The nature of evil

[Prodromos]

Many people would (or have) begged to differ, and be honest even amongst 'the one' crowd there is more than a little bit of difference about that one god.

"There's only one God" If you mean dictionary wise, in the current time yes capitalized you would be understood to be referring to the singular deity believed in by Judaism and its derivatives. But realistically 'capitalized' 'singular' God would in many places or much of time have not had that meaning or imply a Christian/Jewish/Islamic spin on the meaning. Much as saying 'he theos' in classical Athens was quite understandable to the locals and no doubt seen as pompously annoying by most other Greeks but to a Persian speaking Greek would have no particular implication of the Polis and it particular asserted relationship to one Deity or why an Athenian was using particular form of the noun.

Yes, these and the Hindus' Brahman, the Stoics' Zeus, and so on, are all just different names for the exact same being. By definition, there can be only one Ultimate Reality, even if people disagree on what he is like, or how to worship him, or how or even whether he interacts with his creation at all. For example, Christians and Jews have different conceptions of God, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in the same God. It's a basic category error to conflate God with a god. They're very different concepts.

"for ultimate reality" again a non provable belief that you have to be honest about will not clear until we individually punch our ticket off the mortal coil.

Depends what you mean by proof. For those who accept reason, God's existence borders on the self-evident. However, if you deny that contingent being must have a ground for its existence, then naturally you won't be convinced of the existence of a non-contingent Ground of Being.

Really? I'm sure the millions of people around the world that follow polytheistic religions will vehemently disagree with you.

You are so lucky that you just so happen to believe in the "right" God, and that only you and your fellow coreligionists have stumbled on the ultimate truth and that everybody else is wrong. How convenient...

No, read my post again. There's only one capital-g God; it's a proper noun, a name, that's why we capitalize it. There are potentially thousands or millions of small-g gods, but these deities are finite beings, belonging to an entirely different category of being than the Ultimate Reality, the ground of all being, which we name God.

Most polytheists easily grasp the difference between God and god. I recommend reading "God, gods and fairies", and chapters 4-10 of Athenagoras's "Plea for the Christians", addressed to the pagan Emperor Marcus Aurelius. They explain this quite well.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/...ds-and-fairies
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm

[TheLeft]

No, read my post again. There's only one capital-g God; it's a proper noun, a name, that's why we capitalize it. There are potentially thousands or millions of small-g gods, but these deities are finite beings, belonging to an entirely different category of being than the Ultimate Reality, the ground of all being, which we name God.

Most polytheists easily grasp the difference between God and god. I recommend reading "God, gods and fairies", and chapters 4-10 of Athenagoras's "Plea for the Christians", addressed to the pagan Emperor Marcus Aurelius. They explain this quite well.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/...ds-and-fairies
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm

I have to be honest, I find this semantic argument a little strange. As an atheist, to be arguing whether g(G)od gets a capital letter in front of his/her/its name is a little bit like debating the colour of the Tooth Fairy's Magic Wand. An irrelevancy bearing in mind that neither God or the Tooth Fairy actually exist. I suppose you can have an debate about it from a purely English Language perspective, but even if you do that then if you are referring to a named god such as Odin, Thor or Krishna, then god should be capitalised anyway.

[Prodromos]

I have to be honest, I find this semantic argument a little strange. As an atheist, to be arguing whether g(G)od gets a capital letter in front of his/her/its name is a little bit like debating the colour of the Tooth Fairy's Magic Wand. An irrelevancy bearing in mind that neither God or the Tooth Fairy actually exist. I suppose you can have an debate about it from a purely English Language perspective, but even if you do that then if you are referring to a named god such as Odin, Thor or Krishna, then god should be capitalised anyway.

Odin, Thor and Krishna are not God, but gods; those are different concepts, and spelled differently. Semantics is the study of meanings; you're correct that when you want to discuss God, you should know what the word means first.

[basics]

conon394.

Sorry, but the KJV is still the best authority concerning the word of God as many will find from preachers and pastors on Youtube. Moses did not write the Old Testament but what he did write or have put into writing was the books of the Law or Torah which contain how and why we got here, why man fell and Who would could to correct that. What he did have to work with was the twelve tribes of Israel that he led out of Egypt numbering far more than four hundred. There are funnily enough some experts who are convinced that Adam himself wrote down what Noah came to believe, bringing that on the Ark as well. Men were not the idiots that you guys are led to believe by this evolutionary nonsense even from the very beginning.

[conon394]

The OT is hardly the work one or a couple Authors.

Men were not the idiots that you guys are led to believe

I didn't say men were idiots. Believing that was literary an Arc that carried as many animals as suggested certainly takes a leap of faith. The KJV is not a good translation, it my sound nice in a traditional way but is hard to say its authoritative.

