Timeline for Is there any ackonowledgement and solution for the objection raised on ontological argument using problem of evil?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2022 at 21:28 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Wtjtykajwy It's totally conceivable like in advanced AI age a created AI could be still self-evolved. As finite beings it's inevitable and mundane that we may all have some confusions here and there, but the confusion about tragedy and evil is well worth to point out comparatively... | |
| Aug 30, 2022 at 7:53 | comment | added | Wtjtykajwy | @DoubleKnot you seemed to be confusing theism with deism. Given that a theistic God exists evolution itself becomes unnecessary. | |
| Aug 30, 2022 at 5:05 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Wtjtykajwy generally speaking disease and biological evolution including extinction of species as a whole ought to be classified as above unavoidable tragedy since as a single finite being once was conscious of alive must necessarily be conscious of tragic death, even in those species didn't got extinct any individual still dies. Now if cancer is not genetically (evolutionarily) caused but by persistent environmental or manmade cause then evil comes into play. Thus we have to differentiate these 2 types of suffering and of course evil will aggravate tragedy sometimes dramatically... | |
| Aug 30, 2022 at 3:43 | comment | added | Wtjtykajwy | @DoubleKnot well, your claim that my definition of evil is my opinion is only valid if you argue less suffering is bad. You will have to say a world with no cancer is more bad than the current one for it not exist. Yeah numerous animals walked only when they evolved under the harsh climate where all the unfit animals were killed brutally. | |
| Aug 29, 2022 at 19:27 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Wtjtykajwy btw your "asserted" harsh environment is not the case, there've been numerous kinds of animals, people, and other living beings born and walked on this earth for a long time, if it's really that harsh as you labeled, then how these are possible? Hint: most times the "harshness" you rightly perceived or conceived may came from nothing but some form of evil which should be your real target of concerns if you're a descendant of Abel or an enlightened descendent of Cain... | |
| Aug 29, 2022 at 19:20 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Wtjtykajwy from your above comment as a bypassing stranger it's clear your definition of omnibenevolence is relative to yourself. It's like during an exam you hope your professor solves every problem therein for you so that you can survive and thrive going forward? In fact from a neutral stranger's POV doing so may be evil in that it eliminates your rare chance to enhance your consciousness thus can have true mental advancement. By standing silently and ensuring you don't cheat, this may be the best form of a necessary exam, and in reality it is so if not in every corner of this world... | |
| Aug 29, 2022 at 14:58 | comment | added | Wtjtykajwy | @DoubleKnot but that in the face of a benevolent omnipotent omniscient God is absurd. Why would God create a harsh environment and put humans there? The point of it being neutral is the problem, this neutralness goes against an omnibenevolent God. | |
| Aug 28, 2022 at 21:37 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Wtjtykajwy your definition of evil is Peterson's definition of tragedy inevitably suffered by finite beings created by the infinite as discussed in a recent post. Under this Abrahamic definition, it's easy to see it's neutral and inevitable (recall all the wise ancient Greeks' literatures on tragic fate?), even somehow the external nomological laws are changed because its scope is the created finite beings with self-consciousness, thus Adam rightly shied and hide in bushes once realized so. Evil can be avoided if all things are good... | |
| Aug 28, 2022 at 6:00 | comment | added | Wtjtykajwy | I think you missed my point, you have interpreted evil as our choice of free will using the FR operator, but I'm externalising evil, and my definition of evil is not the psycho killer who kills, but it is the tornado and cancer which kills. Why is God putting humans and animals. My whole argument is about changing external laws of the Universe, it is trying to ask why are the external laws, not internal free will, but again, external laws of the Universe is like this which allows for great evil?. My question and your answer uses two different definitions of evil. | |
| Aug 28, 2022 at 5:52 | comment | added | Wtjtykajwy | Well, if God is not tasked with creation, then this is not the Abrahamic or Christian God or the Islamic God as this runs against the idea of Genesis. So prima facie this argument can never be made to establish Abrahamic God. | |
| Aug 27, 2022 at 2:22 | history | answered | Kristian Berry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |