RE: The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.
July 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Easy, the beauty and value of this world is a very simple appraisal to make considering how horribly shitty things could have gone (and still may) at any point. Relative to that, this place is a wonderland. Even the shitty things have a sort of awe about them. Nothing is directed at us, not even the shitty things, there is no malice, there is no intent.
When you invoke conscious, directed, creative effort...and specifically by a creative agent that is presumed to be very very smart.....the picture darkens. If this creative force had within it the power to go any way it wanted with it's creation it goes pitch black. You can't assume incompetence or carelessness, as you might with a child who accidentally hits their sibling, you begin to suspect malice, as with an adult who is fond of stabbing people.
I'm personally of the opinion, that if we're willing to invoke gods as a remotely plausible or respectable proposition -even in the absence of evidence- that a much stronger argument can be made for an infinitely malicious god than has ever been made for any benevolence, of any measure, whatsoever.
To you, the suffering you see seems necessary. You justify this by reference to nature and life, an area which is in no way enhanced or elaborated upon by the concept of a benevolent creator...that's just something you decided to shoehorn into it. You have not established that any of this suffering is necessary at all in light of your creator (and alternatives have been offered in spades). Is this the is-ought argument of suffering as a necessity with a side of goddidit? Seems to be.
When you invoke conscious, directed, creative effort...and specifically by a creative agent that is presumed to be very very smart.....the picture darkens. If this creative force had within it the power to go any way it wanted with it's creation it goes pitch black. You can't assume incompetence or carelessness, as you might with a child who accidentally hits their sibling, you begin to suspect malice, as with an adult who is fond of stabbing people.
I'm personally of the opinion, that if we're willing to invoke gods as a remotely plausible or respectable proposition -even in the absence of evidence- that a much stronger argument can be made for an infinitely malicious god than has ever been made for any benevolence, of any measure, whatsoever.
To you, the suffering you see seems necessary. You justify this by reference to nature and life, an area which is in no way enhanced or elaborated upon by the concept of a benevolent creator...that's just something you decided to shoehorn into it. You have not established that any of this suffering is necessary at all in light of your creator (and alternatives have been offered in spades). Is this the is-ought argument of suffering as a necessity with a side of goddidit? Seems to be.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