[basics]

conon394,

As many animals that the Lord God brought to the Ark and so what we have today comes from them. Being the size of a modern container ship all it had to do was float to ride out the storm as it was pitched both inside and out which in itself is a pointer to both Covenants, the outside covering signalling the Old Covenant which only covered the Jews without salvation and the inner pitching, the New Covenant, which inwardly changed the heart and brought in salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is probably correct to say that each of the kinds God brought were young to youngish animals so that size was not a concern even in the larger kinds. The reason there are so many new versions is most likely that congregations couldn't get their unsaved heads around the Old English used in the KJV. Once one is saved reading it is a doddle.

[conon394]

As many animals that the Lord God brought to the Ark and so what we have today comes from them.

Have we not been over this the obvious genetic evidence for such an event is non existent. You are ignoring the lack of a simultaneous bottleneck in almost every species.

Being the size of a modern container ship all it had to do was float to ride out the storm as it was pitched both inside and out which in itself is a pointer to both Covenants, the outside covering signalling the Old Covenant which only covered the Jews without salvation and the inner pitching, the New Covenant, which inwardly changed the heart and brought in salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is probably correct to say that each of the kinds God brought were young to youngish animals so that size was not a concern even in the larger kinds.

You can't actually make a wooden ship that big, A container ship would be too small anyway its not just animals its all the food... and manure, and the need for troughs for drinking. So now you are assuming as well it just baby animals? You'd think that would have been noted. I'm still waiting vers on the description of the world as one continent. Or are just adding that assumption as well.

The reason there are so many new versions is most likely that congregations couldn't get their unsaved heads around the Old English used in the KJV.

The English is not hard its just an out of date translation translation, you should at least read the Greek with the LSJ. But I suppose you won't all to many evangelicals are enamored with it. It does allow you your absolute view for the Abortion thread.

[basics]

conon394,

Well, since all you evolutionists believe that we all came from a single ancestor, so, looking at how diversive we are why should it be any different for animal kinds? Therefore where and what is your bottleneck? Firstly the Ark was not a ship. Secondly it was a rectangular box with a capacity to float even in rough weather and in it there was plenty of room to provide all the necessaries aboard. Why would God Who designed the Ark be daft enough to fill it with old beasts? Of course He would round up younger animals both for health as well as virility but of course this will vary age wise for each kind. As for the food how much does a farmer need to feed one animal for a year?

Genesis1:9 states, " And God said, " Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear " and it was so." Clearly there was land in one place and the waters in one place, why? If there were some or many continents and islands then the sea could not have been in one place. At that point the land was barren until the Lord spoke grass and all seed bearing plants into existence thus finishing His work for the third day.

[Sar1n]

conon394,

Well, since all you evolutionists believe that we all came from a single ancestor, so, looking at how diversive we are why should it be any different for animal kinds? Therefore where and what is your bottleneck? Firstly the Ark was not a ship. Secondly it was a rectangular box with a capacity to float even in rough weather and in it there was plenty of room to provide all the necessaries aboard. Why would God Who designed the Ark be daft enough to fill it with old beasts? Of course He would round up younger animals both for health as well as virility but of course this will vary age wise for each kind. As for the food how much does a farmer need to feed one animal for a year?

Genesis1:9 states, " And God said, " Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear " and it was so." Clearly there was land in one place and the waters in one place, why? If there were some or many continents and islands then the sea could not have been in one place. At that point the land was barren until the Lord spoke grass and all seed bearing plants into existence thus finishing His work for the third day.

The diversification you speak about happens over milions of years and generations. And it's a lot more complex than you think, and usually, there isn't a single pair that becomes ancestors of entire species, but rather an entire, often geographically isolated, section of population accumulating mutations and genetically drifting away from general population to the point it becomes distinct species.

The stuctural limitations for wooden ships hold true even for box-like structures. Ark would fall apart under its own weight long before being any viable.

As for weight of fodder and such...an adult human requires roughly a ton of food+water per year. Pig, roughly 5-10 tons depending on breed. Elephant, that's in hundreds of tons. The ark would have to have carrying capacity of a decently sized island to carry it all.

But all that argumentation is pointless anyway. You believe in a miracle-direct intervention of omnipotent power that you cannot comprehend. Therefore it's arbitrary, non-causal event. Logic and reason have no place in it. And thus it is inherently a matter of faith only. And faith is, and always must be, secondary to logic and science, because faith does not provide anything that can be verified and used for improvement of mankind, like, for example, computers, medicine, houses...all the stuff you use all the time.

[basics]

Sar1n,

Both the Smithsonian and the Independent wrote of a study made by students that the Ark was perfectly feasible so I guess science and God are not so far apart. So, I believe that God did this and so do many Christian scientists some having written books on the subject. John Woodmorappe has written much about Biblical things and his explanation for the Ark is quite fascinating.

