The Good and Evil in the eyes of Real Science

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Many atheists and non-theists believed that since evil exists, therefore, an Intelligent Agent (IA). aka God. doesn't exist.

Well, those atheists and non-theists are not really doing real science that is why they are always wrong...

The New Intelligent Design and GOOD & EVIL: Challenge Accepted HD - YouTube

The New Intelligent Design and GOOD & EVIL: Challenge Accepted HD - YouTube

[buttershug]

But you are not doing real science.

And you do not even have a clue what atheists mean about evil existing.
They do not say that evil exist.
They say bad things happen.

And do you give your definition of ID in that video?

Give the definition then the explanation.
No one is going to go through your longwinded nothingness to get to your definition.

give it at the start.

[Fenrir]

What's the difference between an atheist and a nontheist?

[woof]

Hint to MID: do not personify good or evil. HTH.

[buttershug]

What's the difference between an atheist and a nontheist?

There are people who do not believe that God exists, and there are those that believe that God does not exist.
It would be simpler if the people who believe God does not exist didn't say anything.

[DaveGodfrey]

I'll just leave Epicurus here.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[Hárbarðr]

Many atheists and non-theists believed that since evil exists, therefore, an Intelligent Agent (IA). aka God. doesn't exist.

Well, those atheists and non-theists are not really doing real science that is why they are always wrong...


The New Intelligent Design and GOOD & EVIL: Challenge Accepted HD - YouTube

Why are you so eager to parade your ignorance?

[Old Dan]

There are people who do not believe that God exists, and there are those that believe that God does not exist.
It would be simpler if the people who believe God does not exist didn't say anything.

the atheist aint afraid of the a-word

[buttershug]

the atheist aint afraid of the a-word

But a lot of atheists are just as afraid as theists of saying "I don't know"

[Monad]

I'll just leave Epicurus here.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

One of my favourite quotes.

[woof]

buttershug wrote:-

There are people who do not believe that God exists, and there are those that believe that God does not exist.
It would be simpler if the people who believe God does not exist didn't say anything.

Maybe, but would the world get better?
For a lot of people, silence necessarily implies consent. People recognize folks with dangerous ideas as dangerous if they carry a Kalashnikov and natter about some extreme ideology or religion. What they don't recognize is the pastor having a nice cup of tea in someone's lounge. Because that pastor's mind might also contain ideas untested by reason and evidence-asserted 'truth".
Such assertions become social truths. They are social truths because the vast majority does not challenge them-just a few skeptics, perhaps with long hair. Nothing to worry about, the wisdom of the ages is true!
Apathy becomes common-place, as does the exercise of the brain. Religions love to corner the market in the social and welfare scene. So some have their doubts, but when your old the church gives you a social life.
Then along comes a young pastor with some new ideas. Perhaps he has a PhD in Physiology as well as a degree in divinity and tells the scone and coffee club that they need not fear evolution. Suddenly the gaggle of nice old ladies and gentlemen become the inquisition. They call the Synod to order, and dismiss their minister. His name is Peter Sellick. Ex-Uniting church, now an Anglican cleric.
Not as dramatic as ISIS perhaps, but not so very different either.

[buttershug]

Well they could stick to saying that there is no evidence for God rather than saying that there is no God.
Can you prove that there is no God?

[woof]

Well they could stick to saying that there is no evidence for God rather than saying that there is no God.
Can you prove that there is no God?

Of course I can't. I fear that equivocation does not help though. Not with the "true believer". The true believer, by definition, is immune from reason and evidence. That, and an institutionalized contempt for the "doubting Thomas". That has set the agenda. The extremes dominate the "conversation".
Where to go from there? I don't know.
But "there is no god" can provoke a reaction. "Yeah, well maybe there is no god will not". One is dismissed as a Doubting Thomas of little import. But "there is no god", is a direct threat. So they will disagree, and challenge the claim. You let them win. There is, indeed no proof of the absolute non-existence of god. If they are still listening, perhaps you can introduce more subtleties, like saying there is no real evidence for god.
However way you do it, the socially constructed reality of god has to be challenged. Or this imaginary friend dominates society, its law, customs, public policy, education, science.

[buttershug]

Of course I can't. I fear that equivocation does not help though. Not with the "true believer". The true believer, by definition, is immune from reason and evidence. That, and an institutionalized contempt for the "doubting Thomas". That has set the agenda. The extremes dominate the "conversation".
Where to go from there? I don't know.
But "there is no god" can provoke a reaction. "Yeah, well maybe there is no god will not". One is dismissed as a Doubting Thomas of little import. But "there is no god", is a direct threat. So they will disagree, and challenge the claim. You let them win. There is, indeed no proof of the absolute non-existence of god. If they are still listening, perhaps you can introduce more subtleties, like saying there is no real evidence for god.
However way you do it, the socially constructed reality of god has to be challenged. Or this imaginary friend dominates society, its law, customs, public policy, education, science.

