(April 11, 2012 at 12:01 am)Drich Wrote: wanton describes the situation you have place yourself in I did not so much cherry pick as identified the ques that surround your chosen way of life, and paired it with a legitmate defination for the word wanton.

Yet nonetheless inaccurate.

Quote:Even so they still are recognized as Definitions of the word being defined.

Only in the same way "having little depth of colour" is a defintion of obtuse. Using a secondary definition of a word used in a secondary definition =/= primary definition.

Quote:As i said if you think a concept is too simple then perhaps you should take a deeper look. I did not move the goal post you simply have been made more aware of them and where they truly stand.

You cannot make someone aware of using a secondary definition of a word from a secondary definition and equate it with the primary.
Let me ask you; Can you act with malicious intent against the will of Thor? Simple concept. Yes or No.

Quote:Where people like you get in trouble is when you believe a simple precept is as deep as you initially perceive to be, and make assertions based on what you think you know, rather than ask questions defining the subject being discussed.

The concept was quite simple, and you haven't grasped it yet. Answer the above question.
I make no assertions, I simply respond to your facile ones.

NonBelievers Malicious Intent against the Will of God is a fallacy. It requires a presupposition of God. I understand your point that even if you are not aware of the laws, doesn't not absolve you of the crime. But you cannot call it malicious.
To use the idea of God being your ultimate moral authority, it cannot be malicious if your societies moral code contradicts a biblical one. Why do you maliciously go against the morals set down by Thor. Of course, you said, you put no stock in Thor... so you don't discuss it... oh wait, you do discuss it, because you have malicious intent against the will of Thor by discussing God version 3000.345

Quote:I have found (on this web site) if I put out too much information in the beginning it is lost to you all or dismissed and I just have to go back to the original post 3 to 4 times with everyone who does not get the complete precept. Why? Because you all have a closed minded approach to God and Christianity, and seem to believe that you have a complete understanding of what is being discussed no matter what it is. Which has to be corrected in order for us to move forward.

We may interject this rant for a brief interlude.

Simply because we do not accept the bible as absolute proof of the supernatural does not equate to being close-minded. What you are committing is an ad hominem which fails to support your actual argument.

We're listening, you're just not convincing. Theres a big difference.

To put it more simply, you do not refute Plato by redefining Morals.

Quote:Which works fine until someone comes in and thinks he knows what is being discussed and feels the "goal posts" have been moved when he finds out things are not as simple as he thought they were.

No feeling, I am stating a fact. You state "malicious intent". We pointed out that a nonbeliever cannot commit malicious intent no more than you can commit malicious intent against the will of a pink unicorn.

Quote:Plucked because your actions demanded to be accounted for in such away. Understand whether first run definition or 10th run definition if a definition is apart of the word being defined it is a valid interpretation of the word, even if you don't like it, and it makes you orginal assessment look foolish.

I accept your terms. 10th Run Definition;

Malicious = Wanton = Deliberate = Weighed = Evaluate = Judge = Decide = Conclude = Reason = Sound Judgement

So Sound Judgement is malicious intent against the will of God.

Valid interpretation after a 10th run? Or is your original assessment making you look a little foolish?

Quote:I do not hold Thor Anubis in any regard that is why I do not see a need to be apart of those types of discussions. You on the other hand have something compelling you to defend you way of life for the sake of your family.

Why so close minded? Whats wrong with Anubis and Thor?

You may as well ask why you feel compelled to visit an atheist forum to defend your faith in the imaginary. Are you threatened? I suspect not, so why bother? Silly question is silly.

Quote:Then ask God to show you some new material.

Ready and waiting.

Quote:Then just ask seek and knock as outlined in Luke 11.

Aaah, but "Looking up too much makes you lose perspective." Bugenhagen, Final Fantasy VII

Equally valid.

Quote:God is the Father of the natural universe. Perhaps the reason you have not found God is because you are looking in the wrong places.

Maybe, Maybe. Maybe you found a God because you wanted to find one. I suspect we both interpret that differently.

Quote:Does it match the bible? (Hint- It does not) Who do you pray to? The God of the bible or "a great number of people?"
If you seek an audience with the almighty God then wouldn't it stand to reason to pray to Him as He has outlined in the bible, and not how popular culture defines prayer?

And of course, if you do so, and receive no answer, then you did it wrong, or had incorrect motives, just like I originally said.
You're getting predictable.

