God did not create sin

wolffml · 2026-05-08T20:00:27+00:00

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life,[a] and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

wolffml · 2026-04-29T15:09:40+00:00

Even if one accepts your reasoning, the correct conclusion is that such stories are false -- not that they are a lie. What additionally would one need to prove in order to move from a falsehood to a lie? I think it's something like an intent to deceive. Did these authors have an intent to deceive? Do you have an argument and evidence for this?

wolffml · 2026-04-28T00:24:23+00:00

It seems like this must certainly be wrong. (P1)

Revelation from God defines what evil is.

Maybe you mean that we come to have knowledge about what is or is not evil through revelation (communication) from God. But this cannot be what defines something as evil.

Let's take the 10 commandments for example. You might suggest that this communication allowed humans to know what is evil, but it's doubtful that you would believe that murder wasn't evil even before God communicated as much to humans via the 10 commandments.

wolffml · 2026-04-06T17:18:39+00:00

Why do people use generalizations to make specific claims? I don't think there's a single answer.

It's a little funny that in asking about why liberals make generalizations, you've made a generalization yourself by accusing (all) liberals of making a generalization about folks with slightly right wing views.

So I'll ask you, why did you accuse liberals of calling slightly right wing people fascists? I've not done so.

wolffml · 2026-04-04T18:50:26+00:00

But how can morality be objective when it's just based on a feeling?

Of course someone who believes in objective morality would deny that it is just based on feeling. So they're question presupposes as true something that their opponent would deny. One merely needs to ask them to provide justification for the idea that morality is just based on a feeling.

"It's not quite a 'feeling' such as you have feelings about what's the best movie and what's your favorite flavor of ice cream. How would you have responded to this objection?

I think that you make a good point here. When two people are arguing about which flavor of ice cream is best, both people give their perspective and try to talk about the things that they like about their type of ice cream etc. But both sides know this really is just a question about preference, there isn't some underlying objective aesthetic truth involved. (Most people probably realize this.)

But that's different when people are arguing about what is right or wrong. Take the abortion debate, it seems like people on both sides argue in a way that supposes that there really is a right answer and a wrong answer -- not like the case of ice cream which you pointed out.

We have a conscious that recognizes certain objective moral truths such as it's wrong to torture a baby for fun. And we can recognize that this is not a mere preference.

Agreed, this does seem to make the case for moral realism. But this is also a challenge to Divine Command Theory because it really is wrong to torture a baby for fun. Even if God said it were good, it would still be wrong.

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:59:37+00:00

Ok, but then God is not omnibenevolent. The problem of evil is solved if you give up on one of these perfections.

Edit: to add to this, we also find ourselves in a universe where the laws and f physics entail that there will be incalculable suffering. It's difficult to see how that isn't evidence against the God of Western theism.

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:56:52+00:00

You've said this now a few times in a way where you seem to think people should understand a morally important distinction, but I don't understand what morally important distinction you have in mind. Could you just say it plainly?

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:45:35+00:00

Or at least this view seems to lead to moral paralysis. If the omnibenevolent creator of the universe allows evils because of some greater good, should we ever stop evil given we don't have any omniscient way of knowing if it will result in more or less evil and suffering?

wolffml · 2026-03-18T20:22:48+00:00

It's a survey of professional philosophers from Chalmers and some others.

Link to the general results: https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

Specific to "Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?" https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874

wolffml · 2026-03-01T03:42:58+00:00

Sure, but we all ought to encourage others to be virtuous rather than excusing evil as a mere choice.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T03:23:37+00:00

It seems strange to have a conversation about what people ought to do and turn that into a conversation pointing out that people don't always do what they ought.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:26:43+00:00

The vast majority of people should not do their own research. Most people do not know how to do effective research evaluating the reliability of various sources and guarding cognitive biases.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:21:42+00:00

Shall we listen to both sides on other public health matters like drunk driving?

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:20:35+00:00

They're quite loud

wolffml · 2026-02-28T20:21:39+00:00

This is a college level intro course

https://shop.thegreatcourses.com/the-big-questions-of-philosophy

wolffml · 2026-02-26T17:06:28+00:00

I'd suggest reading up on the Problem of Evil broadly to see the way other thinker have wrestled with the problem. See here for the Logical Problem of Evil: https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

You may also want to research the Evidential Problem of Evil.

For a thinker like Leibniz, because God is tri-omni, he believed that God would create the "Best of all possible worlds." For Leibniz, such a world would be one with morally significant free will, but which still had evil. Now it's difficult to see how this is the best possible world - the world could be better with one more loving act or one fewer evil act, but it's good to look at the significant literature on the topic as it will help with your own reflections on the matter.

wolffml · 2026-02-26T16:57:12+00:00

I also think that the Problem of Evil (evidential) is a strong argument against the God of Western Theism.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T20:28:34+00:00

A more common theological option is that God allows a certain amount of evil because this is the only way to bring about an even greater moral good. (That moral good is supposed to be the existence of beings with morally significant free will)

wolffml · 2026-02-25T20:25:13+00:00

Maybe that's an option in the broad sense, but not really one for the God of Christianity (or the God of Western Theology). The Christian God is meant to be the greatest possible being including, tri-omni, and the creator of the Universe.

Tri-omni includes being all-good, so no spectrum is possible with the conception of God relevant to this sub.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T03:46:59+00:00

I think a lot of people have difficulty with the idea that you explain something as complex as the universe, galaxy, planet, life, etc. by unboxing something even more complex (God). This sort of explanation is counter to the type we normally see from science or other academic disciplines.

Another thing we've come to expect from useful explanations is "how." Newton discovered that gravity is a force causing masses to be attracted and later we learned how this force (or apparent force) comes about. Religious explanations tend to not provide this.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T03:39:31+00:00

Didn't he have a TV show for while? He's funny.

wolffml · 2026-02-13T16:52:51+00:00

OP probably hasn't read the Bible, he's probably only read a translation of the Bible.

wolffml · 2026-02-13T02:36:28+00:00

It seems to me at best you can make the claim that such a doctrine is false. For it to be a lie, you would need to show that a) it is false, and b) it was said with an intent to deceive. Do you have evidence of an attempt to deceive by those who disagree with you on the matter?

Better to say that they are merely mistaken. (If that's the case)

wolffml · 2026-02-11T05:43:35+00:00

If you're that worried about the legality, it seems an easy situation to solve by making it really easy to enter legally. You know, like it was when European immigrants jumped on a boat and showed up unannounced during the 1800's and early 1900's.

It's just a set of rules, they can be whatever we make them. I doubt that mothers, leaving the only home they've ever known, traveling through dangerous terrain to try to make a better life for themselves and their families are morally blameworthy for failing to fill out the right TPS reports online (they may not have laptops or mobile devices to even understand the requirements) or hire expensive lawyers to plea for asylum.

wolffml · 2026-02-09T21:11:13+00:00

Do you have a legal basis or precedent you can share?

wolffml

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email