Evil Points to God

[AquinasForGod]

Question for Debate: Can evil point to God?

My argument that evil points to God. You can read it here in the original formating - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... proves-god

POI wanted me to present this argument, so I did. He also wanted me to show that atheists would be unreasonable to reject it, which I do not do as that is silly. However, you can see in the argument that the consequences of rejecting evil points to God are dire.

Typically, we see arguments against God from evil, but I think evil can actually be evidence for God rather than against. Evil makes more sense under the theistic view than under naturalism.

We have this strong inclination that certain acts are utterly wrong, such as rape, murder, child molestation. This inclination is so strong that it just seems objectively true that raping a child is wrong. To pretend this is subjective doesn't feel right.

If it is objective, then we need an explanation for how it is an objective truth that raping children is wrong. Theism has a good explanation for this. God is the good and ground for all good and evil is the absence of that good. Evil then is the absence of the good comes in degrees, and raping children is so far from the good that we all sense how wrong it is.

But under naturalism, you will have to argue for evolution like Cosmic Skeptic (Alex O'Connor does). Evolution he says gives us a "feeling" that human flourishing is good. That is the ground for why we feel it is wrong, but he admits that it cannot be a grounding for it actually being wrong.

So under naturalism, it is not a fact. It is not a true statement that raping children is wrong. It is a feeling. It is subjective. And even he admits that he hates that. But that is a consequence of the naturalist's view. Raping children is not objectively wrong.

Raping children is wrong is not True.

That is quite the consequence of naturalism. Okay, but there are atheistic views that are not natural views that might account for morals. This would be similar to platonic forms, but in this case, morals are just a thing that exists in the world. They just do. No explanation as to why they exist. They just do.

So perhaps if you cannot swallow the consequence of naturalism that raping children is not in fact wrong but just your subjective feelings, you can take solace in the idea that morals just exist without explanation. You can retain your atheism and believe rape is actually wrong.

But if you believe in God, then God grounds objective morals. He grounds all morality. And there is an explanation for why morals exist.

If evil did not exist in the world, I couldn't make the moral argument for God, so evil points to God, unless of course, you can live with yourself by choosing one of the alternative views.

Here is the argument without explanations.


1 We have a strong inclination that evil is in the world, such as how utterly wrong raping children is.
2 In order for us to believe this inclination is false will take a lot of evidence.
3 The theists' explanation shows our inclination is correct. Raping children is wrong.
4 The theists' explanation grounds objective morals.
5 There are other views.
6 Naturalism doesn't ground objective morals.
7 Under naturalism, rape cannot be shown to be wrong. It is a subjective view.
8 Naturalism doesn't satisfy our inclination that rape is in fact wrong. (from 1, 6, 7)
9 There is an atheistic view of objective morals.
10 The atheistic view says that objective morals just exist in the world as platonic forms do. It offers no explanation.
11 A view without an explanation is not as good of evidence as a view with an explanation.
12 The atheistic view doesn't satisfy our inclination.
13 The theist's view satisfies our strong inclination that evil is in the world,
14 The other views do not.
15 Therefore, If we wish to feel justified in our strong inclination that evil exists like rape is actually wrong, we should accept the theists' view, unless there is another view that better justifies our inclination.

[POI]

This shows me that you are missing the whole point of the argument. This is precise what we theists are not willing to believe. We are not willing to believe that rape being wrong is at all similar to our subjective view that a puppy or kitten is cute. The fact you make this comparison only shows how deeply invested you are in believing horrible evils like raping children or torturing people slowly to death are not actually evil. They are just human behaviors that we might dislike. That is way too high an intellectual price to pay, and it is just clearly wrong.

NO. This shows us all that you are the one, missing the point. You can, no more, ground the statement "puppies are cute", any more or less than stating "rape is wrong". Your given answer here, is the tell-tale... "Who" tells you puppies are cute? If no one tells you, then how do you (just know) they are cute?

Same reasoning as above, but this comparison is even worse.

Then you are still missing the point. You practice economics just about every day. And yet, can you "ground" an absolute standard? If so, I would love to hear about it...?

You mean by not understanding a law of the Jews?

Nope.

I do not see a point unless you mention something from the video that is an interesting point that I would like more info about.

You mean, not even the part I spoon fed to you @ minute (3:27), until the end? ~ 30 seconds worth?

It is not. Consequentialism doesn't show how rape is wrong is a true statement. Under naturalism, there is not consequence to rape if you do it in secret, and hide your identity, such that you cannot get caught.

Right, so invent a cosmic eye in the sky. Got it. The point being, there is the risk of receiving consequences for the action.

