Violence committed by God as opposed to violence committed by nature

[Night FM]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

'The problem of evil' does not apply to natural processes.

And yes, the argument is not logically compulsive, but it is strong. Given that such natural disasters occur, only a few conclusions are possible:

• God is not omnipotent, i.e. he could not avoid the disaster happening
• God is not omnibenevolent, i.e he has no problem with killing humans, good and bad
• God does not exist at all.

Example of the second case...

"Evil" does not only refer to destructive actions committed by humans, but to adversity in general (e.x. including natural disasters). God is also described as the author of good and evil in some contexts. I don't see this as conflicting with omnibenevolence, if we argue that for good to exist, evil has to exist.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

if we argue that for good to exist, evil has to exist.

God couldn't do better? 

You ate from the wrong tree, Night FM. Maybe, when God warned Eve, he spoke from experience...

[sethoflagos]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:17 AM, Night FM said:

I'm curious why this is. I suppose one could take a purely pragmatic approach and believe that human intervention in nature could cause loss of human life, and therefore should be avoided purely for the sake of consequences to humanity, however this wouldn't explain a reverence of nature (e.x. such as a desire to preserve endangered species even if they offer little to no practical benefit to humanity.

So if humanity offered little to no practical benefit to other species (endangered or otherwise) then there would be no justification for the preservation of humanity?

This seems to be a logical extension of your reasoning. Is this what you really believe? 

Or do you consider humanity (or at least, your part of it) to be somehow worthy of exception:

Quote

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Where does the practice of exercising dominion without responsibility come on your list of evils?

 

 

[Night FM]

10 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So if humanity offered little to no practical benefit to other species (endangered or otherwise) then there would be no justification for the preservation of humanity?

This seems to be a logical extension of your reasoning. Is this what you really believe? 

Or do you consider humanity (or at least, your part of it) to be somehow worthy of exception:

Where does the practice of exercising dominion without responsibility come on your list of evils?

 

 

Dominion doesn't imply a lack of responsibility. If anything, it requires it.

[sethoflagos]

10 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Dominion doesn't imply a lack of responsibility. If anything, it requires it.

And yet it is conspicuous by its absence in most of our interactions with the natural world.

28 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So if humanity offered little to no practical benefit to other species (endangered or otherwise) then there would be no justification for the preservation of humanity?

This seems to be a logical extension of your reasoning. Is this what you really believe?

You didn't answer this bit.

[joigus]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

'The problem of evil' does not apply to natural processes.

And yes, the argument is not logically compulsive, but it is strong. Given that such natural disasters occur, only a few conclusions are possible:

• God is not omnipotent, i.e. he could not avoid the disaster happening
• God is not omnibenevolent, i.e he has no problem with killing humans, good and bad
• God does not exist at all.

Example of the second case...

I remember having had this discussion with my little brother when we were both very young. I pointed out that a really cruel god that keeps us as toys for his/her/its nasty little games was a logical possibility. He told me to shut up immediately. He's proven to be a very intelligent man, actually, but at that point he couldn't bear the thought.

We were raised as Catholics, btw.

[Night FM]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

And yet it is conspicuous by its absence in most of our interactions with the natural world.

You didn't answer this bit.

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself. So this implies some reverence of nature, in spite of the evil which natural phenomena can cause people to experience.

26 minutes ago, joigus said:

I remember having had this discussion with my little brother when we were both very young. I pointed out that a really cruel god that keeps us as toys for his/her/its nasty little games was a logical possibility. He told me to shut up immediately. He's proven to be a very intelligent man, actually, but at that point he couldn't bear the thought.

We were raised as Catholics, btw.

That leaves out the question of what makes something "cruel" to begin with beyond people's subjective judgments.

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Night FM said:

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself. So this implies some reverence of nature, in spite of the evil which natural phenomena can cause people to experience.

That leaves out the question of what makes something "cruel" to begin with beyond people's subjective judgments.

'Cruel' = unnecessarily harmful of painful

If I inflict pain or harm on you, but I can't help it for one reason or another, I'm being cruel

If I inflict pain or harm on you out of an existencial threat on me, I'm not being cruel, I'm acting out of necessity

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Night FM said:

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself. So this implies some reverence of nature, in spite of the evil which natural phenomena can cause people to experience.

Doesn't intent play a part in your definition of "evil"? Where is the intent in nature and natural phenomena? Nature doesn't cause people to experience evil. If you think it does, give examples.

[Night FM]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Doesn't intent play a part in your definition of "evil"? Where is the intent in nature and natural phenomena? Nature doesn't cause people to experience evil. If you think it does, give examples.

