Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Iapetus]

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

I was a bit lazy with my words when I wrote that post. My argument goes more like this:
If all the bad things in the world can be used to argue AGAINST the existence of God, then all the good things in the world can be used to argue FOR the existence of God. Furthermore, if one thinks life is worth living, then one must believe that there are more good things in the world than bad things - in which case, there is more evidence for the existence of God than the non-existence of God.

Your current rewording doesn’t improve your argument in any way. You suggested specifically that an argument which suggested that bad things in the world could also be attributed to God was, “decidedly illogical, unbalanced and, dare I say, unfair”. Yet you have completely ignored my counter-example, written more than 160 years ago, a much earlier claim. I asked you twice if you thought it was logical, balanced and fair. Unsurprisingly, you haven’t answered.

Moreover, you clearly grasp the point I was trying to make:

If God made all the good things, and if he is omnipotent, then he would also be capable of making bad things.

Exactly. So a claim for only good or only bad things for an omnipotent God – whatever that means precisely - is likely to be illogical, unbalanced and unfair.

I often hear atheists citing the bad things in the world as evidence against the existence of God, but they conveniently ignore the flip side of their logic.

It is not their logic! Atheists are not making a claim for an omnipotent God! They may, however, be pointing out one of the consequences of such a claim.

If you are incapable of imagining why God might make ‘bad things’, then that is your problem, since you are unable to explain what seems to be an inherent contradiction. If God is omnipotent and if God made everything – big ‘ifs’, considering that you yourself accept that it might be a fantasy - then why do you only want to talk about what you consider to be ‘good things’? Why do you then consider it to be “decidedly illogical, unbalanced and, dare I say, unfair” that somebody might want to point out that the world does not consist entirely of ‘good things’?

Incidentally, I find the ‘good things’/’bad things’ argument almost childishly simplistic in itself, but I am going along with it to avoid unnecessary expansion and deviation.

According to my religion, "God is love", so the thought of a loving God making bad things doesn't make any sense. My religion also teaches that bad things are not of God's making, but are a result of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

What you believe and what you can argue in a philosophy forum are two different things. I asked you long ago if you considered it your moral duty to do as you are told – or what you are ‘taught’ - and you never answered me. It is a significant question because, if all that concerns you is that you do what you are told or 'taught', then why does logic, balance and fairness even matter to you? If you are unable to discern the mind of God, then who are you to question 'Him'?

I also asked you, specifically, in my last post, “If you are asserting a lack of logic, then where do you think that arises? In the claim that ‘God is good’ or in an atheist questioning of this claim?” You now transpose ‘God is good’ for ‘God is love’, whilst continuing to have problems with ‘bad things’. Yet, astonishingly, you have tried to criticise atheists for the exact lack of logic, balance and ‘fairness’ which your position illustrates.

By the way, I am not particularly interested in what your religion teaches you. What does interest me is what you actually believe and, if you want me to understand that position, how you can provide reasons for that belief. Or, if you are criticising others, then how that criticism can be justified.

[Anthony Edgar]

Anthony Edgar:

There are many high ranking Catholics who acknowledge evolution as a fact, but it's debatable if the Catholic Church officially acknowledges it as such.

Your infallible Pope’s have said:

Pope John Paul II:

In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope Francis:

God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things... The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

Anthony Edgar:

many Catholics are so ignorant and naive as to uncritically accept the opinion of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

The Popes must be both infallible and ignorant.

Even some Catholics don't properly understand the doctrine of Infallibility.  Papal infallibility applies only to official pronouncements pertaining to doctrines of faith and morals.  It doesn't apply to matters of science.  

A Pope may publicly express his belief that the earth is flat, for example, but the faithful are not obliged to believe it.  On the other hand, if a Pope makes an official ex cathedra pronouncement that says something like, "Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected three days later" (faith) or, "You shall not steal" (morals), then the faithful are obliged to believe it.  
An infallible pronouncement does not necessarily reflect the personal opinion of the Pope, but represents the consensus reached by the Pope in union with the Bishops.  Infallible decisions, once officially pronounced, can never be reversed.  
Another mistake often made by non-Catholics is confusing Infallibility with Impeccability (the inability to sin).  

-- Updated November 3rd, 2016, 5:11 am to add the following --

Anthony Edgar:

I don't think scientific theories should confine themselves to anything.

I disagree. I think they should confine themselves to things that can, at least in principle, be tested by empirical observation.