Not all people have empathy, thus psychopaths. And even if everyone had empathy, it wouldn't make it true that rape is wrong. It would only make it true that we don't like being raped and feel sorry for others that endure it.

You have missed my point, again... Empathy, is not exclusive to humans. Does this mean animals get their morals from god too? If so, why are they not judged? Or are they?

Yet it is not circular. My argument shows that there is more than one view for evil. One of those views is a theistic view, which I ague is the best view that justifies are sense of knowing rape is wrong, for example. Most people already know how theism grounds morals, but I offered a way it does just in case some here did not know how theism ground morals.

How theism grounds morals is not part of my argument, though. Naturalism has ways to explain evil subjectively. You giving examples how it does so is not circular reasoning. It is only showing what naturalism has to offer.

The argument is to consider what the different views have to offer and see which view best justified our sense of rape being wrong.

I spoon fed to you the video, @ minute (3:27), until the end? ~ 30 seconds worth...

Further, in another response, you argued "we mention necessary evils". Case/point: You are forced to be part of a gang. The gang leader tells you to rape someone, or he will kill your entire family. If god does not deem the rape against him, then in this case, rape is not wrong

*****************************

I'll respond to the rest later...

[POI]

I showed how what God knows must be objective because he knows everything. You cannot get more objective than that. God impresses upon us this sense of truth, thus why we have morals.

1) Then why would this only apply to some identified sin, and not all, which the Bible god deems sin? Why do all not 'just know' that practicing gay sex is wrong, for instance? I mean, god really seems to hate it.

2) And under your brand of theism, if he knows everything, then why inspire what he inspired in the Bible? Maybe he knows everything, but he's a trickster too. (i.e.) He's the purveyor of confusion, and a hidden voyeur.

People become numb to God by their own choices, which is why you are able to compare the truth of rape being wrong to the truth of a puppy being cute. It is good that Jesus reminds humans how to behave.

I'm speaking about 'knowing' what is right/wrong, not what actions/choices we actually make. If we "know" right from wrong, telling us in a book is redundant.

And you continue not to understand the analogy about the puppies. Why exactly do you also (just know) puppies are cute? Use that same line of reasoning for 'rape'.

The OT is the OT for a reason. It is an old covenant with the Jews. Our covenant is with Christ. Do you have issues with much of anything Christ commanded?

Kool. So god used to make 'rape' covenants with people from the ancient passed. But does no longer. Got it....

And yes, Jesus may even be "worse". But maybe that is for another topic.

[Tcg]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

Evil points to the fact that humans have concluded some things are bad and other things are good. To suggest that it points to God simply reveals the fact that there is no verifiable evidence of God and some who desire to push the idea of God will grasp at anything to take the place of actual evidence.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

Rape is wrong even when it is accepted. We all know this, but you have a consequence of your views that you cannot claim rape is wrong, so you have to ignore what you know inside.

So much wrong...
I do claim that rape is wrong. I acknowledge the fact that worldwide, rape is not wrong and is even a part of some cultures. You prefer to stick your head in the sand over this fact and I have ignored nothing inside myself.

You are paying the exact price I said you would have to, which is to claim rape is not wrong.

Is there a way that I can make you pay attention to my words? I claim that rape is wrong as you do. Do you acknowledge that universaly, rape is not wrong on this planet?

So you agree that you must reject that humans have "intrinsic" value.

You amaze me with just how much you are able to get wrong in your replies. It's as if you read my words, but do not comprehend them.
When I said: "You seriously cannot fathom a mechanism or reason as to why humans assign value to other humans or as to why such a thing would benefit societies and be an encouraged trait?"
Your brain seriously read those words and you came up with the conclusion that I reject that humans have intrinsic value.

Societies have determined that humans have intrinsic value and I do not reject this, therefore, there is no cost as you claim. No gods involved either it seems.

So do humans have actual intrinsic value or perceived intrinsic value only?

Try to comprehend the words above in bold. Start a thread if you want to discuss whether that should be considered actual or intrinsic.

I am not sure you are aware that all you are saying is Rape being wrong is subjective and thus you cannot make a truth claim about rape being wrong. That is precisely the cost we theists are not willing to pay because we know rape is wrong. We can make a truth claim.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: I do claim that rape is wrong. I acknowledge the fact that worldwide, rape is not wrong and is even a part of some cultures. You prefer to stick your head in the sand over this fact and I have ignored nothing inside myself.

Intrinsic means it is part of the thing itself. For a human to have intrinsic value means to be human is to have value.

Copy/paste: Societies have determined that humans have intrinsic value and I do not reject this.

