My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[Mystic]

Now I reject the idea that morality is anything but within ourselves, based on our experiences and governed by simple rules of existence.
Not externally delivered to us by a morality law. So what I'm saying is, our mere existence is morality. I'm was born, you were born. We are equal. If you do something that affects my well being, you're wrong because you have no right to do that since we're equal. The way we are able to confirm what is right and wrong is based on our own experiences within society. But, as we've seen, morality is altered based on the society.

If you say morality is only within ourselves does this mean if we meet other sentient life forms on other planets, we can't extend morality to them? Does it mean it's possible it will be morally right for them to want to exterminate us for example if their evolution and society programmed them to think that way?

That doesn't mean what they did wasn't wrong, because they were born to this earth on the same level as their victims, but society gave them more credence than was due. Their own personal morality is skewed, and they do things that they don't consider to be immoral.

Skewed from what standard? Wrong according to what? If it's not wrong according to their own morality, then why isn't simply then a case, like an animal that doesn't know any better?

There does seem to be a right and wrong in life, but that can be described as logical humanism.

You just said they were skewed from a morality, and it doesn't mean they weren't wrong, and now are saying there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in real life. I'm a little confused to your position.

Again, that's just society altering morality though. The truth of the matter is that despite to whom or where they're born, those babies are equal in the simplicity of existence. Take all external factors like whom they were born or where, you just have two babies existing on this earth with equal rights.

You said there was no right or wrong, now are saying the caste system is wrong...however, how do you prove rights even exist? What is the right of an antelope? What is the right of a cow? What is the right of a horse? What makes humans all so special that we deserve more rights?

This is the best definition I've found on morality: morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures.

This can be true of either morality being a delusion (all subjective) or being objective. However, by this definition, it seems more likely that it's all subjective (ie. a delusion).

Granted, I'm just talking to talk because I'd like feeback.. I'm not saying I'm right. I just started delving into this subject, in fact.

Ok let's talk about somethings.

From perspective of evolution, we come to believe in things that work to enhance our species.

I will give you an example. It maybe that living without kids or a wife, we would be JUST as happy or even happier, but this will not enhance our species survivability and those without kids wouldn't pass on genes, so then it would favour those who believe that having kids and a wife will make you happier.

Furthermore, we will come to believe there is more happiness in companionship with a wife, that is more than simply biological forces making us happier.

The enjoyability of sex for example, would be there, because it works.

This what evolution would do. Whatever works for our survivability would be passed on. Suppose a mutation happened and a lifeform didn't enjoy sex or have a drive for it. It would most likely not pass on it's genes.

Now as far as believing morality and having morals, it was definitely needed for cohesion and survivability. But was it ever something objective in a human? Or was it based on following praise consensus of society?

Why are we humans most likely to agree upon the morals of our people? I'm Canadian and it ends up I am a strong advocate of free health care...If I was American, there be a huge chance I wouldn't be.

We follow praise consensus. We follow myth of our societies as well. We follow their beliefs. Just look at "cool". "Cool" has nothing objective about it, it's simply a type of praise of society, that seems to be entirely without any rational basis. But everyone wants to be cool.

Now there may be a natural drive of humans to come to believe in the praise of their parents.

What we see as universal morals would be nothing more than what is necessary for each society to function. It doesn't make it all objective by being universal.

Furthermore, even if it wasn't a drive towards praise consensus of society and was somehow within us.

Obviously when we started off as primitive animals in evolution, we didn't have an objective morality. So when did it become objective? How did ever gain objectivity within us?

It rather seems it would simply be what is working and thriving, but it has no real should do.

There is no "ought" and "should" and "it's good to do", it simply is a feeling we have, a belief that got complicated.

Furthermore, is the complication of myth. Obviously in our primitive forms, we would not have had a complicated philosophy. No books to write. Not much discussion. To teach morals, you needed myths.

But even if justifying morality, how relevant was teaching of a spirit and gods relevant? Judgment of God(s) showing there is objective value to our choices.

