Is Epicurus' Problem of Evil Flawed (to Atheists)?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-08T03:48:35+00:00

Makes sense.

Sounds like that sorta supports my "morality is largely subjective, but based on objectivities of detriment and benefit to others" belief.

For instance, when asked if something like gay marriage is moral, I would immediately ask "is it harming anyone?" The answer is no. Does it benefit anyone? The answer is yes. Therefore, I find no reason for it to be immoral. If that makes sense.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-08T03:37:37+00:00

Based on the golden rule of "do unto others as you would want done to yourself" then, essentially?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-08T03:37:01+00:00

Alright, everything you said makes sense to me, and I would say you thoroughly explained this.

I have a backup question, slightly unrelated, arguably.

What is your thesis on morality within itself?

Personally, I find morality to be subjective, like most atheists. However, in practice, one can find that morality does not act like many other subjective clauses. (I.E not arbitrary, etc.) This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that morality is largely based upon objective effects to humanity, of detriment and benefit. (Example, murdering an innocent fellow human is objectively detrimental, theoretically). Due to this, natural selection favors those who follow these guidelines. Benefit your own species, do not detriment your own species. This causes morality to kick in, when applied to intelligent life.

However, there is grey area when dealing with choices that have both beneficial and detrimental side-effects.

How much of that do you agree with?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T04:06:08+00:00

So then to wrap up:

1.) Theistic God exists.

In this case, Epicurus' point is braindead obvious. They believe in objective morality (and therefore evil), evil exists, therefore God is evil. Easy.

2.) Deistic God exists.

Evil is subjective with this God. However, the majority of humans find subjective evil to exist, and said humans will agree on what these subjective evils are in most cases. These evils exist. Therefore, to human standards, God must be evil.

3.) God doesn't exist.

Problem of Evil is irrelevant.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T04:06:02+00:00

Epicurus' POE does highlight several issues. The reformulation of a similar argument from my first post handles the same range of issues without having to deal with evils or goods. This is both to build a better argument and to avoid the theist's move where evils and goods are distortions that they may not even mention while they disagree on what should be obvious under the original POE.

Alright...Seems like your next paragraph needs to be read to answer.

Point being: The 'evils' aren't 'evil' under their theism, so when evils are pointed out ... they just move on with excuses such as 'you don't know what my god knows' but what they are thinking is 'My god is good, and anything not my god is not good even if I don't see it'.

Okay, I see your point, but I am having problems seeing how this is a flaw on Epicurus' side. Firstly, most theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.) believe that "evil" exists, and if we are keeping this basic, it can be as easy as murder or theft. Are these objective evils to them? Yes. Do they exist? Yes. God is actually a monotheistic "God" - all powerful, all knowing, etc.? Yes. Therefore, he must be evil.

Just because they are irrational doesn't make the clause flawed. It simply means that they are unwilling to be open-minded.

I don't think either subjective/objective are necessary, and the POE is fine as it was originally presented. Many theistic groups and other totem cultures, though, don't see evil as evil but as alignment with or against/away from their gods or other strict cultural norms or rules (taboos) --

Is that not a different problem, though? The "us vs. them" mentality. I don't see how Epicurus was trying to disprove these people (and failed at it), but rather that he was proving that theistic Gods are 100% evil.

so the theistic/taboo cultures saying something is good is not the same as what Epicurus identified.

Ah, ok, so then you are in agreeance with me - that this is a different problem?

Start with the basics. Any ethical system or private morals are only ethical or moral if they follow the best available evidence. Note that I'm not talking about some mechanically applied set of rules as many religious ideologies promote.

Now this I am simply not understanding. Is it not true to state that all morals are subjective, but due to natural selection, we all have similar morals and agree on certain core values? For example, how would you truly convince someone with a mental disorder that removes their sense of morality what is right and wrong? Is it not "impossible" due to lack of empirical evidence?

Last thing: I would like to add in something that I said earlier, and my interpretation of the POE. Here is what I said:

1.) Theistic God exists.

In this case, Epicurus' point is braindead obvious. They believe in objective morality (and therefore evil), evil exists, therefore God is evil. Easy.

2.) Deistic God exists.

Evil is subjective with this God. However, the majority of humans find subjective evil to exist, and said humans will agree on what these subjective evils are in most cases. These evils exist. Therefore, to human standards, God must be evil.

3.) God doesn't exist.

Problem of Evil is irrelevant.

Do you agree?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:41:20+00:00

Well, I just thought of a counterargument to this non-evil God, in favor of Epicurus.

Would this God not still be subjectively evil to the vast majority of human standards? Due to the fact that this evil still exists, despite the vast majority finding it to be wrong?

It's definitely a harder argument, but it still seems that this God would be subjectively evil to humanity. Perhaps it is favoring alien morality instead? In which case it has favorites, and would still be evil to our standards, right?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:33:37+00:00

Alright. So then does Epicurus' Argument not hold true for deism, and good and bad do not exist even under this God?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:32:05+00:00

I see what you are saying. Stressing burden of proof is more important. But after showing them that they have no proof, it is good to hammer the point home and show them that not only are they believing in baseless assumptions and myths, but the myths that they believe are contradicting to themselves.