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

God couldn't do better? 

You ate from the wrong tree, Night FM. Maybe, when God warned Eve, he spoke from experience...

Well, where do ideas about "better come from, other than pure subjective judgment of what is "better" and "worse"?

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

How can natural disasters be evil? There’s no choice, no intent. Nature is indifferent.

[Night FM]

Just now, swansont said:

How can natural disasters be evil? There’s no choice, no intent. Nature is indifferent.

Evil as experienced by man does not require intent. Intent would relate to evil committed by people.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

 

Is the brick I stubbed my toe on, inherently evil?

11 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Well, where do ideas about "better come from, other than pure subjective judgment of what is "better" and "worse"?

That's why we have a legal system, in order to take the emotion out of what's better, so that worse doesn't follow...

[Night FM]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is the brick I stubbed my toe on, inherently evil?

The "brick" isn't evil. The act of stubbing your toe is a small experience of evil.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

The "brick" isn't evil. The act of stubbing your toe is a small experience of evil.

You'll have to prove that in a court of law, althogh a court of lore may be more appropriate in this thread...

 

[joigus]

36 minutes ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

"Evil", referring to Nature, is a figure of speech. You're stretching the concept, using a trope. From Oxford:

Quote

 

 1. having a desire to cause physical or mental pain and make somebody suffer

• He was known to be a cruel dictator.
•  cruel to somebody/something I can't stand people who are cruel to animals.
• Her eyes were cruel and hard.
• Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (= make somebody suffer because it will be good for them later).
• an extremely cruel regime

Quote

 

 2. causing physical or mental pain and making somebody suffer

• a cruel joke/hoax
• cruel punishment
• It was a cruel irony that he, being gravely ill, would survive his family.
• It would be a cruel twist of fate if he escaped only to starve to death once outside.
• Her father's death was a cruel blow.

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote

1

: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings

a cruel tyrant

 

has a cruel heart

 

 

2

a

: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain

a cruel joke

 

a cruel twist of fate

 

b

: unrelieved by leniency

cruel punishment

 

 

 

As you can see, the more literal meaning in both sources involves intention. The other ones are tropes.

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Evil as experienced by man does not require intent. Intent would relate to evil committed by people.

So nature is evil? 

Good soil and the right amount of rain for your crops is evil?

Perhaps you’d share the definition of evil that you’re using.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Perhaps you’d share the definition of evil that you’re using.

They did, but it was pathetically insufficient, and challenges to it thus far handwaved away:

 

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters.

 

[swansont]

Just now, iNow said:

They did, but it was pathetically insufficient, and challenges to it thus far handwaved away:

I didn’t consider “Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. to be a definition. As a definition, as you say, it’s pathetically insufficient.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans.

Definitions should NOT be stretched to fit your purpose. In doing so, you've diluted the concept into meaninglessness. Anything that causes hardship is evil? What good is having the word evil if there's no distinction between it and affliction or obstacle? Evil requires intent. Evil requires a conscious mind behind the hardship or affliction. A flood after hard rains that destroys a town isn't evil, but if that flood was purposely created by someone (blow up the dam, divert the river, smite the wicked, etc), then that someone is evil. Please don't redefine the way everybody else uses a word just because it seems to support your argument.

[CharonY]

It seems that this might be a common theme to several of the discussions. I.e. starting off with non-standard definitions and then extrapolating from there. The issue is that it basically dismantles established frameworks around which discussions can be formed. 

 

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself.

Like stamp-collecting or morris dancing? What an utterly absurd conclusion. 

Why are you so uncomfortable with the idea that those who cherish nature do so because they identify as being equal parts of it?

You clearly do not feel that way. You evaded denying a god-given claim to dominion over nature, and fabricate some entirely fictitious ill-intent to the natural world in order to justify reneging on your ethical obligations to it.  

[Phi for All]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It seems that this might be a common theme to several of the discussions. I.e. starting off with non-standard definitions and then extrapolating from there. The issue is that it basically dismantles established frameworks around which discussions can be formed. 

It's a form of Begging the Question that starts with a redefinition. The key is to not accept the premise.

I think this is an attempt to say "God's violence is natural and to be expected" as well as "Everyone is evil". I've heard the bit where we're all sinners, but stretching "evil" to fit us all is a new one for me.

[MSC]

If someone throws a rock at your head, you don't typically blame the rock.

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, MSC said:

If someone throws a rock at your head, you don't typically blame the rock.

You might if you were as dumb as one.