If you went back in time, and never had myth, perhaps morality would never have developed to what it is within us. Perhaps it is a type of myth itself from naturalism perspective.

And say there is an objective morality within us - it's another thing to say we can know we have this objective morality from naturalism perspective.

It's one thing to have it, but from naturalism perspective, how would we distinguish between what we know from what we come to strongly believe due to evolution favouring that belief?

[catfish]

My reason? An eon(aeonian) doesn't mean eternity. That and "hell" is a pagan Greek myth...
.

[Mystical]

good gravy catfish, aren't you an athiest yet?

[catfish]

Hades no, I want my free trip to Tartarus.

[Tex]

@ missluckie26

First off, I love the Holy Grail. My favorite of their movies. I watched it just last Monday. Anyway, on to the real stuff.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Its the last conclusion you got wrong. God is entirely able, and if he weren't, he would not be omnipotent, yes, but will is a different matter. I can will to go to the football game, and I can go. I can will that I make a sammich, and I make one. However, sometimes we can only will one of two options. Pretend you have to paint a wall in your house. Pretend you like both blue and green, but not teal. You can only paint it one color. It is impossible that the whole wall (one color) be both blue and green, so instead you decide on one. Equally, if I'm fishing with my philosophy professor and my mother (both cannot swim), and both go overboard simultaneously with time only to save one, I might want both saved, but only one will happen (your supposed to save your mother, btw).

In the case with God, he does not want evil, but simultaneously he wants creatures with free will. He can either have robots and no evil or people with evil (although there will be no evil further down the timeline). He is choosing people. Currently, there is evil, mainly because we cause it. God doesn't prevent other evils because we're total butt holes to him (and death is not non-existence).

[Mystical]

If you say morality is only within ourselves does this mean if we meet other sentient life forms on other planets, we can't extend morality to them? Does it mean it's possible it will be morally right for them to want to exterminate us for example if their evolution and society programmed them to think that way?

No I'm saying that just existing and being self aware to a certain degree implies certain existential rights. An alien I would imagine could have socially evolved to believe killing us is fine. Sorta like how America got formed at the expense of the native americans. But that doesn't change the fact that they were born into this universe, and we were too. Thus we're equal by default.

When I said morality lies within ourselves, I meant biologically we have evolved to have them for a social reason.
There are case studies that moral decisions are made and the parts of the brain that become active are responsible for logic, the other for emotions. Thus logic can be skewed by emotions, and vice versa.

March 22, 2007 New York Times
Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices
By BENEDICT CAREY

Damage to an area of the brain behind the forehead, inches behind the eyes, transforms the way people make moral judgments in life-or-death situations, scientists reported yesterday. In a new study, people with this rare injury expressed increased willingness to kill or harm another person if doing so would save others’ lives.

The findings are the most direct evidence that humans’ native revulsion to hurting others relies on a part of neural anatomy, one that evolved before the higher brain regions responsible for analysis and planning.

The researchers emphasize that the study was small and that the moral decisions were hypothetical; the results cannot predict how people with or without brain injuries will act in real life-or-death situations. Yet the findings, appearing online yesterday, in the journal Nature, confirm the central role of the damaged region, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is thought to give rise to social emotions, like compassion.

Previous studies showed that this region was active during moral decision making, and that damage to it and neighboring areas from severe dementia affected moral judgments. The new study seals the case by demonstrating that a very specific kind of emotion-based judgment is altered when the region is offline. In extreme circumstances, people with the injury will even endorse suffocating an infant if that would save more lives.

“I think it’s very convincing now that there are at least two systems working when we make moral judgments,” said Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard who was not involved in the study. “There’s an emotional system that depends on this specific part of the brain, and another system that performs more utilitarian cost-benefit analyses which in these people is clearly intact.”
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/p...cortex.htm

Skewed from what standard? Wrong according to what? If it's not wrong according to their own morality, then why isn't simply then a case, like an animal that doesn't know any better?