There is the chance that something useful can eventually come from abstract scientific ideas.  A theory that initially sounds preposterous may turn out to be useful.  I imagine Einstein would have encountered his fair share of knockers in the beginning.

Your comments on such things as exotic theories of gravity (and your apparent belief that they are pure science fiction with no basis in observed reality) seems to support this idea.

I don't regard exotic and abstract scientific theories to be science-fiction, exactly.  There may well be some truth to some of them, but if a theory cannot be tested, then it is as worthless as science fiction.

Evidence strongly suggests that they are all in a state of transition ... At some point in the distant future when the other great apes have long since died out and are remembered only by strong but indirect evidence, there will perhaps be people pointing out there are no intermediate species between humans and other mammals and will perhaps scoff at the idea that these mythical hairy apes used to exist. Food for thought?

This idea assumes that speciation occurs.  But I have no reason to believe that speciation occurs.  So I have no reason to believe that any species at all transitioned into extinction in the past or will do so in the future.  There are possible explanations for past extinctions other than transition.

Isn't it interesting that not one practical use has ever been found for speciation, a process that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of all life on earth?  The theory that one species can evolve into another species is as useless to applied science as the theory that there are multiverses. As I've said before, uselessness is the hallmark of a theory that is false.

[Dolphin42]

Anthony Edgar

There is the chance that something useful can eventually come from abstract scientific ideas.

But no matter how abstract and remote they might seem, they're not scientific ideas unless they can, at least in principle, perhaps very indirectly, be related to a possible empirical observation.

A theory that initially sounds preposterous may turn out to be useful.

Yes it may. But it will only do so if it can be related to an observation. Appearing to be preposterous is irrelevant to that.

I imagine Einstein would have encountered his fair share of knockers in the beginning.

Yes, he did (particuarly when explaining his theories to barmaids. (Sorry. Bad joke.)), but he was well aware that if his theories were to mean anything they had to relate to possible observations. And they did. They were also the direct result of actual past observations and theories.

I don't regard exotic and abstract scientific theories to be science-fiction, exactly. There may well be some truth to some of them, but if a theory cannot be tested, then it is as worthless as science fiction.

I agree. That's true of Loop Quantum Gravity just as much as it's true of anything else. I had a quick google and found this article: phys.org/news/2012-01-physicists-loop-q ... avity.html discussing a possible experimental test of it. So I guess someone's trying.

This idea assumes that speciation occurs. But I have no reason to believe that speciation occurs. So I have no reason to believe that any species at all transitioned into extinction in the past or will do so in the future.

It doesn't assume that speciation occurs. It rests on the available evidence that it occurs. You can examine the available evidence and then come to a conclusion as to whether you consider it compelling enough to conclude that speciation actually occurs. But if when you say that you have no reason to believe that it occurs you mean that there is no evidence for it, you'd be incorrect. You might not find the evidence convincing (or you might not have looked at it), but that doesn't stop it from existing. If you mean that you have examined the evidence and decided that it is not strong enough for you, I could accept that. Just as if you said you'd examined the evidence for plate tectonics and been unconvinced that it was the reason for the existence of the Himalayas, and preferred a different theory, I would accept that as your opinion and try to examine your alternative.

There are possible explanations for past extinctions other than transition.

Transition is from one species to another. Not from one species to no species (extinction).

Isn't it interesting that not one practical use has ever been found for speciation, a process that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of all life on earth? The theory that one species can evolve into another species is as useless to applied science as the theory that there are multiverses. As I've said before, uselessness is the hallmark of a theory that is false.

You've mentioned the question of practicality before. What do you mean by "practical"? To me it means something that helps humans to find food, shelter or clothing. It's handy if a scientific theory leads to those things, but it's not the test of whether it is a well found scientific theory. That depends on whether it effectively identifies a pattern in nature.

[Fooloso4]

Anthony Edgar:

Papal infallibility applies only to official pronouncements pertaining to doctrines of faith and morals.

I stand corrected. This, however, still leaves open the question of whether you think the Popes are ignorant for accepting evolution.

Isn't it interesting that not one practical use has ever been found for speciation, a process that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of all life on earth? The theory that one species can evolve into another species is as useless to applied science as the theory that there are multiverses. As I've said before, uselessness is the hallmark of a theory that is false.

Science and applied science are two different but related fields. The question of use is not the question of truth or knowledge. As to applied evolution, here is one of many examples a simple internet search yields:

Evolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality. Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352551/

[Anthony Edgar]

If an atheist, by definition, does not accept the claims to existence of a god or God, then how do you imagine that they would either condemn or give credit to a God in which they do not believe?