Quote:Please by all means, Explain to me "my method of prayer."
Show me where it requires God to do nothing.

Aaah, the shifting of burden of proof fallacy. The only person who has to prove God answer a prayer, is you. We are obligated to prove nothing.

Quote:I did not say you wanted eternal life. I have only ever told you how to get the answers for the questions you have directly from God.

Name one instance, where you have asked a question and been given an answer that you could not have obtained merely by considering it yourself.

Now, if we have quite finished playing word games, could you briefly summarise why needless suffering exists where mankind is incapable of preventing it, and explain why a God is not malicious by preventing it.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: This seems to be the problem. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word in it's current context.

ma·li·cious   /məˈlɪʃəs/ Show Spelled[muh-lish-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; malevolent; spiteful: malicious gossip.
2. Law . vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.

The context is the Epicurean Paradox, and this is the definition of evil that applies: causing ruin, pain, or injury.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually no it doesn't. It can mean vicious or mischievous motivation, which can be considered spiteful but it can also mean a wanton motivation. What is wanton?

wan·ton   /ˈwɒntn/ Show Spelled[won-tn] Show IPA
adjective
1. done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably: a wanton attack; wanton cruelty.
2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful: Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?
3. without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless: a wanton attacker of religious convictions.
4. sexually lawless or unrestrained; loose; lascivious; lewd: wanton behavior.
5. extravagantly or excessively luxurious, as a person, manner of living, or style.
Did you see it? Deliberate and without motivation or provication. Which make your argument meaningless. Because again as I said from the beginning you do not have to even acknowledge God or His expressed will to be found maliciously outside of it.

The evil we've been talking about from page one is human suffering.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Don't forget the dictionary too. I have a tendency to use words by their given definitions rather than slang interpretation of them.

I find it helpful to take context into account as well.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: You misunderstand. God has handed the reigns over to us. If we have been subjected to evil it is because of the nature of the world we have created for ourselves.

I want to know which of us started the earthquake thing. That was just poor planning.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: I have a feeling the rest of your post will now be out of context simply because you did not take the time to read/understand what I originally wrote.

Quote:Possibly I thought you might actually address evil in the sense intended in the Epicurean Paradox. Darn thread title threw me off.

[quote='Drich' pid='270362' dateline='1334088961']As I pointed out "Evil" is not a thing. therefore your assessment of it was dismissed.

Of course it's not a thing. It's an abstract concept with multiple senses that include both deliberate cruelty and impersonal suffering. How did you arrive at me thinking evil is a thing? Especially when I don't capitalize it like some people I could mention.

[quote='Drich' pid='270362' dateline='1334088961']Evil can only exist in the hearts sentient beings like man.

I know you've gotten some flack about primary and secondary defintions, but sometimes it's the secondary definition that applies.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: That means even though you personally proclaim something naturally evil does not mean it qualifies as evil according to the bible.

It qualifies as evil according to the Epicurean Paradox. Natural evil (I didn't invent the term, dude, look it up) applies to the Paradox, and applies better than human evil does. Avoiding the Paradox's terms by substituting biblical definitions doesn't resolve the Paradox.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Why would the God of the universe.. Meaning the God who put in, and maintains all of the natural processes we know of and a universe more that we do not, have to resort to using supernatural means to create?

Beats me, I can't keep track of all the things you guys believe. Christians have believed in a supernatural God for millenia, if you want to change up now because you're smart enough to realize a supernatural God is ridiculous, good for you.

(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Believing in a supernatural God is a personal misunderstanding not a scriptural one.

I don't believe in any God I've ever heard described. You can think of him as Galactus for all the difference it makes.

Anyone else find it very interesting that the dictionary is invoked and quoted to death in order to define malicious intent (inaccurately at that), yet we come to the word "Evil" and Oh No! You can't use a DICTIONARY, you have to use the BIBLE.

Cretinous misdirection.

Let's try and get this one back on track. Drich wants the dictionary to be the correct point of reference for the argument.

e·vil   [ee-vuhl]
adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Instead we get special pleading that Evil = Malicious Intent against God and suddenly we are allegedly not allowed to use the dictionary anymore.

I think in order for this conversation not to get silly, The theist has to argue against Epicurus in the manner that Evil is intended or simply admit that the "Dictionary" definition of Evil means that Epicurus is true.

Good points all well won Drich.

Are you being sarcastic? I can never tell with you.

PS: If you're being serious, what do you think was his very best argument?