It's not the case because it's not the case? Our objective perception of reality does not make reality, reality. Reality is reality because it's reality. The standard is simply inherited through exisistance. As for animals: this about sums up my thoughts.

But research across many different species has presented a very different picture. What we appear to have is a deep set of sympathetic behavioral impulses that are fundamental parts of our nervous systems. The suffering of others isn’t just a forced concern—monkeys, great apes, rats, and even mice all exhibit remarkable behavioral interest in the welfare of others, particularly, but not limited to, their own species. This research suggests that basic impulses of sympathy, consolation, empathy, generosity, kindness, reciprocity, and fairness run all the way into our pre-human evolutionary history.

Our nervous systems are built to feel an emotional contagion from the pains and pleasures of others. Higher cognitive functions allow us to interpret those feelings in terms of empathy for others by recognizing the situation that produced the feelings and the reasons for the other being’s emotions. Even higher cognitive abilities, laid on top by evolutionary stages, make it possible for us to understand our own feelings and those of others by fully modeling and adopting the other being’s perspectives.

Even monkeys know what's unfair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

Another experiment on universal morality focused on Rhesus monkeys illustrates the sense of community and avoidance of harm of community members (Masserman, 1964). Operator monkeys were trained to pull a chain to receive food, and another chain when signaled with a red and blue light, respectively, however on the fourth day of the experiment, the monkeys were paired, and when the operator monkey pulled the chains, the other would receive a shock. Two-thirds of the monkeys showed discretion in pulling the chains, especially after receiving the shocks, and if they had previous interaction with their pair, and many of the monkeys even avoided pulling the chains to feed themselves, going weeks without eating.

Second Scenario:

The train problem consists of two scenarios. In the first, one must pull a lever to direct a moving train away from five people and toward one person, and in the second, one must push a person under a train, thereby stopping it in time to save five people. In a wide survey, many people regarded the option in the first scenario to be ethical, however, an overwhelming number of subjects strongly dissented the morality of the second scenario, yet they were unable to articulate the ethical difference from the first scenario (Hauser, Cushman & Young, 1997). In both situations one is asked to harm one for the good of the community. The sources of this inconsistency are, according to a recent article by Steven Pinker, universal morals.
In a recent study, fMRI’s monitored brain activity when subjects were presented with the “train problem” (Greene, 2001). In all subjects considering the first scenario, only the area of the frontal lobes linked to logic, showed any signs of excessive activity. However, when presented with the second scenario, the medial area of the frontal lobes, linked to interpersonal emotions, as well as that linked to logic and the anterior cingulate cortex, which registers conflicts between different urges. These findings, as well as those of the previous study illustrate moral battle between emotions and logic, and the universal victory of emotions.

The ubiquity of the cerebral response to wrongdoing suggests some evolutionary benefit to morality. Psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham argued that all evolutionary morals fit into five broad categories: avoidance of harm, fairness, a sense of community, respect for authority, and purity (Haidt, & Graham 2006). Although these are distinct human ideals, they are also represented in animals, illustrating evolutionary benefits. The experiment on Rhesus Monkeys (Masserman, Wechkin & Terris, 1964) reflects avoidance of harm; the hierarchy of dominance reflects respect for authority; animal communities inherently reflect an emphasis on fairness and reciprocation, and avoidance of certain foods reflects the importance of purity,
This new concept of a universal and unwritten moral code could lead to major changes in the ways social interactions and ethics are studied. With further exploration, these universal morals could prove to be the foundations of anything from someone holding a door open for another to the world’s major religions. Perhaps in time, we will be able to better understand the motivations behind our instinctual moral responses.
http://intro2psych.wordpress.com/2009/05...-morality/

There does seem to be a right and wrong in life, but that can be described as logical humanism.

You just said they were skewed from a morality, and it doesn't mean they weren't wrong, and now are saying there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in real life. I'm a little confused to your position.

