frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

god creates evil so therefore god is evil

Opening Argument

god after all created satan. As an example if god is god he must have known that satan would turn out to be evil, So therefore god created evil. Evil does not have to exist in order for good to prosper. But not in god's loony world. 
SilverishGoldNova

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    If you create something that possesses the capacity for free will and it chooses to commit acts of evil then that does not define you as evil...plain logic.  If we could not choose to be evil then we would not have free will, if we could not choose to hurt each other then we would not have free will. 

    What would the world be if it were full of nothing but people that had no choice but to be good...it would be a world of robots.  It would be a world devoid of free thinking, devoid of free expression. It would be a world of limitations and there would be no freedom.  If you were an all powerful being and decided to create living creatures...would you create them without the freedom of choice?  Would you force them into doing your bidding and prevent them from choosing otherwise?  If so...why?
  • @EZ202526  Evil was made by God, but He does not commit evil acts.  Everything He does is justified because He is God.  He is I Am.  
  • @Vaulk There's so much against free will that points out to not having it if you believe in god. Who ever said that god created man with the capacity for free will?  That would be a runaway greenhouse effect. After all god would need to somehow keep his subjects in line with each other so that they do not get out of line. Now please show me anywhere in the bible where god says something like "I the lord thy god grants man free will". The fact of the matter is it doesn't exist. So until that happens, then man has no free will living under god.
    Not only that but suppose that free will under god does exist, god could very easily take the evil and hate out of free will such as the raping of a 6 year old girl as daddy sticks his you know what inside of her while punching her in the face for 15 years twice per week. But no. This god guy leaves the evil and hate in free will making him and evil hateful sick s.o.b. Even worse is he grants more value and more standard to the perpetrator. leaving the girl who cannot escape and does not have any free will to escape to SCREAM at the top of her lungs, completely stripped of all dignity.
    Also if there's supposed to be this great big almighty plan that god has in store, then free will cannot happen to bend the plan. Also if god is god he knows everything that you are going to be doing before you do it, hence no free will. Also if you are threatened with something, such as death, say breaking the sabbath, that's also not free will at all. In other words, if you believe in god, then you have no free will. More than logical. 

    Here's another thing of logic that was told to me with a little thinking power: god himself does NOT have free will IF he knows his future. After all, how can he if he is omnipotent because he will have already known his choices that have been chosen? That is NOT Free Will. So if god does not have Free Will and the ability to choose, most definitely man does NOT have Free Will and the ability to choose. Got it? Does it make sense? If not, reread it until it does because I promise you it does. Its a logical time bomb that christians cannot dance around. It will only lead you---right---back---here---this---moment------in-------------time.

    As far as evil and hate is concerned, well evil, hate, suffering and pain doesn't have to exist. Its not a requirement. Its not a need. Its not a necessity. But according to  god it is. Buddhism, Hinduism, Gaia Mother Earth, The Aborigines, nearly every Native American Indian tribe until the christian white man nearly wiped them out with hellacious genocides, believed and believe in peace, his brother and living in peace with the earth and they certainly didn't and do not practice evil the way god preaches it and practices it at sermons with hell and eternal damnation if you do not believe! Yeah because of god that body count is at least a billion. And is going to get much worse if the book of revelation is played out. But that’s perfectly OK - right? Um no. Wrong.

    You talk of robots. You don't think living under god is an army of robots? What are the 10 commandments? What is the threats of hell and eternal damnation as perfect examples? Of course that creating robots because that's the only way it can be under god because no one can get out of line and screw up god's plan. There's no freedom under god. Its all terror. Its like nearly all religions. First you have your power which is god and then you instill fear and with that fear comes control of your subjects. That's why I don't believe in any religion. Not one. They are all evil and deliver false hope and promises. 

    Of course I would create living things to be free and think free. I would not create thinking beings to live under oppression. That's slavery. Oh boy did god create slavery. EX 21:1 Worse than that you could beat your slaves nearly to death. WRONG!
  • @SuperSith89 You cannot in any way have a debate with any kind of reasoning behind it because you totally lack it as you are completely brainwashed by your god and you really don't know what you are talking about by what you said in the meaningless two sentences. "Evil was made by God, but He does not commit evil acts." OK have it your way then that means that your god is not in control of everything, he does not know everything, he is not all knowing and not all powerful and is not omnipotent and is not perfect. So which is it? So if he's in control of everything, knows everything, creates everything, is all knowing and all powerful, is omnipotent and is perfect, then he creates evil so therefore god is evil. Oh and btw, do you consider slavery evil? Yes or No? You do fully understand that god approves of slavery as only one example of evil - correct? What about gays? Do you think that we should follow the bible and stone them to death as per what your god instructs? Do you think that's evil? Yes or No? Well if you say yes, then you are as immoral as your god. Nice to know you. Over and out. There are many many many other examples of your god's evils and immoralities. Would you like a list?

    SuperSith89
  • @EZ202526  He can be all the omnis and not be evil.  You say, God makes evil, so He is.  That's like saying I created this car, so I am responsible for every death through car accidents and all the evil done with them.  God created evil, but gave us a choice not to use it and still gives us that choice.  

    Slavery is evil, BUT the slavery in Bible times is completely different to the times very recently.  Back then it was not based on race, which the Bible condemns as every man and woman is equal, but rather based on war and economics.  People would sell themselves into slavery because doing so paid for so many things.  http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_Slavery1.pdf.  The slave masters are commanded in the Bible to treat them well when they act well and then let them off furnished and set off well.  

