Which Comes First?

[Edwardo Piet]

How much is 'so much immorality'?

The fact that horribly horrific things go on over the world every day.

And my point is, if God is truly good, if he is truly all-loving, truly omnibenevolent, why does he allow any evil at all? Why couldn't he create humans as less imperfect as we are, so everyone's happy? And no one his suffering like shit, despite the fact that many of the people suffering, don't deserve it.

Why would a truly just God make life unfair, why wouldn't he make it fair?

A truly Evil God would only allow Evil.

A truly Good God would only allow Good, right?

For God to allow both, he's either careless, ignorant of others suffering - lacking in empathy - or something to that effect, right?

OR....perhaps there are both good and evil, simply because there is no God to put them there, since they are subjective, and this is an imperfect world? Perhaps?

Good and evil can be explained without God. With God, it's a curious question as to why he'd allow the Evil side.

If God allowed less you would still complain and if He allowed more you would know no difference since it would be a normal amount inthe world.

Why does he allow any? And there's a fucking ton of it in the world. Much suffering goes around the world. Why would a Good God determine that to happen?

The case is that there could have been ALOT more suffering too than there is.

Maybe so, but it's still a lot. And even if it were only a tiny but - and it obviously isn't only a tiny bit - then he's still allowing suffering and pain and Evil. If he's a perfect and perfectly GOOD God, why would he allow any at all? He knows the future and he can do anything, why can't he determine a future where everyone's happy and no one's suffering? Nevermind the fact that if he exists in this reality, then he's determined a lot of people to unfairly suffer an awful lot more than others!

Why would a perfect, and perfectly Just God, allow for such an unfair world?

But on your reasoning you can't say that it is a good thing that your are caring anyway, because being caring would have no value of its own.

In my view it's a good thing. The fact that I can care without needing to believe in objective goodness and caring, shows that I'm a good person, and is a more noble reason to being good IMO.

I think it's a much more ignoble reason for being good, to say that you only do it because objective morality exists due to God, and if it didn't, you wouldn't do good and you wouldn't care.

I do good because I am good. Well at least I think I am

I don't need to satisfaction of saying I am good because I do what is said to be objectively good when it isn't even proven to be, and when there's no proof of objective morality whatsoever (hence why I don't believe in it).

Does the Bible describe God as "100% benevolent all-loving"? No. Ergo, why ask Christians about some deity foreign to their beliefs?

I've heard many Christians argue that he is omni-benevolent and all-loving. Most Christians I've experienced in fact.

You may then say they're not true Christians since they don't follow what the Bible actually teaches. Ok, whatever, but they claim to be Christians anyway, and I'll still respond to their arguments.

Morality is subjective ... from most of us: killing and raping, etc., is evil or wrong.

If John from Society A has an affair with Jane from Society B at a hotel in Society C, then how is the morality of the act to be judged?

Irrelevant to my point. I just said it's subjective, how it's 'to be judged' is another matter.

Worse yet, if Society A views affairs as immoral, Society B views affairs as moral, and the affair took place in Society C, then your view affirms a logical contradiction:[...]

I thought you'd know what subjective means ???

I mean that good and evil don't actually exist in reality, only in the minds of people. And indeed, 3 people can all argue over good and evil with completely different subjective opinions on what is "good" and what is "evil". That's exactly what I'm saying, that it's subjective...and that Good and Evil don't actually objectively exist. Where's the contradiction?

the affair is both moral and immoral at the same time and in the same respect.

No, objectively speaking they are neither moral or immoral - from my perspective- subjectively speaking they are only moral or immoral, according to those who view them. That's what I mean by subjective morality. That the concept of what is good and evil, is man made.

And logical contradictions are necessarily false. You can either find a new moral theory or assert that morality as a normative principle does not exist (e.g., rape is neither wrong nor good).

Morality does not exist objectively, I assert that. By existing subjectively I mean that it only exists as an idea in the mind of people...what one person believes to be good, is not the same as what another views it to be.

What is generally considered moral, is due to what society on the whole tends to believe is. It's just a subjective thing. Good and Evil in themselves don't actually exist, indeed.

How can "In my opinion, that is an evil act" or "In my opinion that is a good act" be logically contradicted? They are absolutely meaningless statement other than the fact that that person believes that thing is wrong or right. One might assert that they know that a thing is wrong or right, moral or immoral, or that is just plain is wrong or right, moral or immoral - but they have no evidence of that, and so that doesn't stop the fact there's no reason to believe they can speak objectively on the matter, and that it's not, indeed, just a subjective matter.

EvF