasons to think it was good--there I can't help you. I guess it can do some good as an example of the problem of evil! But I don't think that good outweighs the evil. Do you?! After all, I have countless other examples available, so I could have done without that one.

If you have no reason to believe either way about whether tsunamis are good or not, then you are indifferent as to whether you and your loved ones suffer a similar fate. Are you? I somehow doubt it! My guess is that you would rather not have you and your loved ones die in a tsunami. That, to me, is evidence that you think such a circumstance would be bad.

What I am trying to illustrate here is that we don't know all the factors involved and so any assumption is just that.

Yes, assumptions are assumptions. But where is the assumption in my position? It seems like I can give reasons to think the tsunami was bad. I wonder if you have reasons to think it was good, or perfectly neutral? If not, why believe that there is an all-good, all-powerful God?

Take Pascal's wager for example ...

A different topic for a different thread, though I quite agree with you: Pascal's wager does nothing to support rational belief in a God.


spetey

[Curious]

Really? Are you sure? You have no reason to think the tsunami was bad? Here is something that sure looks like a reason to think the tsunami was bad: it killed hundreds of tousands of people, including innocent children, in a terrifying and painful way. It left hundreds of thousands more to grieve, suffer debilitating wounds, and / or devastating financial loss. These all seem to me like horrible, bad things. Now as for reasons to think it was good--there I can't help you. I guess it can do some good as an example of the problem of evil! But I don't think that good outweighs the evil. Do you?! After all, I have countless other examples available, so I could have done without that one.

If you have no reason to believe either way about whether tsunamis are good or not, then you are indifferent as to whether you and your loved ones suffer a similar fate. Are you? I somehow doubt it! My guess is that you would rather not have you and your loved ones die in a tsunami. That, to me, is evidence that you think such a circumstance would be bad.

You never asked me if I thought the tsunami was bad but if it was (net) good. My answer was in response to this question. Obviously it was tragic but if the conscience is pricked by such an event and ultimately results in tens of millions of lives being saved in famines throughout the world (due to donations) then that might be seen as (net) good. I realise this is scant consolation to those involved. Ask me again in twenty years and I might, with hindsight, have an opinion on whether or not it was (net) good.

Yes, assumptions are assumptions. But where is the assumption in my position? It seems like I can give reasons to think the tsunami was bad. I wonder if you have reasons to think it was good, or perfectly neutral? If not, why believe that there is an all-good, all-powerful God?

I wasn't refering to you specifically but since you ask I will refer to to below quote.

why didn't God prevent the 2004 tsunami? Is it because God was unable? But then God is not all-powerful. Is it because God was able but didn't feel like it? But then God is not all-good. It seems, given countless tragedies like the 2004 tsunami, we have to conclude there just is no all-good, all-powerful God.

The fact that we have to conclude without knowing the final outcome or all the factors involved is assumption. If God decided that we were little more than a terminal disease on this earth, total eradication could be seen as all good from the point of view of the rest of the lifeforms on this planet.