    Now about gays and stoning and all that.  The verses condoning that and commanding it are part of the old covenant with God through Moses.  As Jesus came and died on the cross then rose again, a new covenant was made with His blood and any laws Jesus set or Paul set are the binding laws to us along with the ten commandments.  The old covenant laws are not gone, but no longer bind to our fate in heaven.  Gays are not in the right, but stoning them is no longer the answer.  Cutting off a hand that sins is no longer needed as Jesus washed us of sin.  


    Sylynn
  • ImbsterImbster 92 Pts
    @SuperSith89 @EZ202526
    If I make a toy surely I am not the toy itself
     
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    edited July 7
    @EZ202526  He can be all the omnis and not be evil.  You say, God makes evil, so He is.  That's like saying I created this car, so I am responsible for every death through car accidents and all the evil done with them.  God created evil, but gave us a choice not to use it and still gives us that choice.  

    Slavery is evil, BUT the slavery in Bible times is completely different to the times very recently.  Back then it was not based on race, which the Bible condemns as every man and woman is equal, but rather based on war and economics.  People would sell themselves into slavery because doing so paid for so many things.  http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_Slavery1.pdf.  The slave masters are commanded in the Bible to treat them well when they act well and then let them off furnished and set off well.  

    Now about gays and stoning and all that.  The verses condoning that and commanding it are part of the old covenant with God through Moses.  As Jesus came and died on the cross then rose again, a new covenant was made with His blood and any laws Jesus set or Paul set are the binding laws to us along with the ten commandments.  The old covenant laws are not gone, but no longer bind to our fate in heaven.  Gays are not in the right, but stoning them is no longer the answer.  Cutting off a hand that sins is no longer needed as Jesus washed us of sin.  


    First of all, what difference does race make? I don't care if you're a different race or the same, there is no justification in owning another human being as property. The Bible makes clear distinctions between those who sell themselves as slaves and those who were just purchased by force. Read Exodus 21 & Leviticus 25 (if you defend slavery in the Bible, it's clear you've never actually read it). With regards to servants, God is clear when you purchase them you can keep them for 6 years, however if they marry and have children, you can keep the women and children. God clearly gives permission to the owners to beat their slaves so long as they recover in just a couple days. Leviticus 25 makes it clear that slaves (in contrast to servants) can be kept indefinitely and even passed down as heirlooms. Why? Because the slaves are their property. Now, before you even try the context argument, let me make something quite clear. There is no context in which owning another human being as personal property is moral.

    Now, to address the stoning of homosexuals. Christian's like to grasp at the "New Covenant" argument, but you're missing something key. You claim your god is unchanging; that he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. For a couple thousand years God had instructed his people to murder homosexuals. The same god that did this must be the same one you worship now - again, he is unchanging. 

    I don't need to try and argue if god created evil he must be evil. Just read the Bible and see it yourself.
  • Fr3akFr3ak 25 Pts
    God is apparently omnipotent, which means he would know everything to ever happen, meaning he would know what would be evil so he could stop it from happening. But god isn't real, so he can't be evil.

    There has to be a balance, where there is life, there is death. Where there is good, there is evil. Where there are sensible people who use logic, there are silly people who are scared of a fairy tale so worship a mythical sky daddy.
  • The debate is not that simple, ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    The debate is not that simple, ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
    First of all, this is a question that cannot be answered from the perspective you offer. The obvious answer is no, but I can only provide an answer from the perspective of living in a world in which that's not the case. I can't answer it from the standpoint of not knowing otherwise.

    Secondly, what does happiness have to do with the existence of evil? Happiness is not synonymous with good, as evil people can also be quite happy.
    • Sylynn said:
      The debate is not that simple, ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
      First of all, this is a question that cannot be answered from the perspective you offer. The obvious answer is no, but I can only provide an answer from the perspective of living in a world in which that's not the case. I can't answer it from the standpoint of not knowing otherwise.
      Secondly, what does happiness have to do with the existence of evil? Happiness is not synonymous with good, as evil people can also be quite happy.

      When people bring up this debate they always connect suffering to evil, and happiness to good. And those are logical conclusions to make because according to the definition, being happy also has the synonym of well-being which is a positive. And when I said, "ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
      ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you?" I was trying to illustrate that suffering and evil are necessary for their counterparts to exist.
              And imagining worlds different from our own is not difficult if we base those worlds on already know and defined concepts, such as happiness.

    For example, if I told you to imagine the world as if everyone was a  saxh, you wouldn't understand because I completely made that up (as far as I know).

    But if I told you to base your vision on concepts like happiness which are defined, then a world like that is not inconceivable. 
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    • Sylynn said:
      The debate is not that simple, ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
      First of all, this is a question that cannot be answered from the perspective you offer. The obvious answer is no, but I can only provide an answer from the perspective of living in a world in which that's not the case. I can't answer it from the standpoint of not knowing otherwise.
      Secondly, what does happiness have to do with the existence of evil? Happiness is not synonymous with good, as evil people can also be quite happy.

      When people bring up this debate they always connect suffering to evil, and happiness to good. And those are logical conclusions to make because according to the definition, being happy also has the synonym of well-being which is a positive. And when I said, "ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you? 
      ask yourself, would you be happy in a world where happiness was already given to you?" I was trying to illustrate that suffering and evil are necessary for their counterparts to exist.
              And imagining worlds different from our own is not difficult if we base those worlds on already know and defined concepts, such as happiness.