I'm speaking about existencial rights really..Logic dictates we each have certain rights by just being here.

You said there was no right or wrong, now are saying the caste system is wrong...however, how do you prove rights even exist? What is the right of an antelope? What is the right of a cow? What is the right of a horse? What makes humans all so special that we deserve more rights?

I never said people have more rights. What makes my birth into this earth any different from a rabbits? We're both equal if not separate species of beings. Just because we have different biology and measures of consciousness does not mean that if I eat a rabbit, that it's fair. A lion kills an antelope, that's fact. That's also how they survive. Survival conquers most other reasons usually. Animals tend to be more concerned with the rights of their own species but it does happen that they can extend their emotions to another species, and override their survival instinct.

A lioness in Kenya has adopted another baby oryx - her third in as many months, game wardens at the northern Samburu National Park have reported.
The lioness is said to allow a female oryx several minutes each day to feed the new-born calf.

The lioness is said to be "fiercely protective" of the oryx - becoming very aggressive when any human come near.

Three adult onyxes have been seen near the unlikely duo though, one of which is believed to be the mother.

Grief stricken

When the last calf was eaten by a male lion while she slept, the lioness was said to have been stricken with grief - she went around roaring in anger.

Cases of lionesses showing maternal affection for animals they would normally see as prey are not unprecedented, conservationist Daphne Sheldrick said.

"It does happen, but it's quite unusual. Lions, like all the other species, including human beings, have this kind of feelings for babies," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1905363.stm

This is the best definition I've found on morality: morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures.

This can be true of either morality being a delusion (all subjective) or being objective. However, by this definition, it seems more likely that it's all subjective (ie. a delusion).

I disagree that it's a delusion, that would mean there is no evidence to prove it's existence correct?

Ok let's talk about somethings.

From perspective of evolution, we come to believe in things that work to enhance our species.

I will give you an example. It maybe that living without kids or a wife, we would be JUST as happy or even happier, but this will not enhance our species survivability and those without kids wouldn't pass on genes, so then it would favour those who believe that having kids and a wife will make you happier.

Furthermore, we will come to believe there is more happiness in companionship with a wife, that is more than simply biological forces making us happier.

The enjoyability of sex for example, would be there, because it works.

This what evolution would do. Whatever works for our survivability would be passed on. Suppose a mutation happened and a lifeform didn't enjoy sex or have a drive for it. It would most likely not pass on it's genes.

Agreed.

Now as far as believing morality and having morals, it was definitely needed for cohesion and survivability. But was it ever something objective in a human? Or was it based on following praise consensus of society?

Even in mice, morality is observed.

Why are we humans most likely to agree upon the morals of our people? I'm Canadian and it ends up I am a strong advocate of free health care...If I was American, there be a huge chance I wouldn't be.

Side note: I'm American, and everyone I've talked to besides one person is PRO universal healthcare. That one exception: Yeah he's a pharmacist/DOCTOR. As far as I'm aware, the only ones opposed to free healthcare are the assholes who are profiteering freely on healthcare at the moment. This doesn't mean I advocate limitations on business, it just means that theres shit needs fixin. 20k for a procedure that costed 1,500k is ridiculous, and government regulation is absolutely fair. The only reason it is opposed is because of the lobbyists for those who run the system. Americans are begging for free healthcare, and are dying in the meantime.

We follow praise consensus. We follow myth of our societies as well. We follow their beliefs. Just look at "cool". "Cool" has nothing objective about it, it's simply a type of praise of society, that seems to be entirely without any rational basis. But everyone wants to be cool.

School is cool

Internal biological components and external components make survival more probable through sociability.

Now there may be a natural drive of humans to come to believe in the praise of their parents.

What we see as universal morals would be nothing more than what is necessary for each society to function. It doesn't make it all objective by being universal.

Furthermore, even if it wasn't a drive towards praise consensus of society and was somehow within us.

Obviously when we started off as primitive animals in evolution, we didn't have an objective morality. So when did it become objective? How did ever gain objectivity within us?