If society determines the value a human has, then humans DO NOT have intrinsic value. That is a price we theists are not willing to pay. We know every human as intrinsic value. Every human has value in themselves.

Societies have determined that humans have value. Call it intrinsic or extrinsic, I care not and it has nothing to do with the claim of yours that I have refutted.
That claim again was: "Rape is wrong."
I agree with your claim on a personal level, but cannot just stick my head in the sand when there are actual societies that promote what we would consider rape. It just isn't 'wrong' in those societies.

I also think it is wrong to stone homosexuals, but acknowledge that there are societies that agree with such a thing. Therefore, to stone homosexuals is wrong for me, but not for all.

If only there was a god that could communicate to humanity that rape, slavery and stoning homosexuals is wrong so we would all have the same understanding. Sadly, the gods concepts we humans have do not agree.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #24]

So much wrong...
I do claim that rape is wrong. I acknowledge the fact that worldwide, rape is not wrong and is even a part of some cultures. You prefer to stick your head in the sand over this fact and I have ignored nothing inside myself.

You are not saying it is wrong to rape because you cannot. You are saying you feel it is wrong to rape. There is a difference. Naturalism has no way to show "Rape is wrong" is a true statement.

Is there a way that I can make you pay attention to my words? I claim that rape is wrong as you do. Do you acknowledge that universaly, rape is not wrong on this planet?

But your view cannot account for rape being wrong. It is a subjective claim. Theists say rape is wrong, period. It is objectively wrong always. You cannot claim that under your view.

You amaze me with just how much you are able to get wrong in your replies. It's as if you read my words, but do not comprehend them.

I comprehend them. It seems you do not know what intrinsic means.

When I said: "You seriously cannot fathom a mechanism or reason as to why humans assign value to other humans or as to why such a thing would benefit societies and be an encouraged trait?"
Your brain seriously read those words and you came up with the conclusion that I reject that humans have intrinsic value.

Yes, the problem is you lack understand of what intrinsic means.

Intrinsic: belonging naturally; essential.
Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

If you claim Humans have value because other humans assign value to each other, then you are not talking about humans having intrinsic value because that value is not part of what makes a human a human. It doesn't belong to them naturally. You are saying rather than humans are not such a creature that naturally have value, but rather, they must be assigned value. That is not intrinsic.

The argument is about humans having an intrinsic property. It is a philosophical argument.

An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

Societies have determined that humans have intrinsic value and I do not reject this, therefore, there is no cost as you claim. No gods involved either it seems. Try to comprehend the words above in bold. Start a thread if you want to discuss whether that should be considered actual or intrinsic.

An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

Do you see now why you are not talking about an intrinsic property? If societies have to determine our value and we do not have value in ourselves, then it is not intrinsic.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: I do claim that rape is wrong. I acknowledge the fact that worldwide, rape is not wrong and is even a part of some cultures. You prefer to stick your head in the sand over this fact and I have ignored nothing inside myself.

Cool, you claim rape is wrong but you cannot support that it is a true statement that rape is wrong. Your view doesn't allow for it unless you can show in your view how it is true objectively that rap is wrong.

Societies have determined that humans have value. Call it intrinsic or extrinsic, I care not and it has nothing to do with the claim of yours that I have refutted.

You should care because words have meanings. And if you don't understand what intrinsic means, you sure don't understand the philosophical argument presented.

That claim again was: "Rape is wrong."
I agree with your claim on a personal level, but cannot just stick my head in the sand when there are actual societies that promote what we would consider rape. It just isn't 'wrong' in those societies.

That is precisely what theists cannot accept. We cannot accept that rape is only wrong contextually or subjectively.

I also think it is wrong to stone homosexuals, but acknowledge that there are societies that agree with such a thing. Therefore, to stone homosexuals is wrong for me, but not for all.

Subjective morality doesn't work for us. We are not convinced.

If only there was a god that could communicate to humanity that rape, slavery and stoning homosexuals is wrong so we would all have the same understanding. Sadly, the gods concepts we humans have do not agree.

That is another topic altogether, although interesting. Suppose objective morals exist, how do we come to know them? That is the question that lies underneath your text.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #21]

NO. This shows us all that you are the one, missing the point. You can, no more, ground the statement "puppies are cute", any more or less than stating "rape is wrong". Your given answer here, is the tell-tale... "Who" tells you puppies are cute? If no one tells you, then how do you (just know) they are cute?

I guess we will have to agee to disagree. You think puppies being cute is somehow the same as rape being wrong. I made my case already how different they are. BTW, atheists philosophers like Graham Oppy would never make this mistake.

Then you are still missing the point. You practice economics just about every day. And yet, can you "ground" an absolute standard? If so, I would love to hear about it...?

same as above.