    For example, if I told you to imagine the world as if everyone was a  saxh, you wouldn't understand because I completely made that up (as far as I know).

    But if I told you to base your vision on concepts like happiness which are defined, then a world like that is not inconceivable. 
    Yes, people can suffer because of evil, but this doesn't mean those evil people can't be happy. For example: the Jews suffered because of the evil of Hitler and the Nazis. However, until their demise, you could easily argue their well being was fine and that possibly, they were even happy.

    No, imagining other worlds isn't different, however being able to provide an answer to what life would be like in that world without the knowledge of this world is impossible.  It's equivelant to asking yourself, what if you had never met your spouse? You may not like to think of it, but in actuality, had you never met your spouse you wouldn't know otherwise. I can imagine a world without evil and everyone is happy, but to understand what it would truly be like is impossible simply because of the fact I live in a world that's not like that and my knowledge is based on that. All I can do is compare, but again if I only knew the alternative world, I would have nothing to compare it on.

    Imagine that world. The world in which everyone is happy and happiness is simply given to you. Now imagine someone asking one if it's inhabitants to imagine a world in which people are able to be happy because they know how it compares to evil. It would seem like a strange world, and why would anyone want to live somewhere like that? But this strange world you describe is all they know, yet the world we actually live in is quite normal for us. 
  • Sylynn said:
    Yes, people can suffer because of evil, but this doesn't mean those evil people can't be happy. For example: the Jews suffered because of the evil of Hitler and the Nazis. However, until their demise, you could easily argue their well being was fine and that possibly, they were even happy.

    No, imagining other worlds isn't different, however being able to provide an answer to what life would be like in that world without the knowledge of this world is impossible.  It's equivelant to asking yourself, what if you had never met your spouse? You may not like to think of it, but in actuality, had you never met your spouse you wouldn't know otherwise. I can imagine a world without evil and everyone is happy, but to understand what it would truly be like is impossible simply because of the fact I live in a world that's not like that and my knowledge is based on that. All I can do is compare, but again if I only knew the alternative world, I would have nothing to compare it on.

    Imagine that world. The world in which everyone is happy and happiness is simply given to you. Now imagine someone asking one if it's inhabitants to imagine a world in which people are able to be happy because they know how it compares to evil. It would seem like a strange world, and why would anyone want to live somewhere like that? But this strange world you describe is all they know, yet the world we actually live in is quite normal for us. 
    Happiness has a positive connotation, which is associated to good. The connotation given to words determines which spectrum they fall under good or bad.

    That's because they don't know what evil is, it is impossible to imagine something when it's based on another thing that is unknown, which is what I was saying, it illustrates the fact that evil can't exist without good and vice versa.

    I don't know the nature of God or if he exists, but if I was a creator I would create evil because being good would have more meaning.
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    "Happiness has a positive connotation, which is associated to good."
    Perhaps, but "good" is subjective. To jump back to my example of Hitler. Hitler believed what he was doing was good, and his success (while it lasted) would have made him happy. We can all agree though, that his acts were evil. 

    "it illustrates the fact that evil can't exist without good and vice versa."
    I disagree that evil is necessary for there to be good. In any situation, something can either be good or not good. If however a situation is not good, this doesn't mean it's evil. If I have a successful week at work (I work on commission) that is a good week. If I have an unsuccessful week, it's not evil, it's just not good. The only thing necessary to understand "good" is to have a neutral or default position. 

    "if I was a creator I would create evil because being good would have more meaning."
    That's a bit extreme. As a parent, I do want my child to be able to fully appreciate certain things in life, but I'm not going to purposefully make their life difficult just so they can compare. That's sick.
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    I had another thought on this idea of good requiring evil. If it's true that good cannot exist unless there is also evil, if there is a Heaven, it either cannot be good, or it must have evil, which would make it not heaven. 

  • @Sylynn

    1. If good is subjective, how can we definitively say what is evil and is not? Subjective morality is an oxymoron, because if anyone can come up with what is right, then what is the point of defining it. Everyone should go around and do as they please if they themselves can define what is right and wrong. Depending on the basis of one's "subjective morality" they can justify anything

    2. No, that is not what I was saying if something isn't good it doesn't necessarily make it evil, but for something good to exist there needs to be a duality, nothing is truly impartial. I mean even as you claim that neutrality is possible, you denote that I'm sick because I would create evil even though I gave complete rational as to why I would do it.

    Imagine this in a discussion, Physical contact in ALL forms is evil  - You have Pro or you DON'T SPEAK- (A neutral stance)
    Essentially, you are either in a room full of people who agree, or you are full of people who don't say anything. 

    3. You cannot appreciate something if it is the default, humans would be mindless animals without the duality of good and evil. I'm not evil, I'm just not naive.


  • I'm not going to get into the nit and grit of the religion, I'm agnostic. (I mean even my username alludes to blasphemy) (The snake from the Garden Of Eden story)
  • SylynnSylynn 68 Pts
    edited July 7
    @SnakesOfferingApples - "If good is subjective, how can we definitively say what is evil and is not?"
    It depends on what you mean by "good". I said good is subjective, but I'm not necessarily making the same claim for morality. Once again to jump back to Hitler, we would say what he did was evil, he would say he was doing good; making it subjective. What can be said is this was objectively immoral. 