Now we're going to have to take a look at consciousness to answer that question. Is a starfish not conscious? It's not the same level as humanity but it is conscious. Morality from what I've found comes when level of consciousness reaches identifying not only ones own suffering but that of others. Mice can do this.

Furthermore, is the complication of myth. Obviously in our primitive forms, we would not have had a complicated philosophy. No books to write. Not much discussion. To teach morals, you needed myths.

I can't help but think about when I am with a 1yr old who doesn't even know the word no: if they try to touch something dangerous I slap their hand. They look at you, dumbfounded, then try again and you slap their hand. Depending on the individual, eventually they learn not to touch that thing when you're there. Sans verbal language.

But even if justifying morality, how relevant was teaching of a spirit and gods relevant? Judgment of God(s) showing there is objective value to our choices.

If you went back in time, and never had myth, perhaps morality would never have developed to what it is within us. Perhaps it is a type of myth itself from naturalism perspective.

Even if I didn't tell the baby, "Dont touch that or God will be mad at you," that baby won't touch it after you taught it not to.

And say there is an objective morality within us - it's another thing to say we can know we have this objective morality from naturalism perspective.

It's one thing to have it, but from naturalism perspective, how would we distinguish between what we know from what we come to strongly believe due to evolution favouring that belief?

Honestly, I'm outta my league in the conversation because, I'm not concrete in my beliefs I merely have an idea of what I believe is going on around me. Without proof none of us can know: but I'll look at the proof out there and draw my conclusions based on that rather than assume in that which I don't see proof for.

[Mystic]

Just existing implies rights. Hmm... I don't know if that is sequitur.

Morality exists based on reality. We don't get to chose what it is. But before you were stating it's experience that we evolved to have. Furthermore, what is this reality you talk about. Surely you are discussing "conscious" existence right as opposed to any existence right? You are stating we have equal rights to that of a fly for example, because both exist in the conscious sense? I don't think most humans would regard this as true, and if what you are saying is true, it seems your morality is unique, and not shared by most of humanity. Most of humanity doesn't deem the rights of a human that same as a cow for example.

Moreover, how can sheer existence give us a concept of moral rights? It can't surely. But why would evolution favour a concept of morality based on sheer existence instead of what favours surivability.

Going back to "praise" consensus, it can be very well be, since cohension is needed for society to function, most humans develop an inclination to accept the praise of their society and accept the leaders.

Moreover, morals would not have been philosophically discussed in our primitive nature, it would be told in the mode of myths. People would have inclination to believe it's "pious" (aka good) to believe in the myths of their society. Without that, morality in the past, would break and not have advanced to what it is.

So while you think morality is based on reality, from naturalism perspective, it would seem morality is more line built with inclination from evolution to accept the praise consensus of their society/tribe/culture/nation.

Ofcourse, somethings we needed like empathy. And it being found in animals doesn't make it objective. Rape is done by animals. Doesn't make it ok for us, does it now? So whether or not, empathy is acted upon by majority of animals, it doesn't make it objective. It just means it was advantageous for surival of the species. If having sex with multiple partners was more advantageous or is what worked better in the species, then it would not be seen as wrong by that species. If rape worked at an advantage, again, it would not been seen as wrong.

Of course, somethings will be more universal then others, but universality doesn't equal objective. It just means it works for the advantage of most species.

The core of the issue, is whether there is anything that we truly ought to do. Or anything that is "good of us" to do. Surely we perceive a perception of this and are inclined to believe in it, but why should we obey this concept we have? What makes it right?

You stated we have equal rights to that of other animals existing. Surely I disagree with this and cannot come to believe it myself.

Moreover, we don't simply come with morals - we come to learn them from society. How is this even possible? We trust our parents. We then trust society. We are so ingrained with morality but if we didn't have the concept a priori then what it makes it real? If we needed others to teach us, it means we really didn't know until others taught us.