[TheLeft]

Genesis1:9 states, " And God said, " Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear " and it was so."

Cool, so what did the (much older but just as historically significant) Egyptian Pyramid Texts say? And what about The Sumerian Eridu Genesis?

Or do they not count because they're not your 'team'?

[Sar1n]

Cool, so what did the (much older but just as historically significant) Egyptian Pyramid Texts say? And what about The Sumerian Eridu Genesis?

Or do they not count because they're not your 'team'?

This is gonna be good. I got basics to say that neanderhals lived less than 6000 years ago, top that.

[basics]

TheLeft,

In an American University there is a plate that predates anything yet found concerning the Flood and since it was determined to be a little over a hundred years after that event it is considered quite possible that the inscriber actually knew Noah and his sons from whom the events were acknowledged. This plate was timed to be one hundred and fifty years before the two you mention. I have posted about it in greater detail but as I can't lay my hands on the paper from which it came I will post again when I do find it.

Sar1n,

Neanderthals were just human beings like the rest of us and if you were to get your own DNA done I wouldn't be surprised if you had a connection.

[95thrifleman]

Now making fools of christians is a fun game, however we are going way off-topic here. We need a seperate thread for christian baiting.

As to the topic, "evil" is complicated subject based on a complex balance of personal, social and state morality that changes and evolves. In the UK being gay was "evil" at one point, on this very forum a person has described islam as "evil".

It all comes down to personal choice based on what your culture and your nation's laws say is or is not evil. If I was to plant a bomb in a house and kill an entire family, I'd be evil by today's morality. My Grandfather participated in the destruction of Dresden and that was considered just.

[basics]

95thrifleman,

For many evil comes down to something heinous and so for most they say that they must be good because they don't do heinous things but that is not how Jesus sees it. To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind is the first and the second is to love your neighbour as yourself which we all fail in doing until there has been a change of nature in anyone because it's our nature that is evil. If anyone thinks that he or she has no evil within their hearts they are liars and there is no complication in that. To lie to yourself is just as evil as lying to anyone else and is perhaps the worst of the two. As Jesus said, it is not what a man takes in that defiles him, it is what comes out of him that does that, why? Because it is already there. Ever since the fall of man evil has rested itself within all and there is no scale or league table for what he or she does that is wrong for God measures it as one.

[conon394]

Sar1n,

Both the Smithsonian and the Independent wrote of a study made by students that the Ark was perfectly feasible so I guess science and God are not so far apart. So, I believe that God did this and so do many Christian scientists some having written books on the subject. John Woodmorappe has written much about Biblical things and his explanation for the Ark is quite fascinating.

You know basics I would table this - you are if you allow me a reborn believer, and I am an agnostic (lapsed Catholic) who rather likes proof. You will it seems to me face your last breath with certainty and I with confidence (not in fear the end is the price of admission) and expectation and If I picked the wrong choice I am OK with that as well.

But you keep stepping beyond your own personal faith to try and use poor pseudo science or in this case a poorly referenced student project (and you did not provide a reference). The reality of the Arc I will address (but with futility). But more or less the crux is you have faith and that faith is invested in the Bible (the KJV more or less) and all the decisions that exclude various other works and of course the Mohammedan version of moving along. That's fine there can be no argument with that position it based on personal faith and transcends any other logic. You really need only state that - why grasp at proofs that are poorly constructed and easily dismantled. That seems odd to me.

In any case the 'Smithsonian and the Independent' report is a simple student physics project.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...yes-180950385/

Yes technically a ceder box would float and it would float with a a certain volume (here being a projected a solid water equivalent). That being said you have a lot holes. First of course is where exactly did all that wood come from. Timber and ship timber in particular was not exactly cheep or easy to secure. But anyway I suppose god had a sale on that... The Arc remain fundamentally unsound. It might float (for a bit) but if you asked any navel engineer or naval architect - they could tell you that no wooden ship that large built with that technology would not start leaking and break itself to pieces rather quickly. The ancient world has only one example of a toy ship that a Ptolemy built that is even 2/3 the size and it was a dock decoration that never tried to sail. In the late 1800s with steel reinforcement and steam pumps to deal with the inevitable leaks wooden ships just barely cross 100 meters in length and almost as quickly were retired or sunk.

Oh and your right the other theoretical bit is how many sheep does the volume of water an Arc could as an empty box convert to about 2.15 billion sheep. Of course packed as water they would all but the top die in a few minutes. But no such empty box would even survive a bathtub if loaded to capacity. I had the pleasure of being on the USS Constitution, the HMS Victory and not surprisingly neither are were an empty shell - navel engineering again and not student fun project. Oh and of course there was no estimate of food needed and the volume/mass required. You might consider that in Athens a loyal and patriotic crew could cram all 200 of itself in a trireme they had at best 2/3 days of water and food and not beaching at night was a hardship. The same ship could at old age converted carry but 30 horses for the same journey with expectation that most would survive.