You mean, not even the part I spoon fed to you @ minute (3:27), until the end? ~ 30 seconds worth?

It seems pretty useless.

It is not. Consequentialism doesn't show how rape is wrong is a true statement. Under naturalism, there is not consequence to rape if you do it in secret, and hide your identity, such that you cannot get caught.
Right, so invent a cosmic eye in the sky. Got it. The point being, there is the risk of receiving consequences for the action.

So why even bring up Consequentialism if you already knew it is a non-point?

You have missed my point, again... Empathy, is not exclusive to humans. Does this mean animals get their morals from god too? If so, why are they not judged? Or are they?

God is the cause of all things existing here and now. God's goodness thus spills out to all creation, including animals. This doesn't mean animals must be judged.

I spoon fed to you the video, @ minute (3:27), until the end? ~ 30 seconds worth...

And I easily dismantled the puppies and consequentialism.

[POI]

I guess we will have to agee to disagree. You think puppies being cute is somehow the same as rape being wrong. I made my case already how different they are. BTW, atheists philosophers like Graham Oppy would never make this mistake.

Okay, I really don't think you know exactly what point I'm trying to make. Allow me to elaborate some more...

Your <gut> tells you something is 'wrong', 'cute', 'right', other... It does not matter what you are referring to (i.e.) rape, theft, kittens, other. The point being, the SAME feeling you have, that "rape is very wrong", originates from the SAME feeling you get, when you see a 'very cute puppy'. Meaning, your GUT REACTION dictates it's (really bad or really cute).

You are essentially arguing that God gives you your compass to 'know' this and that. This is why you 'just really know' something is X. As I stated, many responses ago, you must demonstrate that there exists some actual conscious external agency who is actually doing this. As it stands, we see no evidence for this. Your conclusion, that 'evil points to god', is nothing more than wishful and unfalsifiable thinking.

And even if you wanted to demonstrate that some external agency is giving you your 'objective' gut reactions to situations, you would then have to explain why people's gut reactions DIFFER, when it comes to differing topics. Like homosexuality for instance... As I stated prior, god really hates it.

same as above.

Please do not hand wave this away. This analogy demonstrates a point. Economics cannot be 'objectified'. If it can, I would love to see how? And yet, you operate under the confines of economics probably daily. So WHY are you not expressing the same concern for economics as you are for morals?

I would wager that economics is a pretty large driving force in your life as well. Why are you NOT concerned that economics cannot be objectified, even though your financial portfolio depends on economics?

To paraphrase the beginning of the video, which you apparently do not want to address....

(P1) If the Monopoly Guy on the box does not exist, objective economics do not exist.
(P2) Objective economics do exist
Therefore, the Monopoly Guy on the box does exist.

You can quickly see the SILLINESS of such arguments.

So why even bring up Consequentialism if you already knew it is a non-point?

Is there a consequence, if you are caught in rape? Yes. There is an objective consequence, if caught in rape. Whether you have a serial rapist, a serial thief, or other; they could get away with it for a while. However, there is always the fear of being caught. "God" is the possible placeholder invention to keep everyone on the 'straight-and-narrow.' The ultimate cosmic god consequence, if the law/other doesn't catch them Consequentialism grounds moral decisions, whether a god exists, or not.

All one has to quickly ask is... "Hmm, is there a consequence if I get caught?" "Hmm, am I willing to take that risk?" And the fact that I have to ask such questions, before performing such actions, means I can justify why it is 'wrong'. And this even before I venture off into many other facets, as to grounding 'morals'.

God is the cause of all things existing here and now. God's goodness thus spills out to all creation, including animals. This doesn't mean animals must be judged.

Just another unfalsifiable claim... And yet, you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that god exists, and further, that this god gives you anything. Instead, just faith-based assertions, and very weak arguments/assertions -- filled with hope/faith.

And I easily dismantled the puppies and consequentialism.

You think this because you are arguing apples, and me, oranges.

[Clownboat]

So much wrong...
I do claim that rape is wrong. I acknowledge the fact that worldwide, rape is not wrong and is even a part of some cultures. You prefer to stick your head in the sand over this fact and I have ignored nothing inside myself.

You are not saying it is wrong to rape because you cannot.

See the bold above. I have said it, now own it and acknowledge it.

You are saying you feel it is wrong to rape. There is a difference.

I do claim that rape is wrong. I also feel that rape is wrong and am acknowledging the difference.

Naturalism has no way to show "Rape is wrong" is a true statement.