It appears that there is a direct argument related to God's ability to be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent simultaneously. The argument against this possibility is accusing malevolence, non-omnipotence, or non-omniscience. This argument is built upon the existence of evil within the world, and compounded by the inhuman treatment of people all over the world. So naturally the question arises: where does this evil in the world come from if God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good?

The proponents of this argument are transposing human characteristics on an entity which is in no way bounded by our characteristics (I'm generalizing the argument to all possible Gods, not just the one of the Bible). A few questions I have for those who hold this argument: Is all death evil? Is evolution evil? Is natural selection evil? Is the fact that millions die daily, yet we as humans do nothing to stop it from occurring, evil? Are we evil?

If we are evil, then who are we to assert what benevolence looks like?
If we are not all powerful, then who are we to assert what omnipotence acts like?
If we are not all knowing, then who are we to assert how omniscience works?

We attribute our own meaning to these words, but beyond the words there is a deeper meaning which can't be thrown around like the semantics of the conversation can be.

(April 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm)Perhaps Wrote: It appears that there is a direct argument related to God's ability to be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent simultaneously. The argument against this possibility is accusing malevolence, non-omnipotence, or non-omniscience. This argument is built upon the existence of evil within the world, and compounded by the inhuman treatment of people all over the world. So naturally the question arises: where does this evil in the world come from if God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good?

The proponents of this argument are transposing human characteristics on an entity which is in no way bounded by our characteristics (I'm generalizing the argument to all possible Gods, not just the one of the Bible). A few questions I have for those who hold this argument: Is all death evil? Is evolution evil? Is natural selection evil? Is the fact that millions die daily, yet we as humans do nothing to stop it from occurring, evil? Are we evil?

If we are evil, then who are we to assert what benevolence looks like?
If we are not all powerful, then who are we to assert what omnipotence acts like?
If we are not all knowing, then who are we to assert how omniscience works?

We attribute our own meaning to these words, but beyond the words there is a deeper meaning which can't be thrown around like the semantics of the conversation can be.

Certain key factors that are overlooked in your argument.

1. We don't attribute our own meaning to the words - the words represent specific concepts. The meaning is as deep as the word assigned to it. The concept of evil is simple - it is something that is considered undesirable.

2. Passing judgment about an attribute does not require you to have that attribute yourself - it only requires knowledge of what it entails. If we know what evil is, we can say what benevolence looks like, irrespective of whether we we ourselves are evil or not. Even if we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, we can say how omnipotence and omniscience would work, because not knowing everything does not mean we don't know anything.

3. As to the naturalistic processes such as death, evolution and natural selection - they can neither be evil nor good. Being evil presupposes a conscious choice - something that is not present behind those forces.

4. The standard of evil that is the basis of this paradox has been clearly established. It is the conscious causation of unnecessary suffering. This basis is also considered to be accepted by any imagined god. And it is this simple standard that damn him as malevolent or impotent.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm)genkaus Wrote: Certain key factors that are overlooked in your argument.

1. We don't attribute our own meaning to the words - the words represent specific concepts. The meaning is as deep as the word assigned to it. The concept of evil is simple - it is something that is considered undesirable.

Words are ascribed to abstractions of the mind to help us communicate. If I asked you what is infinity, you could spit me off a definition, but that definition doesn't capture the full abstraction of the concept. The same is true for most words, including evil. As for your definition: "something that is considered undesirable", you've made the abstraction subjective and therefore meaningless outside of your own perceptions.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm)genkaus Wrote: 2. Passing judgment about an attribute does not require you to have that attribute yourself - it only requires knowledge of what it entails. If we know what evil is, we can say what benevolence looks like, irrespective of whether we we ourselves are evil or not. Even if we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, we can say how omnipotence and omniscience would work, because not knowing everything does not mean we don't know anything.

We know what human evil is, we know what human benevolence looks like. We know nothing of the abstract concept of benevolence and evil outside of ourselves. Once again, we ascribe the words of definition to these abstractions of thought - omnipotence and omniscience - but we can't even fathom what they entail.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm)genkaus Wrote: 3. As to the naturalistic processes such as death, evolution and natural selection - they can neither be evil nor good. Being evil presupposes a conscious choice - something that is not present behind those forces.