I cannot imagine how atheists would condemn or give credit to a God in which they do not believe.

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

A song first published in 1848. A claim about God. Is this logical? Balanced? Fair?
This seems balanced and fair, since God cannot create evil.

If somebody responded that, if ‘The Lord God’ made bright and beautiful things, then perhaps ‘he’ also made unpleasant and nasty things, would this make it illogical or unfair?

No. That would be unfair, since God cannot create evil.

Incidentally, the third verse goes:


(Nested quote removed.)



Logical? Balanced? Fair?

I'm unsure about this part.  Did God create socio-economic inequalities?  I don't know.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

I cannot imagine how atheists would condemn or give credit to a God in which they do not believe.

In which case, there was not a great deal of logic, balance or fairness in your accusation of Vijaydevani; “Other than that, I've noticed that, like a lot of atheists, you are quick to condemn God for all the horrible things in the world, but never give God credit for any of the nice things in the world. Your approach seems decidedly illogical, unbalanced and, dare I say, unfair”.

I think you realise that you have lost that little argument. It does, however raise broader and more significant issues. It forces you into counter-intuitive assertions. Thus, you have to defend All things bright and beautiful by asserting, without justification, that “God cannot create evil”. Apart from the fact that I was not aware that we were talking specifically about evil, you are defending a lack of logic, balance and fairness with no attempt to use logic, balance or fairness. Yet it is you who raised these criticisms.

To try to bring the discussion more closely to the ideas of biological materialism, a consideration of ‘creation’ seems appropriate at this point. You said this:

If God made all the good things, and if he is omnipotent, then he would also be capable of making bad things.

But you then went on to say that God doesn’t make ‘bad things’. I think this requires some clarification.

Do you believe that God created everything?

Does ‘everything’ include ‘good things’, ‘bad things’ and everything in between?

If God didn’t create everything, then what is your point?

If god only created ‘good things’, then how did ‘bad things’ get here? Please take into account at this point that you are talking to a non-believer in a philosophy forum. If you want to talk about the Garden of Eden, then please consider your logic carefully.

How do you separate ‘good things’ from ‘bad things’? Is a cat a good thing or a bad thing, given that it is cuddly but also a carnivore? What about a lion? Bees pollinate but also sting. The anopheles mosquito? An eye worm? Are you able to list some criteria according to which we can arrive at decisions about these things?

I have now you asked you four times about your response to things you are told or taught by your Church. I have told you why this matters to me. Yet you have still not answered.

[Anthony Edgar]

I stand corrected. This, however, still leaves open the question of whether you think the Popes are ignorant for accepting evolution.

"The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought -  constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory (of evolution)."  - Pope John Paul II.  Yeah, right ... JPII seems totally oblivious to the patently obvious link between the theory and atheism.  How ignorant and naive can a Pope get?  He also seems oblivious to the fact that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Christian Scripture.  Whose side was this dunce on?  Popes who endorse evolution are making a serious error.  Eventually the Church will wake up to this and do something about it (my tip is a doctrine will emerge that declares that the six days of creation in Genesis are not allegorical, but literal 24-hour days).

Science and applied science are two different but related fields. The question of use is not the question of truth or knowledge. As to applied evolution, here is one of many examples a simple internet search yields:

Evolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality. Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential."

You can bet your bottom dollar than not one of the known uses of applied evolution involves speciation.  If the idea of speciation could be erased from human consciousness overnight, it's absence would not make an iota of difference to any field of medicine, veterinary science, farming, animal or plant breeding or any form of real-world science. 
 The practical uselessness of speciation doesn't prove it doesn't happen, but it's "interesting" that there innumerble ways to demonstrare that miro-evolution is a fact, but zero ways to demonstrate that macro-evolution is.

-- Updated November 6th, 2016, 6:51 pm to add the following --

Loop Quantum Gravity ... I had a quick google and found this article: phys.org/news/2012-01-physicists-loop-q ... avity.html discussing a possible experimental test of it. So I guess someone's trying.
Thanks for this link - I might try this experiment at home sometime.  

speciation ... It rests on the available evidence that it occurs. You can examine the available evidence and then come to a conclusion as to whether you consider it compelling enough to conclude that speciation actually occurs. But if when you say that you have no reason to believe that it occurs you mean that there is no evidence for it, you'd be incorrect. You might not find the evidence convincing (or you might not have looked at it), but that doesn't stop it from existing. If you mean that you have examined the evidence and decided that it is not strong enough for you, I could accept that. Just as if you said you'd examined the evidence for plate tectonics and been unconvinced that it was the reason for the existence of the Himalayas, and preferred a different theory, I would accept that as your opinion and try to examine your alternative.