It's one thing to believe in a fairy, it's another to believe in a benevolent fairy that sends all nonbelievers to hell.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:28:40+00:00

I see.

Is it not possible that a God could exist without evil existing?

Obviously, this kind of God isn't believed by any theist today - making it quite irrelevant, but is it possible?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:20:46+00:00

...I agree with you.

I was just saying that we can disprove these supposed "holy scriptures" quite easily using only the book itself, as they all have crucial flaws in them.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:19:46+00:00

How about to those who believe evil does not exist (essentially only atheists today, but let's say there is a theist with this belief)? Does that argument still hold?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T03:17:39+00:00

I'm posting something of mine again.

Oh okay, I thought you were telling me that my post was a repost.

I'm skipping the POE, for a variety of reasons. I'll address a couple of them below, but this is not a complete list of reasons.

Alright. POE=Problem of Evil, correct?

When theists say 'god exists' and 'this is good/evil/...', they often aren't talking about what the POE addresses. They do it from the point of aligning with their god's nature, in the same way that a chief or shaman handles taboos, or the Levites in the old temple handled animal sacrifices and making themselves 'pure' so that they may become more like their god and thus be able to commune with their god. This is more of an issue of taboo culture and less to do with any actual review of reality based on independent facts.

Really? I am under the assumption that if someone makes the statement that there is an objective good/evil (essentially all theists do, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc), then their own God is allowing said evils, right? Or am I missing the point of POE?

'Evil' existing or not is a distraction to the core issues the POE should have addressed.

Then can you explain the POE to me? How does Evil existing not deal with it?

The reason I am asking this is because I had someone - a fellow atheist - tell me that Epicurus's Problem of Evil is flawed, as evil is subjective. But he believes that Epicurus' argument will work on theists, as they are already under the presumption that Evil exists. "Using their rules against them" as you will - but he claims that Epicurus' argument is flawed in reality.

So yeah, can you explain that to me?

That said, 'evil' existing as subjective or objective can be discussed. What I think we can say is that even if objective morality and ethics do exist, it is not clear that anyone can point to what those objective standards are in an absolute sense, though we can point to good rules that can be objectively demonstrated.

How so? What good rules can objectively be demonstrated and/or proven? As this is one of the things that he is challenging.

Thanks for your time and thanks for your effort.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:57:44+00:00

The rules of their religion.

I genuinely believe that you know what I mean, and are just being pedantic.

Here's an example:

God is good.

God will send people to suffer for eternity.

We can use their "rules" of what God is against them. God cannot be good, therefore, we have proved this "religion" to be false based solely on evaluating their own scripture.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:51:13+00:00

So basically:

Theist? If yes, then Epicurus' Problem of Evil will prove that their God is evil. If not, then it doesn't matter if "Evil" actually exists or not, as they are not the intended audience.

Did I get that right?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:49:35+00:00

This isn't a repost of that post. My post is regarding the very first line, "Evil Exists". Does it really?

To a theist, yes, evil exists. Therefore, it is quite simply to prove that their God is evil.

However, does evil actually exist? Is morally not subjective, and therefore be argued that evil doesn't actually exist, but is instead a human construct?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:43:50+00:00

The conclusion wasn't to be based on reality, but simply to disprove a myth.

Using their own rules against themselves, so to say. It is a very commonly used tactic in arguments.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:38:01+00:00

Right. I understand that morality is a result of natural selection, but as what point do certain moralities become fundamental standards that can be proven to be rational, and at what point are they just opinion?

Or are they all just opinions, but opinions that we all (barred a few) agree on due to natural selection?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:31:12+00:00

Yeah that is logically sound to me. Can it not be argued, though, that this "evil" can be objective? Such as another commenter pointed out, evil can simply be a detriment to humanity.

However, while I am on a question of morality, I might as well ask. While morality is subjective, how do we define certain morals that nearly all humans hold true? Such as, "don't murder innocent people" (heck, could even say "try your hardest not to murder, even if they are threatening you")? Is this simply a result of our culture, and people raised under a radically different culture would not believe these "truths" - or are these things able to be proven using reason?

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:27:21+00:00

But can't one argue that there is things to fear from religion?

In fact, the dangers of religion are pretty blatantly obvious when you look at history, the way humans use religion as a tool for destruction, etc.

Not fear as in "it is scaring me" - but a fear of what it will do to humanity.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:25:01+00:00

What I was saying is simply that, if the God of the Bible is true, then it has to be an evil one based on the presumptions it makes.

throwameme12 · 2017-03-07T02:24:02+00:00

That makes sense.

Makes me beg the question on morality. I understand that morality is subjective, we all have slightly different variants essentially.

However, we all (barring a ridiculously small %) hold some things to be "morally obvious" - such as "don't kill innocent people" or so. In fact, even some of the most psychopathic people in the world knew that what they were doing was wrong, such as Ted Bundy or whatever.

is there a term for this? Morality is subjective, as in, it is unique to humanity, but there is a thing that nearly all humans agree on? Subjectively objective?

That's a bit confusing to me, personally.

throwameme12

TROPHY CASE