Both sides have true believers.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I'll just leave Epicurus here.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Actually, Epicurus was totally wrong about the Bible, reality, and God.

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
God is not omnipotent when dealing with a free humans. God had limited Himself. God is not also omnipresence when dealing with free humans..

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
God is not malevolent in this topic according to the timing of humans.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
To the Good God, there is no evil since Good cannot make Evil...
The new Intelligent Design <id> had explained it in the book "Philosophy of Intelligent Design".


4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is not a slave of humans, thus, call Him God...

[Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet]

So how about natural disasters Mr. <id> Man? Why did God cause those?

[Non-Euclidean SlapBracelet]

I'm really not even being especially pernicious, since Voltaire asked the same thing in his literary work. It's just a really old question that seems to have no obvious answer.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I'm really not even being especially pernicious, since Voltaire asked the same thing in his literary work. It's just a really old question that seems to have no obvious answer.

The reason why that philosophical question/dilemma/mystery or unsolved problem has no solution because our best minds, thinkers, scientists, philosophers and the likes (for almost 2000 years of span) had dismissed the real intelligence.

When I discovered the real intelligence, I nailed that topic very easily...

Thus, this is not already a mystery. It is already solved.

[buttershug]

The reason why that philosophical question/dilemma/mystery or unsolved problem has no solution because our best minds, thinkers, scientists, philosophers and the likes (for almost 2000 years of span) had dismissed the real intelligence.

When I discovered the real intelligence, I nailed that topic very easily...

Thus, this is not already a mystery. It is already solved.

But you didn't.

Can you use your intelligence to rank intelligence?
OR is it all it is or it is not inttelligent?

[buttershug]

Actually, Epicurus was totally wrong about the Bible, reality, and God.

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
God is not omnipotent when dealing with a free humans. God had limited Himself. God is not also omnipresence when dealing with free humans..

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
God is not malevolent in this topic according to the timing of humans.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
To the Good God, there is no evil since Good cannot make Evil...
The new Intelligent Design <id> had explained it in the book "Philosophy of Intelligent Design".


4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is not a slave of humans, thus, call Him God...

But humans are not truly free.
Not without complete knowledge.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

So how about natural disasters Mr. <id> Man? Why did God cause those?

Actually, natural disasters are not meant to harm humans but since humans are now not using intelligence, humans suffer a lot from nat disas...

[Linus]

What are natural disasters meant to do?

[MrIntelligentDesign]

.

But humans are not truly free.
Not without complete knowledge.

We have already minds to think but ToE had made us think backward, thus, instead of making us intelligent, ToE had made all of you dumb.

[Heinz Hershold]

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
God is not omnipotent when dealing with a free humans. God had limited Himself. God is not also omnipresence when dealing with free humans.....

God created a rock that even he could not lift?

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
God is not malevolent in this topic according to the timing of humans..

unintelligen sentence.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
To the Good God, there is no evil since Good cannot make Evil......

I can agree with this but how about explaining it here instead of hawking you book?

The new Intelligent Design <id> had explained it in the book "Philosophy of Intelligent Design"....

4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is not a slave of humans, thus, call Him God...

If humans don't call him God, who else will? And if nobody but humans call him God, then he is a creation of humans (a slave to humans).

[DaveGodfrey]

Actually, Epicurus was totally wrong about the Bible, reality, and God.

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
God is not omnipotent when dealing with a free humans. God had limited Himself. God is not also omnipresence when dealing with free humans..

So you admit that God is not omnipotent. Which is one of the definitions of God is it not? Doesn't seem worthy of any kind of fear in that case does he? Which is basically what a lot of Christianity is based on- "do this or go to hell" and all that.

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
God is not malevolent in this topic according to the timing of humans.

Well I'm glad you think he can weasel his way out of this, but I really don't think he can. After all we're the victims of evil being perpetrated against us (often by other people, but that's beside the point).

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
To the Good God, there is no evil since Good cannot make Evil...

So evil does not exist? Really? What about genocide? Is that not evil? Or are you siding with Cultsmasher? Do you really want to go full racist neo-nazi nutjob?

The new Intelligent Design <id> had explained it in the book "Philosophy of Intelligent Design".

Of course it has. Yours for only $9.99

4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is not a slave of humans, thus, call Him God...

Nope. Doesn't work like that. If God isn't omnipotent, and doesn't care that evil exists then he's certainly not worthy of veneration. He doesn't deserve the title "God". I suppose if that was what his mother called him, or if it was short for something, but that's not what you're talking about.