Once the general theory of evolution is accepted as a fact (which is easy once creation is rejected as an option, since there is no other possibility), then belief in speciation is a given.  So fnding evidence for speciation then becomes almost an option extra.   You believe speciation must have happened, so evidence for it must be out there somewhere.  This 'a priori' position can lead to accepting inconclusive or even weak evidence for speciation, in my opinion. It seems to me that creatationists view that same evidence more critically and with more scientific rigour.
An example is the the fossil record, which is often cited as evidence of speciation.  Pierre-P. Grasse was of the opinion that just about any theory could be accommodated by the fossil record.   Gould and Eldredge found transitionals so lacking that they came up with PE to account for it.  So I get the impression that paleotology can be very ambiguous and controversial and not an ideal source for irrefutable evidence.

Most people who believe that that fossils reveal speciation take this on faith; they may not have ever even seen a fossil! And nor have they taken the time to get a Ph.d. in paleontology and then spend ten years studying the fossils record first-hand.

What do you mean by "practical"? To me it means something that helps humans to find food, shelter or clothing. It's handy if a scientific theory leads to those things, but it's not the test of whether it is a well found scientific theory. That depends on whether it effectively identifies a pattern in nature.

By "practical" I mean a practical scientific use ... as in a use in applied science, such as medicine, animal or plant breeding, farming.

[Fooloso4]

Anthony Edgar:

The practical uselessness of speciation doesn't prove it doesn't happen, but it's "interesting" that there innumerble ways to demonstrare that miro-evolution is a fact, but zero ways to demonstrate that macro-evolution is.

So, if I understand you accept microevolution as a fact but reject macroevolution. What do you think the difference is? Is it based on the notion of species as kinds? See below.

Wiki provides the following references regarding examples of speciation from its article on macroevolution. Each is available by copying and pasting the title is a search engine:

Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution. 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. JSTOR 2410209.
*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.). 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.
*Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
*Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (March 2002). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments". The American Naturalist. 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 3078919. PMID 18707367.

As to the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, from wiki article on speciation:

One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.
— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998)

In other words, if you accept microevolution then you accept macroevolution. As noted in the same article:

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[24] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".

If you are going to dispute scientific claims you must do so using the language of those claims.

[gimal]

Why bother with your critiques as the poet has shown all views/critiques end in contradiction/meaninglessness. All you are doing is just playing with language/definitions which will just lead you into a quagmire of meaninglessness.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

[Fooloso4]

gimal:

Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

That you for expressing your own and/or Dean’s view which of course must be meaningless. But I assume you think for some reason that it is nonetheless meaningful.

[Anthony Edgar]

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

I cannot imagine how atheists would condemn or give credit to a God in which they do not believe.

In which case, there was not a great deal of logic, balance or fairness in your accusation of Vijaydevani; “Other than that, I've noticed that, like a lot of atheists, you are quick to condemn God for all the horrible things in the world, but never give God credit for any of the nice things in the world. Your approach seems decidedly illogical, unbalanced and, dare I say, unfair”.

I often hear atheists argue that God doesn't exist because their is so much suffering in the world.  They must reason that if God existed, he would be omnipotent and would not permit anything bad (like suffering) to exist.  So they associate God with goodness.   But there are many good things in the world , so why don't these atheists associate the existence of these good things with the existence of God.  The bad things are taken into account, but the good things are ignored. That seems like an unbalanced argument to me.
 

I think you realise that you have lost that little argument. It does, however raise broader and more significant issues. It forces you into counter-intuitive assertions. Thus, you have to defend All things bright and beautiful by asserting, without justification, that “God cannot create evil”.

What I believe about the nature of God is not a product of my imagination, but is what I believe God has revealed about himself and his creation to humanity.    So my views are justified by God transcendent revelation.  I realise that this justification is no justification at all to an atheist.

To try to bring the discussion more closely to the ideas of biological materialism, a consideration of ‘creation’ seems appropriate at this point. You said this:

If God made all the good things, and if he is omnipotent, then he would also be capable of making bad things.

But you then went on to say that God doesn’t make ‘bad things’. I think this requires some clarification.

Do you believe that God created everything?

Does ‘everything’ include ‘good things’, ‘bad things’ and everything in between?