    "for something good to exist there needs to be a duality"
    I would agree, but I don't agree with your assessment to what this duality is. I would suggest it is either good or not good. An extreme opposite is not necessary to understand or appreciate it. As an example, I have felt hunger and I also know what it feels like to be not hungry. I can appreciate the feeling of not being hungry despite having never experienced starvation. I don't need to experience being shot to fully appreciate not being shot.
  • ImbsterImbster 92 Pts
    edited July 8
    @SnakesOfferingApples @Sylynn
    I'd like to say good can exist without evil. There is still ammorality. Why does it matter if we can't know what evil is? What is so seemingly precious with evil that you people would like to have absolute knowledge of instead of having a slight goal of ridding or avoiding it?? I don't have to say the evils God should take away because God knows what's evil. He's omnipotent enough to glue parts for something to work without the major part, evil. He clearly did not see this logic when he made humans.

    What's true is that if good only existed we wouldn't know evil and if good only existed we wouldn't do evil.

    The smallest true scale I can think of is a perfect day at the church. Erase the child molesters and the servers doing things they're not supposed t: We have a church, a small community, doing good in the eyes of God also exhibiting neutrality by wiping their faces with their handkerchiefs. We have people drinking water from a bottle no major evil is really existing on this Sunday at church. Making that a Global scale is quite possible for a God.

    If one counter part needs to exist for good to exist then there is neutrality.

     It doesn't equate to being mindless if God erased evil and I'm here having the free will to choose waffles over pancakes.

    If the Bible is your basis of morality might I tell you to read Exodus 21. People just keep pointing out the 10 commandments when God made special laws too to be strictly followed. The whole chapter. What God considered necessary in olden times, we humans may not in present times. Others believe Jesus out ruled these past laws then why are these past laws in present constitutions?

    Where is this all coming from? How can we not appreciate things if it is default??? Does a baby need to know evil to laugh?? Does the baby need to be slapped by her parents to learn to clap? That baby is experiencing good things without the necessity of experiencing evil.

    If I was a creator with all the omnipotence I'd snap my finger and rid of satan. Now the only thing that could possibly have evil is me. I'd make humans without ever the concept of evil who cares about history being rewritten at least I don't have to lessen their lifespans just because of sin. Zap the tree out of existence and make "The Tree of Good and Ammorality". They eat and now they know things! what have I done. They're going to either walk or run oh no what if one choice is evil. There's so mindless that a quadrillion choices have been erased from their choices list(sarcasm).


  • @Sylynn

    "It depends on what you mean by "good". I said good is subjective, but I'm not necessarily making the same claim for morality. Once again to jump back to Hitler, we would say what he did was evil, he would say he was doing good; making it subjective. What can be said is this was objectively immoral."

    Being good is a quality that would be considered moral in the case of humans. Also, it doesn't matter what Hitler thought, objectively by universal moral law genocide is wrong. Morality and Subjectivity cannot co- exist because they contradict each other, being moral is an obligation, and subjectivity is all based on preference.

    "An extreme opposite is not necessary to understand or appreciate it. As an example, I have felt hunger and I also know what it feels like to be not hungry. I can appreciate the feeling of not being hungry despite having never experienced starvation. I don't need to experience being shot to fully appreciate not being shot."

    It's because in this world other people have experienced starvation for you to appreciate that you have never experienced starvation but in a perfect world, having food would not be considered as good, it would be considered the norm. Everyone would have food, so it would go unappreciated. You don't need to experience starvation to know it's evil, but it needs to exist for you to appreciate food and for you to see that it has an evil effect on people.

    P.S Being hungry is not neutral, it's not evil, but it's bad. Having neutral feelings is not feeling anything at all.
    So you would not be able to appreciate food if it wasn't for evil or bad things.
  • edited July 8
    @Imbster





    1. Ok, this post is all over the place, so I'm going to ignore all the claims about God because I'm not an expert in theology, and I never claimed to know anything about God so I don't have to respond. (Besides for the part about the situation you posed which I will respond to.)

    2. In your example, there are people doing good in the eyes of God, how would the people know that they were doing well if there were no "bad" or "evil" people disobeying God, and how would a God also appreciate it if the humans had no other capacity but to pray? It would be like me programming a robot to pour me a drink. I wouldn't be pleased that it was doing its one and only job that I gave it to do

    "If one counterpart needs to exist for good to exist then there is neutrality".

    3. I would like to know your reasoning for this because as it is this is just a statement without an explanation.


    " It doesn't equate to being mindless if God erased evil and I'm here having the free will to choose waffles over pancakes."

    4. You wouldn't appreciate anything, you would not know pancakes are good because you have nothing bad or evil to compare it to. All of a sudden good things become "Ok, this exists" Thus we become mindless people without an opinion.

    "If the Bible is your basis of morality might I tell you to read Exodus 21. People just keep pointing out the 10 commandments when God made special laws too to be strictly followed. The whole chapter. What God considered necessary in olden times, we humans may not in present times. Others believe Jesus out ruled these past laws then why are these past laws in present constitutions?"
     
    5. Religious arguments won't work since the bible has so many inconsistencies and since I question its validity. Nor do I claim expertise in theology


    "Where is this all coming from? How can we not appreciate things if it is default??? Does a baby need to know evil to laugh?? Does the baby need to be slapped by her parents to learn to clap? That baby is experiencing good things without the necessity of experiencing evil."