[Cyclops]

Sar1n,

Both the Smithsonian and the Independent wrote of a study made by students that the Ark was perfectly feasible so I guess science and God are not so far apart. So, I believe that God did this and so do many Christian scientists some having written books on the subject. John Woodmorappe has written much about Biblical things and his explanation for the Ark is quite fascinating.

The ark as described requires a miracle to have functioned. I respect your beliefs and with respect to those this is an instance where science and common sense must be rejected to hold the Bible true. The vessel describe could not have held the animals it was said to have held (or the necessary food-maybe the water around the Ark was fresh, but that means the saltwater fish would have been extinguished), without divine intervention.

Essentially the entire story requires God to be manually manipulating controls to keep Noah , his family and his animals alive. As mentioned it would be a vast miracle for terrestrial plants to survive such a flood as well, not to mention the world does not have enough water to flood 15 cubits over the highest peak. This is not a stretch if you believe Yahweh made the Universe in six days. Its less of a stretch than pretending science supports this. It just does not.

The Flood narrative is not plausible to science, nor is creation, Your faith does not need Science to sustain you, I am afraid its futile to attempt to pretend it does. Conversion can't come from science or fiddly arguments about the tensile strength of Gopher wood.

[Diocle]

Now making fools of christians is a fun game, however we are going way off-topic here. We need a seperate thread for christian baiting.

As to the topic, "evil" is complicated subject based on a complex balance of personal, social and state morality that changes and evolves. In the UK being gay was "evil" at one point, on this very forum a person has described islam as "evil".

It all comes down to personal choice based on what your culture and your nation's laws say is or is not evil. If I was to plant a bomb in a house and kill an entire family, I'd be evil by today's morality. My Grandfather participated in the destruction of Dresden and that was considered just.

This is (a poor synthesis of) what actually is "Moral Relativism", which is the main reason for which the anti-Pope Bergoglio (disgusting creature) says that the Hell is void and for which the Western Civilization is falling apart.

[basics]

Conon394 and Cyclops,

If God could talk creation into existence in six days I don't see any problem for Him to keep the Ark afloat for one year especially when on the planet Himself He could walk on water, part the sea as well as the Jordan, die on a cross and yet rise again to be seen and heard by over four hundred people. The proof is in the writings of those that experienced all these things, 66 books of which make up the Bible. His abilities are way beyond that of man and as far as science is concerned it has got a long way to go to catch up with Him, if ever.

[Gustav Mahler]

I - There is no evil in the nature, evil is the human concept, it is attributed to reality by the humans. Often we are witnesses of many acts that we deem evil which produce a lot more of perceived good. Animals do not have human morality, they are moral in the broadest sense of taking morality as a choice. In that sense any being who can choose is moral being. You do not have to accept that kind of broad definition since the more narrow definition presupposes freedom of will. Animals have limited freedom of choice since their being is governed by instinct. Therefore they cannot be held responsible. Similar thing happens to humans who are more close to be governed by their mental illness than by the reason.

II - O.K., all that aside, now let's concentrate on human perception of evil and good. It is governed by these things:
1 - morality and ethical tenets of the community
2 - by the laws of the community
3 - and by the individual beliefs, feelings and actions which can collide with the law and community (bandits, marauders, pirates, killers who have their own morality and justification of their deeds... etc.)

III - Third thing I want to touch is is there good and bad in itself as a separate entity in the universe or is it just a human perception? That is the metaphysical question that cannot be answered. All we know and see are acts limited in time and space so we do not know all the causes nor do we know all the consequences. We are simply staggering in the dark trying to come up with the best solution, or maybe even with the worst solution (if for instance we want to kill as much humans as we want, even then that outcome for mass murderer is the best one, i.e. in his eyes it is good).

IV - The nature of evil might be explained in simple practical terms: either we do evil because we cannot help ourselves where we simply collide without our own free will with the law and society, i.e. we are sick; either we choose to be evil because we can exercise our power over the others (aerial bombardments of the civilian targets in the war - it is done by the exercise of brute power which simply can do such a thing); or we are amoral (neither moral, neither immoral) where in one situation we help the community and the individuals and at the same time have huge ambiguity about the acts we have done where we slide to immorality and even murder. In the last case the line between good and evil is thin and passes from one ''border'' to another.

V - There are other more in depth analysis and also in our lives and in our knowledge of history we can come up and see many examples and counter-examples which make all the systematization weak. But, I guess, some of the things I have written here still stand.