If God didn’t create everything, then what is your point?

If god only created ‘good things’, then how did ‘bad things’ get here? Please take into account at this point that you are talking to a non-believer in a philosophy forum. If you want to talk about the Garden of Eden, then please consider your logic carefully.

How do you separate ‘good things’ from ‘bad things’? Is a cat a good thing or a bad thing, given that it is cuddly but also a carnivore? What about a lion? Bees pollinate but also sting. The anopheles mosquito? An eye worm? Are you able to list some criteria according to which we can arrive at decisions about these things?

God created all things but didn't create anything bad or evil.   Evil entered the world as a result of the Original Sin of the first humans, Adam and Eve.  Before this sin, animals didn't kill and eat each other, there were no blood-sucking insects or eye-eating worms (or even worm-eating eyes).  It  was a harmonious world full of all things bright and beautiful.  Sounds nice, doesn't it?
-------------------------------------
It would be impossible for me to develop criteria that can be used to differentiate good things from bad things, as I don't know precisely what the world was like before Original Sin corrupted it.  I can only guess.

[Sy Borg]

God created all things but didn't create anything bad or evil.   Evil entered the world as a result of the Original Sin of the first humans, Adam and Eve.  Before this sin, animals didn't kill and eat each other, there were no blood-sucking insects or eye-eating worms (or even worm-eating eyes).  It  was a harmonious world full of all things bright and beautiful.  Sounds nice, doesn't it?
-------------------------------------
It would be impossible for me to develop criteria that can be used to differentiate good things from bad things, as I don't know precisely what the world was like before Original Sin corrupted it.  I can only guess.

This is backwards. The further back that you trace all history - be it that of humans, other species, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy or the universe - the more tumult and tumult and violence. Move forward in time and you have increasing calm and order. "Evil" is just the subjective experience of entropy. A meteor can deliver an "evil fate" (since evil is purely subjective) whilst being utterly innocent.

What arrived with humanity was the deliberate desire to cause harm. Again, subjectively - if you encountered a person bent on harm - the person would clearly seem "evil". Objectively, that person is either damaged goods, a predator or parasite. In the greater scheme of things, predators and parasites, like all other agents of suffering, ultimately serve to make the products of evolution ever more robust.

[TSBU]

"Evil" is just the subjective experience of entropy. A meteor can deliver an "evil fate" (since evil is purely subjective) whilst being utterly innocent.

I'm nearly sure you are the only person here with that definition of evil.

What arrived with humanity was the deliberate desire to cause harm.

In the greater scheme of things, predators and parasites, like all other agents of suffering, ultimately serve to make the products of evolution ever more robust.

Nope. Predators, parasytes, and all the other animals, serve no purpose, they just exist. And they are not necesarily making "products of evolution" more "robust". For example, they can kill all variety in a zone with things similar to poisson, eliminating sun under water, whatever,, except a nearly exctinct animal that lives only using the new predator and depends totally in it to survive (what makes it "weak"). By the way, talking about evolution, in the "greater scheme of things", variety is the best. I mean, if they were only a super animal, it wouldn't be perfect cause that's impossible, being milions of species, there can be always one wich can survive the thing that can kill the rest.

And, in terms of "evil" (I mean, the dictionary definition), go telling a dad that the guy who raped her daughter is only "subjective evil because you see it as entropy, but don't worry, he is serving a purpose, he is makng humanity stronger".

-- Updated November 7th, 2016, 7:09 pm to add the following --

"Evil" is just the subjective experience of entropy. A meteor can deliver an "evil fate" (since evil is purely subjective) whilst being utterly innocent.

I'm nearly sure you are the only person here with that definition of evil.

What arrived with humanity was the deliberate desire to cause harm.

In the greater scheme of things, predators and parasites, like all other agents of suffering, ultimately serve to make the products of evolution ever more robust.

Nope. Predators, parasytes, and all the other animals, serve no purpose, they just exist. And they are not necesarily making "products of evolution" more "robust". For example, they can kill all variety in a zone with things similar to poisson, eliminating sun under water, whatever,, except a nearly exctinct animal that lives only using the new predator and depends totally in it to survive (what makes it "weak"). By the way, talking about evolution, in the "greater scheme of things", variety is the best. I mean, if they were only a super animal, it wouldn't be perfect cause that's impossible, being milions of species, there can be always one wich can survive the thing that can kill the rest.

And, in terms of "evil" (I mean, the dictionary definition), go telling a dad that the guy who raped her daughter is only "subjective evil because you see it as entropy, but don't worry, he is serving a purpose, he is makng humanity stronger".

-- Updated November 7th, 2016, 7:11 pm to add the following --

PS: I don't know why is it twice, I didn't put it two times, maybe it's a bug. If this sentence appears twice, it is surely a bug.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Anthony Edgar:

I often hear atheists argue that God doesn't exist because their is so much suffering in the world. They must reason that if God existed, he would be omnipotent and would not permit anything bad (like suffering) to exist. So they associate God with goodness. But there are many good things in the world , so why don't these atheists associate the existence of these good things with the existence of God. The bad things are taken into account, but the good things are ignored. That seems like an unbalanced argument to me.

Anthony, you have nothing new to offer. You are trying to rework your original arguments whilst ignoring all that I have said about them.

Atheists do not, as a rule, make claims about the existence of God. How could they if, by definition, they reject such claims? They respond to claims made by theists. You have already conceded this:

I cannot imagine how atheists would condemn or give credit to a God in which they do not believe.

They do not, of course, “associate God with goodness”. That is nonsense. Please stop it. They may, however, respond to claims that ‘God is good’ or that ‘God is love’ by pointing out that there is a converse to such an argument. I gave you an example of a claim to ‘goodness’, All things bright and beautiful, published in 1848. I questioned whether you considered this to be logical, balanced and fair. Rather than reply directly, you simply stated, with no further explanation, that, “God cannot create evil”, even though we have never discussed the term, ‘evil’. So you are asserting that ‘God is good’ and that any claim to the contrary is automatically excluded. We are discussing in a philosophy forum. You must, surely, understand the significance of questioning premises. Your premises – ‘God is good’ and ‘God cannot create evil’ – are expressions of belief and have little, if anything, to do with logic, balance or fairness.

As if this is not enough, your premises depend on being able to distinguish ‘good things’ from ‘bad things’. But, on your own admission, you are completely unable to do so:

It would be impossible for me to develop criteria that can be used to differentiate good things from bad things, …. I can only guess.

If you can’t even tell me if a cat is a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’, - when your beliefs seem to focus on such things - then what sort of basis is this for any sort of philosophy?

God created all things but didn't create anything bad or evil. Evil entered the world as a result of the Original Sin of the first humans, Adam and Eve. Before this sin, animals didn't kill and eat each other, there were no blood-sucking insects or eye-eating worms (or even worm-eating eyes). It was a harmonious world full of all things bright and beautiful. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Sounds nonsense to me. You can believe what you like but please don’t assume that I go along with it. If a woman (oh silly woman!) was persuaded by a talking snake to eat an apple, the result of which is that every child who was ever born subsequently must bear the burden of such a sin, then the God who ordained such a penance is not an entity which I can respect. I find the concept of original sin to be abhorrent, as would be the blood sacrifice of atonement. Neither does it explain how ‘evil entered the world’. Is this the hand of God, or of Lucifer or Satan or what? If blood-sucking insects and eye-eating worms (nematodes, actually), entered the world, then did God put them there after the Fall? If so, why? If not, then is there a Satan? And a Hell? Big questions. Please, please don’t attempt to answer them. If you can’t even tell me if a cat is a good thing or a bad thing, then anything more substantial is bound to be unconvincing. You have told me a story which has no power to persuade me of anything.

When you are unable to reason through an argument you seem to fall back on asserting your beliefs. You do so again here:

What I believe about the nature of God is not a product of my imagination, but is what I believe God has revealed about himself and his creation to humanity. So my views are justified by God transcendent revelation. I realise that this justification is no justification at all to an atheist.

I fail to see how, in any reasoned argument, you can assume that what has been ‘revealed’ to you has been ‘revealed’ to anybody else. It is an assertion of belief and nothing more. It sounds like desperation when you have nothing better available.

And so to the question which you have already dodged four times, even though I have stressed its importance;

I asked you long ago if you considered it your moral duty to do as you are told – or what you are ‘taught’ - and you never answered me. It is a significant question because, if all that concerns you is that you do what you are told or 'taught', then why does logic, balance and fairness even matter to you? If you are unable to discern the mind of God, then who are you to question 'Him'?

[Dolphin42]

One thing I've noticed is that eye-eating worms always get a bad rap from discussions like this. Always it's the eye-eating worms. In their defence: maybe, by eating some eyes, they've caused the eye to evolve better protection. Although if it just means they've evolved better protection from being eaten by worms it is an admittedly dubious, mafia-esque, kind of "protection".