    6.  Believe it or not, babies do know bad or evil, they can feel it because of the hypothalamus, fear is bad and babies know it, that's why when they experience fun they appreciate it and laugh, it's a common religious misconception that babies don't know bad and evil things like fear, danger, and pain. It's primitive fears that babies know about, loud noises, angry expressions, etc. 

    "If I was a creator with all the omnipotence I'd snap my finger and rid of satan. Now the only thing that could possibly have evil is me. I'd make humans without ever the concept of evil who cares about history being rewritten at least I don't have to lessen their lifespans just because of sin. Zap the tree out of existence and make "The Tree of Good and Ammorality". They eat and now they know things! what have I done. They're going to either walk or run oh no what if one choice is evil. There's so mindless that a quadrillion choices have been erased from their choices list(sarcasm)."

    7. Ok, I didn't ask what you would do, I only stated that what if scenario to illustrate a point. Religious arguments won't work since the bible has so many inconsistencies and since I question its validity.

  • ImbsterImbster 92 Pts
    edited July 8
    @SnakesOfferingApples

    Great let's open up more illustrations. You are saying:

    I need to know that samsung has explosive smartphones to ever appreciate my non samsung phone. and I also can't have feelings of neutrality towards my phone despite knowing about samsung because you say they're not feelings at all. It's always a must to appreciate goodness after knowing bad.

    2.Again you are always pointing out at people needing to know evil things this is exactly why God banned adam and eve from the tree of knowledge cause they'd ask questions that God could actually always make possible of. 
    Is praying the only basis of morality and the only way to show obedience to God? You may not be an expert but at least.

    Are you not capable of programming the robot to do others, more, MANY things as long as it does not align to evil? Sure without evil we only have on job left to do and that is to pray according to your point no. 2. We'll just pray and pray. Oh and choosing a place to pray must be something concerning to goodness and badness? It's immoral to pray in the bathroom, to public view according to Matthew, while doing work. Sure choosing place can't be classified as ammoral having no concern with morality and immorality.

    3. I'm surprised you don't find it explanatory but may be more accordingly to your points. It doesn't equate to being mindless if I still have the MANY CHOICES to walk, crouch, run, sprint, crawl, jump, roll, ninja walk. Happy?

    4. When we taste something good do we have to taste dirty socks to appreciate the pancakes and say "MAN PANCAKES ARE REALLY MUCH BETTER THAN THIS WGYYGYVTW"
    Is that how morality is being taught??? We wait for kids to do evil and let them realise it themselves? If I taste something that's not good but was also not life threateningly intentionally poisoned is it simply not good enough or entirely evil? I mean bland food is supposedly neutral but with such standards they are evil right away.

    So I'm gonna get bored of living basically in summary if there's no evil?Why does it matter to you to have fun at the expense of being TRULY MINDLESS? For a moment that things are happening let's face it. No one can be happy without focusing on a few damn aspects and factors and forgetting for just a brief moment the evil aspects of this world. I need to get points in bomber man I don't need to read about real life bombings yet.

    Why don't you try it so you can understand these points. Go to the happiest place you can find and try to enjoy while thinking of every other place that is ruined and infested with crimes, think of blood, death and suffering and evil things happening to the closest people. Are you appreciating that place more reminiscing the sick things around that could happen and are happening? Not an ounce of sadness nor remorse?

    How can you appreciate things without entering a carefree state? Can I appreciate kids without laying off the thought snipers could be around? No I'd have to be mindless to let them play with fidget spinners at a very young age being carefree if the things that could happen.

    6. I'm going to take not. I've seen enough babies grow to say they accumulate knowledges and gaining those feelings are part of those accumulation. This more of good and bad instead of evil with this point. Babies know fear is bad? So do they need that knowledge to laugh? Maybe I'd like to know your reasoning for such statements and illustrate the connection with babies and perhaps prove seeing angry expressions and crying to them at least a hundred times a day lengthens the period of laughter these babies will manifest further proving that bad things are always necessary for anyone to appreciate goodness.

    Perhaps maybe where some things apply some things don't. Where feeling hunger for you is bad and evil and helps you appreciate eating food. The same can't be said for others by getting low scores to appreciate good scores. Time will come they will depreciate themselves for not doing good at first cause they failed to top any spot. But if goodness was just constant who knows, kid dies from overstudy. You won't get to the top which you could've appreciated more and done if you just started good so you can appreciate the better you're progressing through reaching the best.
  • edited July 10
    @Imbster
    "I need to know that samsung has explosive smartphones to ever appreciate my non samsung phone. and I also can't have feelings of neutrality towards my phone despite knowing about samsung because you say they're not feelings at all. It's always a must to appreciate goodness after knowing bad."

    1. Yes, believe it or not, you can't appreciate something for working properly if you don't know that the opposite can happen. in a perfect world where everything worked perfectly, I wouldn't say, "Oh I'm so grateful of the functionality that my phone has." I would be more likely to say "So what? Everyone's phone is functioning properly"

    "Again you are always pointing out at people needing to know evil things this is exactly why God banned adam and eve from the tree of knowledge cause they'd ask questions that God could actually always make possible of. 
    Is praying the only basis of morality and the only way to show obedience to God? You may not be an expert but at least."

    2. But at least what? If you want an answer to theologic questions, go consult a theologist or even a believer, I don't have to defend, talk about, or argue over things I don't believe. I am simply arguing this, evil needs to exist for good to be recognized and defined, thus also existing.