This gives notion that we are taught by praise and condemnation of parents, then society, then charismatic leaders if we are the type to look for inspiration, but none of this is developed from sheer reality.

Going back to "cool", we have a concept of "cool" but obviously didn't have that right away, and had to come across this type of praise (which is totally baseless).

It seems like praise can be created by society. There is also "holiness" "piousness" which is different type of "good" then secular good, but again, from naturalism perspective, this surely would be baseless.

So we have two type of praises that are baseless from naturalism perspective, yet, goodness and objective praise, surely must be true? Honour must be true?

What makes it so? Why should we listen to the "ought" or our natural empathy? Some people say it's because it makes us feel better. Then everything is reduced to :we should do what makes us feel better". But even that, why should a person care about themselves? From evolution perspective, we would not have survived were it not for caring about our selves. We naturally would have a high belief in valuing ourselves. But it wasn't felt by sheerly existing.

[Mystical]

@ missluckie26

First off, I love the Holy Grail. My favorite of their movies. I watched it just last Monday. Anyway, on to the real stuff.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Its the last conclusion you got wrong. God is entirely able, and if he weren't, he would not be omnipotent, yes, but will is a different matter. I can will to go to the football game, and I can go. I can will that I make a sammich, and I make one. However, sometimes we can only will one of two options. Pretend you have to paint a wall in your house. Pretend you like both blue and green, but not teal. You can only paint it one color. It is impossible that the whole wall (one color) be both blue and green, so instead you decide on one. Equally, if I'm fishing with my philosophy professor and my mother (both cannot swim), and both go overboard simultaneously with time only to save one, I might want both saved, but only one will happen (your supposed to save your mother, btw).

In the case with God, he does not want evil, but simultaneously he wants creatures with free will. He can either have robots and no evil or people with evil (although there will be no evil further down the timeline). He is choosing people. Currently, there is evil, mainly because we cause it. God doesn't prevent other evils because we're total butt holes to him (and death is not non-existence).

Hi there Sorry it took me a bit to reply, Mystic Knight yours is coming soon too! Just been busy. And tired, I'm on chemo treatments..

So, if you look back to before "the fall", Adam and Eve had free will. They chose to disobey.
I disagree with your assertion that "if your whole god theory is right" then there will not be evil down the line. Hell will exist, and that's evil because an infinite punishment for a finite transgression is incoherently ridiculous not to mention unjust.

I would consider god to be evil, unless you contest the existence of hell or all of the old testament/Revelations. God himself says he does not change, and he killed innocents in the bible. That evil will never go away, he's the one who made it that way. But I guess it's not evil because your definition of good is god. I can't even make up a horrible scenario of malevolence that god hasn't done. So let's say he ripped babies out of their mothers' wombs (he did), and that's good because god says so. Anything is good if god says it is.

What's more, he has to be the source of both good and evil if he's the one who is everything and made everything; otherwise there's a law of good/evil that he didn't make but must abide by in which case, who made that system?
I didn't say god doesn't prevent other evils because we're total butt holes (that made me laugh!). I assert that if he wasn't a total butt hole himself, he wouldn't have even created satan and the system of the "fall" and punishment or sin, knowing that he can know what was to happen before it happened. Or he could've just let everyone eat of the tree of life instead of shoving us out into the thorny, pestilence-infested wilderness for succumbing to his fucked up pre-made version of justice.

So he's able, and not willing, which makes him malevolent.

[Mystic]

Take your time Missluckie. If you have to read books about the issue, get other opinions, etc... I don't mind. I'm in no rush. You can come back in a month if you want and continue the discussion.

This is not an easy topic.

[Tex]

Hi there Sorry it took me a bit to reply, Mystic Knight yours is coming soon too! Just been busy. And tired, I'm on chemo treatments..

Get better soon!!! And don't lose hope! My dad's best friend had 3 different types of chemo for Leukemia and was ready to give up, took a final 4th try at chemo and not only was cured, but had his hair back in 6 months.