Human evil requires conscious choice - I'm not sure if this will help illustrate my idea more clearly, but if you've seen the move Avatar, their God (the energy between all things) takes no action to prevent or inhibit violence and destruction, it acts as a silent observer to the qualms of the humans and the avatars. The non-action of an able and willing God does not make them malevolent. It simply makes them non-actors.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm)genkaus Wrote: 4. The standard of evil that is the basis of this paradox has been clearly established. It is the conscious causation of unnecessary suffering. This basis is also considered to be accepted by any imagined god. And it is this simple standard that damn him as malevolent or impotent.

The conscious causation of unnecessary suffering is indeed evil, as to whether God is contained within this human definition is the argument of this thread. If God really is limitless, all powerful, all knowing, and all good then I see no reason to confine it to our simple definitions which fail at even capturing our own abstractions.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Words are ascribed to abstractions of the mind to help us communicate. If I asked you what is infinity, you could spit me off a definition, but that definition doesn't capture the full abstraction of the concept. The same is true for most words, including evil. As for your definition: "something that is considered undesirable", you've made the abstraction subjective and therefore meaningless outside of your own perceptions.

You forget that the abstractions themselves are created by the mind. Why wouldn't words ascribed to represent the abstraction not capture it fully? Further, providing a concrete definition fro a word does not make the concept subject or meaningless outside perception.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)Perhaps Wrote: We know what human evil is, we know what human benevolence looks like. We know nothing of the abstract concept of benevolence and evil outside of ourselves. Once again, we ascribe the words of definition to these abstractions of thought - omnipotence and omniscience - but we can't even fathom what they entail.

Yes, we can, since we are the ones who created those abstractions. We cannot know the concepts of benevolence and evil outside our consciousness because they do no exist outside it. To the extent they exist, they can be fathomed.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Human evil requires conscious choice - I'm not sure if this will help illustrate my idea more clearly, but if you've seen the move Avatar, their God (the energy between all things) takes no action to prevent or inhibit violence and destruction, it acts as a silent observer to the qualms of the humans and the avatars. The non-action of an able and willing God does not make them malevolent. It simply makes them non-actors.

Yeah - no action - if you ignore the declaration of Jake Scully as the "chosen one" in the beginning of the movie or the directing of all creatures against humans in the climax, thereby saving the Navi's collective asses. I think that that deity definitely proved that it was both capable and willing to intervene and prevent violence and destruction when no other course was open.

(April 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The conscious causation of unnecessary suffering is indeed evil, as to whether God is contained within this human definition is the argument of this thread. If God really is limitless, all powerful, all knowing, and all good then I see no reason to confine it to our simple definitions which fail at even capturing our own abstractions.

And that is your error. Firstly, our definitions do capture our abstractions. Therefore, I see no reason, apart from special pleading, for why god would not be bound by them.

(April 11, 2012 at 7:20 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Anyone else find it very interesting that the dictionary is invoked and quoted to death in order to define malicious intent (inaccurately at that), yet we come to the word "Evil" and Oh No! You can't use a DICTIONARY, you have to use the BIBLE.

Cretinous misdirection.

Let's try and get this one back on track. Drich wants the dictionary to be the correct point of reference for the argument.

e·vil   [ee-vuhl]
adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Instead we get special pleading that Evil = Malicious Intent against God and suddenly we are allegedly not allowed to use the dictionary anymore.

I think in order for this conversation not to get silly, The theist has to argue against Epicurus in the manner that Evil is intended or simply admit that the "Dictionary" definition of Evil means that Epicurus is true.

Why do we use God's interpretation of Evil rather that the pop cultures understanding of the word? Because it is God's actions (or lack of) that are being questioned in relation to Evil. If God is being judged against a standard then we must establish Who God is, against the very same standard in which He is being Judged. If we are speaking of the God of the bible then it is to the biblical standard in which we are to also judge evil. That is unless you feel you need to stack the deck in your favor to judge God unfairly in order to win your conviction. A fair assessment would indeed single source (as there is only one source that defines the God of the bible) information of God and sin/evil, inorder to make a sound judgment.

otherwise it would be like asking who were the better soldiers? the 300 of Sparta or a current active duty seal team, simply by judging the effective usage of their weapons. If one wants an accurate assessment the one has to look at the soldiers as a whole, meaning times and conditions of service, and not the one aspect that favors your argument.

So to recap we look to the bible for the definition of evil because it is in the context (Judgment of the God of the bible) that we use it. We use modern dictionaries to further break down the definition to clarify the biblical definition so people like you can not rely on the loop holes you think you have found in the biblical account.