    "Are you not capable of programming the robot to do others, more, MANY things as long as it does not align to evil? Sure without evil we only have on job left to do and that is to pray according to your point no. 2. We'll just pray and pray. Oh and choosing a place to pray must be something concerning to goodness and badness? It's immoral to pray in the bathroom, to public view according to Matthew, while doing work. Sure choosing place can't be classified as ammoral having no concern with morality and immorality." 

    3.Ok aside from the religious arguments which I already told you won't work, you are taking the robot example too literally and too seriously, I used it to illustrate a point. But even if I were to program a robot to do multiple things, in a perfect world where no bad things occurred I wouldn't care that my robot did as intended, nor would I find it good that it did its job because nothing would suggest that the robot would act in any different way. 

    4. I'm surprised you don't find it explanatory but may be more accordingly to your points. It doesn't equate to being mindless if I still have the MANY CHOICES to walk, crouch, run, sprint, crawl, jump, roll, ninja walk. Happy?" 

    One, yes but without knowing that there are people that can't do those things you can't say that you are able to decide that walking is good because everyone would be able to do it, thus nobody would appreciate it.

    Two, your statement was this -  "If one counter part needs to exist for good to exist then there is neutrality." there is no explanation in your reasoning, there is no BECAUSE (figuratively speaking).

    Here is an example of logical reasoning.
    You are presented this problem 

    PROBLEM - If 2+x = 4, then what is x

    LOGICAL REASONING - If 2+x = 4, then x is 2, because 2+2=4.

    You can't get mad at me asking for something you were supposed to provide, as a debater, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF. 


    " When we taste something good do we have to taste dirty socks to appreciate the pancakes and say "MAN PANCAKES ARE REALLY MUCH BETTER THAN THIS WGYYGYVTW" 
    Is that how morality is being taught??? We wait for kids to do evil and let them realize it themselves? If I taste something that's not good but was also not life threateningly intentionally poisoned is it simply not good enough or entirely evil? I mean the bland food is supposedly neutral but with such standards they are evil right away." 

    5 - Sure pancakes are good to us, but in a perfect world where everything tastes good, why would that matter?
    Yes believe or not, morality is trial and error, such as in the example of gay rights, many people were denying these people marriage rights because it was supposed sexual deviance.  But now because of glorious science, we know otherwise. And no, in the case of kids, knowledge can be passed down because someone else knows of it. These are moral patterns that we developed as a result of our duality because otherwise, these concepts couldn't be defined.

    P.S Bland food is not neutral, it's bad, and in that case, bland food would not exist in a perfect world. Neutral feelings are described as "I don't care" bland is bring and thus a negative.

    "So I'm gonna get bored of living basically in summary if there's no evil?Why does it matter to you to have fun at the expense of being TRULY MINDLESS? For a moment that things are happening let's face it. No one can be happy without focusing on a few damn aspects and factors and forgetting for just a brief moment the evil aspects of this world. I need to get points in bomber man I don't need to read about real life bombings yet."

    6- Yes, you would have no other opinions except "Ok this exists" you wouldn't be able to describe basic aspects of life such as good and evil because they depend on each other to be defined. You wouldn't be happy if you were mindless, you wouldn't even be able to define that you were happy, because you wouldn't know the very basic adjectives which are good and evil. There are times in life where people look at their lives, compare it to possible evil, and then express gratitude. In fact, what I am suggesting happens so much that Thanksgiving, a holiday about being grateful is celebrated practically everywhere.

    "Why don't you try it so you can understand these points. Go to the happiest place you can find and try to enjoy while thinking of every other place that is ruined and infested with crimes, think of blood, death and suffering and evil things happening to the closest people. Are you appreciating that place more reminiscing the sick things around that could happen and are happening? Not an ounce of sadness nor remorse?

    How can you appreciate things without entering a carefree state? Can I appreciate kids without laying off the thought snipers could be around? No I'd have to be mindless to let them play with fidget spinners at a very young age being carefree if the things that could happen."

    7- Duality, in a perfect world you wouldn't be able to define what is good, thus it could not exist, in such a world you would always be in a blank state lacking emotions. And yes, people tend to appreciate places more when knowing of other places that don't offer happiness or safety.


    " I'm going to take not. I've seen enough babies grow to say they accumulate knowledges and gaining those feelings are part of those accumulation. This more of good and bad instead of evil with this point. Babies know fear is bad? So do they need that knowledge to laugh? Maybe I'd like to know your reasoning for such statements and illustrate the connection with babies and perhaps prove seeing angry expressions and crying to them at least a hundred times a day lengthens the period of laughter these babies will manifest further proving that bad things are always necessary for anyone to appreciate goodness.

    Perhaps maybe where some things apply some things don't. Where feeling hunger for you is bad and evil and helps you appreciate eating food. The same can't be said for others by getting low scores to appreciate good scores. Time will come they will depreciate themselves for not doing good at first cause they failed to top any spot. But if goodness was just constant who knows, kid dies from overstudy. You won't get to the top which you could've appreciated more and done if you just started good so you can appreciate the better you're progressing through reaching the best."