So, if you look back to before "the fall", Adam and Eve had free will. They chose to disobey.
I disagree with your assertion that "if your whole god theory is right" then there will not be evil down the line. Hell will exist, and that's evil because an infinite punishment for a finite transgression is incoherently ridiculous not to mention unjust.

Actually, even though you're misunderstanding what 'evil' is, you have changed my mind. There will always be evil. I didn't think about it before, but there will be evil in hell. Outside of hell, there will be no evil.

But, the eternal existence of hell or pain is not the evil I propose. I think those in hell will do evil to each other. If hell were a place where God forced you to go because he doesn't like you, then God would be evil. That's not exactly the case. Anyone who goes to hell will walk there on their own accord.

I would consider god to be evil, unless you contest the existence of hell or all of the old testament/Revelations. God himself says he does not change, and he killed innocents in the bible. That evil will never go away, he's the one who made it that way. But I guess it's not evil because your definition of good is god. I can't even make up a horrible scenario of malevolence that god hasn't done. So let's say he ripped babies out of their mothers' wombs (he did), and that's good because god says so. Anything is good if god says it is.

No one is innocent. We all fall short of what we should. However, this doesn't merit the speeding of someone's death for no reason, so the debate will be, "Is what the victim did equal to the punishment?". Each case has varying details, but all that I've looked at, someone did something pretty stupid, if not multiple things. Specifically, you mentioned the scenario of children being killed in the womb (Hosea 13). Background: the Jewish nation had a civil war, so at one point Judah and Israel were not the same place. In the civil war, Israel looks to be the bad guy, but odds are the kings after David were jerks. Anyway, the chapter starts out talking about how the people of Israel (not Judah) no longer worship the Lord. They have been spoiled and have since forgotten God. God is taking away his protection. Because Israel was in constant warfare and killing their own people, God left them to their own devices. Eventually Assyria, who was much stronger, stomped on Israel. Assyria ripped the children from the womb, and God did not protect because they did not desire of God. Assyria also wanted to go stomp on Judah, smaller and just to the south. Easy target. More dead people. Right? No. Judah did no abandon God.

Isaiah 37:36
"And the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies."

Basically, disease destroyed the whole army. Assyria was not justly declaring war, they were just greedy.

What's more, he has to be the source of both good and evil if he's the one who is everything and made everything; otherwise there's a law of good/evil that he didn't make but must abide by in which case, who made that system?

I actually claim that evil is the lack of good in the EXACT same sense of light and darkness. Darkness doesn't enter a room. Light enters a room, and if I shut the blinds it leaves. Good and evil work the same way.

I didn't say god doesn't prevent other evils because we're total butt holes (that made me laugh!). I assert that if he wasn't a total butt hole himself, he wouldn't have even created satan and the system of the "fall" and punishment or sin, knowing that he can know what was to happen before it happened. Or he could've just let everyone eat of the tree of life instead of shoving us out into the thorny, pestilence-infested wilderness for succumbing to his fucked up pre-made version of justice.

So he's able, and not willing, which makes him malevolent.

I think "butt hole" is the worst of all 3rd grade insults. It is one of my favorites. =)

I assert that God did create Satan, knowing what he would do, and God is not evil for it. He did the same with Hitler. And Stalin. And Gaddafi. And Saddam. And all people, knowing the evil they would do. This doesn't seem to bother God. So, if this it is bad to do something that leads to bad, then God is either REALLY malevolent or whatever he did was REALLY good because it out weighed the bad. Since people are in time, we can say that Hitler could have made his momma happy while she was alive and turned sour later, so he has a use. Demons, because they are outside of time, we can't use that cop out. The demons cannot change their mind, so they chose evil and they will always do evil. Lets say there is a person that never does any good ever from conception till death. Would a person be better off to never exist at all? We might think so, but those are reasons of utility. "To much trouble". The person could do all evil, but the person themselves would be just like any of us. Equally, all the demons are fundamentally good like angels.