Take it up with naturalism. Clownboat says rape is wrong. You were just mistaken when you tried to pretend that it is universaly wrong. Rather than address this and amend your thinking, you continue to claim that I don't say things that I have in fact said. Please amend your thinking.

But your view cannot account for rape being wrong. It is a subjective claim.

I still make the claim that you say I don't. I claim that rape is wrong.

Theists say rape is wrong, period. It is objectively wrong always.

All you are pointing out is that theists agree with me. Theists and Clownboat say that rape is wrong. You would do well to acknowledge this.

You cannot claim that under your view.

What, that rape is wrong. How many times must I show you to be incorrect?

It seems you do not know what intrinsic means.

Well, you are batting 1,000 as far as being incorrect goes.
in·trin·sic
belonging naturally; essential.

Yes, the problem is you lack understand of what intrinsic means.

Please stop blaming me for your failures.
Copy/Paste: "You seriously cannot fathom a mechanism or reason as to why humans assign value to other humans or as to why such a thing would benefit societies and be an encouraged trait?"
Rather than address this, you would prefer to believe that I don't understand the meaning of intrinsic. This will not be lost on the readers I trust.

If you claim Humans have value because other humans assign value to each other, then you are not talking about humans having intrinsic value because that value is not part of what makes a human a human. It doesn't belong to them naturally. You are saying rather than humans are not such a creature that naturally have value, but rather, they must be assigned value. That is not intrinsic.

What does this have to do with the fact that I do claim that rape is wrong? Humans have value, you can argue for it being intrinsic or not as it has nothing to do with my claim about rape being wrong. You just don't like that I make this claim, then offuscate about the value being intrinsic or not when it matters not.

The argument is about humans having an intrinsic property. It is a philosophical argument.

False. What we have been discussing is:
"Rape is wrong even when it is accepted. We all know this, but you have a consequence of your views that you cannot claim rape is wrong, so you have to ignore what you know inside."
Again: "Clownboat does in fact claim that rape is wrong". No matter what you think in your head.

An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

Super duper!
Do you yet acknowledge that I do in fact claim that rape is wrong?

An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

You provide a god concept to assign value, I notice that societies assign the said value. Intrinsic or extrinsic matters not.

Do you see now why you are not talking about an intrinsic property? If societies have to determine our value and we do not have value in ourselves, then it is not intrinsic.

I litterally laughed out loud at this one. I'm talking about rape and how I claim that it is wrong. You lost that argument and instead want to talk about intrinsic vs extrinsic value.

Cool, you claim rape is wrong but you cannot support that it is a true statement that rape is wrong.

Societies supports me as I have claimed from the start. Societies that have rape in their culture will not share in my claim obviously and this is the reason why your claim about rape being universaly wrong was incorrect.

Your view doesn't allow for it unless you can show in your view how it is true objectively that rape is wrong.

How can it be objectively wrong to rape when there are cultures that accept it? Obviously for those cultures, it is not objectively wrong to rape. How are you not getting this? It seems that you are projecting your preferred religions beliefs on to entire cultures. Not another Crusade!

You should care because words have meanings.

Copy/Paste to save time and sanity: "I care not (if instrinsic or extrinsic) and it has nothing to do with the claim of yours that I have refutted.

And if you don't understand what intrinsic means, you sure don't understand the philosophical argument presented.

You don't seem to understand your own argument. Rape is not universaly wrong like you claimed. Either show that it is, or amend your thinking, but don't just move the goal posts.

That is precisely what theists cannot accept.

Who cares what a theist accept or not? Does it matter what an atheist accept (it doesn't)? Is there a reason I should care that you feel it is objectively wrong to rape even though it isn't in some cultures? I do not wish to join you in pretend world.

We cannot accept that rape is only wrong contextually or subjectively.

Then you live in fantasy land as rape is in fact not wrong in some cultures even though it is wrong for you and I for possibly intrinsic or extrinsic value reasons.

I also think it is wrong to stone homosexuals, but acknowledge that there are societies that agree with such a thing. Therefore, to stone homosexuals is wrong for me, but not for all.

Subjective morality doesn't work for us. We are not convinced.

It matters not that it doesn't work for you. For people that feel like you do, there are religions and god concepts you can ascribe to that will inform you about the kind of morality that does work for you. I'm addressing your claim that rape is universally wrong.

That is another topic altogether, although interesting. Suppose objective morals exist, how do we come to know them?

I know of no actual mechanism. As I said above, if that doesn't work for you, pick a religion, they have all sorts of feelings/options about morality. You can even justify stoning homosexuals if that is your thing.

[OneWay]

Evil Points to God

He created it.

[Clownboat]

Evil Points to God

He created it.

Smoke points to fire.

I have created fire.