    8 - No, it's simple primitive human science every human has things that they fear as a default. It lies in the hypothalamus a part of the brain, that's why phobias exist, they are irrational primitive fears that can't be explained because it lies as a default. You can't deny scientific fact, although babies do develop more complex feelings later in life as they grow, they have certain things that they fear as a result of being human. AND YES! you do need to know fear to appreciate courage and comfort, you do need to know the negatives of crying to appreciate the joy of laughter. Again, even though babies have primitive human fears, as a psychologist puts it, "Generally speaking, emotions begin in infancy in ways that look familiar but aren't true emotional experiences," says Pamela Cole, PhD, a researcher, and professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University. So babies do manifest fear and happiness but do not retain experiences from it until later years, so a baby will cry but it will not remember or retain anything from it, until after infancy.



    "Perhaps maybe where some things apply some things don't. Where feeling hunger for you is bad and evil and helps you appreciate eating food. The same can't be said for others by getting low scores to appreciate good scores. Time will come they will depreciate themselves for not doing good at first cause they failed to top any spot. But if goodness was just constant who knows, kid dies from overstudy. You won't get to the top which you could've appreciated more and done if you just started good so you can appreciate the better you're progressing through reaching the best."

    9 - No concepts like good and evil are defined to maintain relative consistency, they are basic concepts that are meant to be applied to every scenario. And no, the student example you provided is bad, I am part of the honor society at my school, and I can tell you, that getting A's after a while becomes stale, the same goes for my friends who also get good grades. In contrast, when my friends that usually get bad grades get an A, they are happy as fu##! 


    So thus, the joy of getting good grades, is erased by the normality of it. Whereas it is increased when you get good grades on occasion. 
    (Look, man philosophy is consistent, thus because I am basing my logic on philosophy, my logic is also consistent.) So when you pose all of these unnecessarily specific and convoluted questions you are going to get the same irrefutable and simple  answer.)


  • ImbsterImbster 92 Pts
    edited July 10
    @SnakesOfferingApples

    Babies know very basic adjectives now? No more fears and phobias and brains. Just answer if babies deep down think daddy is evil for being mad at them.

    Again not proving angry daddy face helps baby laugh more. I'm not denying any scientific fact. I'm just saying the scale of appreciating good more after evil happenings will not always happen and does not always happen to everyone. It happens but not to all.

    I'm not your friends. 
    If you know what a box can hold can you know then exactly what the box holds being so far from it?

    I got low grades then got very high grades and ended up as 6th. The top 5 all had medals. You think I appreciate the latter efforts I made at some point? If yes you're having 'faith' in me.
     
    Personal observable experience versus personal observable experience.
    I put that there so you could call out a personal experience card and that you'd perhaps realise I'm pointing to the globular scale of the differential of thought.

    This what I saw with a few friends:
    Other people who get bad grades then good grades won't say anything. And people who do get bad grades, actually achieve an understanding grades won't matter and carry on.
    Consider someone getting bad grades then getting an A won't actually care with no further manifestations than "meh". Did he appreciate the good deep inside how should I know the fellow box?
    I don't really make logical sense and I make the worst philosophical statements at least I don't assume the same experience for everyone and unnecessarily specify things.

    I mean I consider it bad when someone achieves such and just says "Nah,I got lucky next time I won't be so lucky". That's not really something they should inspire themselves with. Do you consider it being good and appreciative then since the person mentioned getting lucky? 

    I'm not sure it's good or evil with a particular scenario when I choose to read the second book first over the first book. I'm not following the story correctly oh I'm an evil reader for making such choice.
    Perhaps prove every scenario not just general scenarios we can easily propagandise in history books like war.

    I am to believe then with your refusal of theologically surrounded morals maybe I'd tackle the political basis of good and evil.
    Marital Rape is illegal in many countries but is also legal in Ghana, India and many more countries at the same time. Still looking for your basis of good and evil so at least things get narrowed down cause we have psychos pleased and satisfied with murder which is good to them.

    For relative consistency to work the system must be complete, how can you say the system of good and evil is complete? What makes it complete? Theo experts have just this really easy answer.

    "Where some things apply, some things don't" Poop for toilet, Poop not good burger add on.

    Earning money for family. Earning money for family through crime.

    Good is 1 Evil is 0

    so 1 * 0 is 0

    that would mean shooting people to protect a greater population is 0 *1 is 0.

    I'm just gonna have to guess your system is consistent because it's your personal belief and would have to debate with personal belief on morality and immorality.

    I'm gonna get the same answer for all of these hopefully not.
  • From a biblical stand point, Satan isn't really described as evil.
    He was the only one that told the truth in the garden.

    In Job, he was in the employ of God when he was set appon Job and his family.

    His only sin in the new testament was trying to reason with Jesus.

    God killed over 2 million people in the old testament while the Devil killed 11.

    Therefore I would say that the biblical God is the bad guy in this erroneous tomb.


  • edited July 22
    @Imbster ;"Babies know very basic adjectives now? No more fears and phobias and brains. Just answer if babies deep down think daddy is evil for being mad at them.Again not proving angry daddy face helps baby laugh more. I'm not denying any scientific fact. I'm just saying the scale of appreciating good more after evil happenings will not always happen and does not always happen to everyone. It happens but not to all."

    1. You are construing the argument, I said that Babies do know fear, as the Ph.D. doctor Pamela Cole points out, but it doesn't leave a permanent impact until later years. It's like a nightmare, you are afraid of it at the time, but you do not remember it. I made this point to illustrate that even at the basic level of infancy, babies can make and have a basic level of duality because you pointed to babies as evidence that joy can exist without the opposite which is not true because babies know fear and comfort.

    "I'm not your friends." ): 
    If you know what a box can hold can you know then exactly what the box holds being so far from it?"

    2. Damn, ok,  I'm not your friend either then. :(

    "I got low grades then got very high grades and ended up as 6th. The top 5 all had medals. You think I appreciate the latter efforts I made at some point? If yes you're having 'faith' in me.
     Personal observable experience versus personal observable experience. I put that there so you could call out a personal experience card and that you'd perhaps realise I'm pointing to the globular scale of the differential of thought."

    3. Yes that's true, personal experiences should be taken with a grain of salt, but I can also make this allusion to prove the same argument.
    "A hungry man appreciates food more once he acquires it, whereas someone who eats everyday undermines how important that is" 
    If something happens all the time, you lose appreciation of it, this is evident in science as well, for example, E.D. If you have sex all the time, one day your body will not respond to sexual stimuli.


    "This what I saw with a few friends:
    Other people who get bad grades then good grades won't say anything. And people who do get bad grades, actually achieve an understanding grades won't matter and carry on. 
    Consider someone getting bad grades then getting an A won't actually care with no further manifestations than "meh". Did he appreciate the good deep inside how should I know the fellow box?
    I don't really make logical sense and I make the worst philosophical statements at least I don't assume the same experience for everyone and unnecessarily specify things.

    4. Again, you said that personal experiences shouldn't be used to make an argument, so why are you proceeding to use a personal experience as an argument?


    "I'm not sure it's good or evil with a particular scenario when I choose to read the second book first over the first book. I'm not following the story correctly oh I'm an evil reader for making such choice.
    Perhaps prove every scenario, not just general scenarios we can easily propagandise in history books like war."

    5. I want to say this as a precursor, there are neutral actions not neutral viewpoints.
    Reading is good because you are educating yourself, but if you disregard the instructions, you are doing it wrong, good intentions bad way of going about it, thus a neutral action.

    "I am to believe then with your refusal of theologically surrounded morals maybe I'd tackle the political basis of good and evil.
    Marital Rape is illegal in many countries but is also legal in Ghana, India and many more countries at the same time. Still looking for your basis of good and evil so at least things get narrowed down cause we have psychos pleased and satisfied with murder which is good to them." 

    6.No, I do not take legalism's view of morality into account. I take the utilitarian's viewpoint into account people like Gert's moral perspective. 
    Maximizing the most happiness or good to the most people, while not oppressing the minority.
    (go to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy for more information.)

    "For relative consistency to work the system must be complete, how can you say the system of good and evil is complete? What makes it complete? Theo experts have just this really easy answer." 

    7. No, a system has to have a basis of truth to remain consistent, example - All cells are living things, we know this but cellular science is nowhere near complete.

    "Theo experts have just this really easy answer." 

    8. I don't believe for certain that a God exists and I have no interest in debating from that perspective. I shouldn't have to defend views that I don't ascertain, it's like asking a Jew to defend Hitler to put it simply, it's insane.

    "Where some things apply, some things don't" Poop for toilet, Poop not good burger add on.

    9. That's because you are not trying to compare things that correlate. Good and Evil are opposites thus when I compare the two it makes sense if you compare things such as burgers and feces, of course, it's not going to make sense.

    "Earning money for family. Earning money for family through crime.

    Good is 1 Evil is 0

    so 1 * 0 is 0

    that would mean shooting people to protect a greater population is 0 *1 is 0."

    10. I don't see these numbers making any sense, I can apply a number value to anything, for example, I could say that good is +1 because it's good for society and evil is -1 because it's bad for society, then comes the question of how about other things that are worst, how do they get counted? Murder of one person is evil, genocide is also bad, but one is on a larger scale, do they both equal negative -1? 

    "I'm just gonna have to guess your system is consistent because it's your personal belief and would have to debate with personal belief on morality and immorality.

    I'm gonna get the same answer for all of these hopefully not."

    11. What I am debating about is echoed by many people since the time of ancient Greeks, it's not only my belief, it's a philosophical concept, look up  the duality of good and evil,  look up necessary evil, go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  The reason why I pointed out the consistency of my arguments is because this debate has been like a merry-go-round, an infinite loop, because you are not attacking the concept itself, you are just attacking the examples, and it's going nowhere.

    Bottom line, I echo the philosophers of the past like Buddha, Aristotle, etc, who understood that evil is necessary for good to be defined and understood. It's not just my belief, if it wasn't an established concept, then it would be inconsistent because it takes a lot of mental work and power to define a concept that doesn't exist.

    P.S On a side, sorry it took me so long to respond, I've been traveling recently.
  • edited July 22
    @Wolfgang666

    Although I agree with most of the arguments you made, I don't see how the devil is a stand-up guy for killing eleven people just because God killed millions. The bottom line is almost all Biblical figures are evil with the exception of a few based on the BASIC knowledge I have of the bible.

    If the devil killed eleven people that's eleven wasted opportunities, countless wasted years, and many suffering acquaintances and families as a result.

    You don't idolise certain people, deities, etc. because the alternative is worst. (And I'm sorry if I am mistaken, but I assume that you think the devil is a decent guy because of your username unless you belong to a sect of atheistic Satanism, in which case I apologise for your time.)

    EDIT - Also, in the Garden of Eden story if you interpret it as true and in such a way where the devil is the snake, then he didn't tell the truth, he lied, the snake said: "You will be like gods." last time I checked people still die. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch