Re: Eradicating the riddle of Epicurus: the problem of evil

[Synaux]

Allow me to jump in and ask why Hegelian dialectics has be widely discarded (I assume this is what you are referring to)?

While I am not sure Hegelian dialectics may not be the most apropos for the discussion of evil (as I believe that good and evil both have some basal qualities regardless of perspective).

Hegelian Dialectics, should not be discounted as a valid exercise for critical thinking and perhaps I am flat wrong, but Hegelian dialectics can be a wonderful lens for analysis.

[deathtris]

Wait, so do you believe that good and evil are not subjective, or did you just say that this disproves God? (I'm more concerned about the first point than the second).

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@deathtris I actually don't really like the term 'evil' when talking about my own view point (as opposed to when playing the theists' language game.) But in short, I don't believe they are subjective, nor do I believe they are objective. The nature of value itself is what disproves (this specific version of) God.

[MrPyle3]

5:58-6:02...So much evil yet It doesn't truly sound as though u respect the good at all/:)... Bless up

[Pooknottin]

Woah! Took literally years for me to notice this vid. You were so much more thorough than I was back then. I guess that's why Mike never got back to you. I was Youmeandsomeknives back then. Gave up the ghost, but I never had much fight truth be told.

I have to express admiration for your piercing attention to detail. Thanks, it was all very well thought out and quite thought provoking. Guess I was something of an 'angry turk' so he picked on me.

First time it's been nice to revisit it. Thanks.

[jreaper5000000]

its the ying yang . for good sometimes evil has to be done and for bad good has to be done. the bible tells you this. read the bloody bible for crying out loud people. its a code a spectrum of two opposing forces,its simple.as we have two eyes, two noses, two ears,ect... which is the stereo,we also have one nose,one bellybutton,one sexual part ect.. which is the mono. the same code is in everything.we have man,woman. child adult. boy,girl. night and day. sun, moon. its a code.just be good!!!!!!!

[MarshmallowRadiation]

A: HEAVEN is supposed to be all good and no evil. Does that mean it cannot be appreciated?

B: Why isn't evil spread evenly? If life is a test, why aren't people tested equally?

C: If God already knows how well people will do in the test, why test them at all?

[Kodos777]

Just adding something: Heaven is all good. If there is no evil in heaven how can we appreciate it? And if we can't appreciate heaven it looses its purpose as a reward for believers.

[YamiAura]

I think there's a big point overlooked, here. We are capable of understanding concepts without experiencing them. For example, I can tell you all about the idea of extraterrestrial life without ever experiencing it. Why can't we express an understanding of what evil is without having to experience it directly? We're not that stupid.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@YamiAura You understand extraterrestrial life because you understand the two atomistic components: you know 'life' because you interact with it (and are it), and you know 'extraterrestrial' because you see things that are it (e.g.-light from stars). I'm not sure we can reduce 'evil' to components. But even if we can, I doubt they will be components that a perfect God could grasp.

[YamiAura]

@SisyphusRedeemed We understand extraterrestrial life because we were introduced to the concept through fiction, as well. We have a frame of reference without having to look at reality. If it is so necessary to understand evil to appreciate goodness, why couldn't God allow us to understand evil through story-telling without actually introducing it to reality?

[HebaruSan]

Good point about abstraction. I've led a pretty sheltered life, too, but in a rare moment of hardship, I had a dog die of cancer. He didn't deserve it (by his merits and deeds, he deserved immortality). No good came of it (we didn't even form a lasting emotional bond with the veterinary oncologist). I can't even imagine what a parent goes through when the patient is human. These rationalizations are simplistic obscenities.

[DOUGIEFRESHENz]

I don't know why God has to follow the rule of good/evil relevance if he is supposedly not subject to any other rules. I see the logic in your argument but you cannot say this in reference to the Christian God, and I presume you are, because he is supposed to be good in every respect, which makes your point subjective to the whole idea of God.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@DOUGIEFRESHENz Not sure exactly what you mean by 'the rule of good/evil', but suffice to say the Christian God is not immune to the problem of evil.

[blackplatypus]

@DOUGIEFRESHENz

What you're saying is a label like "evil" can't be applied to god because, for some reason, he's allowed to do evil stuff.

Ok, then you have no basis by which to call that god "good"

[DarwinBOY]

just a quick question, you said something about why couldn't the opposite of absolute good just be neutral but if that is the opposite then wouldn't neutral be in between that and then wouldn't neutral be considered evil??

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@DarwinBOY What matters is not what is CONSIDERED to be: what matters is what IS.

It may be a fact of human psychology that we would consider neutral to be evil; if so, that is a short-coming of human psychology; that is, it's an evil. In a morally neutral universe, we would not have such a short coming, hence it would not be the case that in a morally neutral universe we would consider neutral to be evil.

[MrPyle3]

@SisyphusRedeemed u need 2 open ur mind in a different direction(Biology)...I not 2 long ago learnt abt it , it's called Variation... the variation between Good and Evil is a form of discontinuous variation, there is no neutral or anythin "in between" any form of discontinuous variation... It's like takin no 'side' in a fight between a very weak person and a very strong person. By doin this, u are allowin the strong 2 hurt the weak and therefore ur actions are against the weak and vise~versa...

[wakuzaki]

oh my god! I love this =)

[wehttam7]

Hi , I really enjoyed your video. You seem to know alot about philosophy and i may subscribe. I had one question (as i encounter alot of bible god refutations) .. who actually decided God i all powerful, was it from a direct revelation in a holy sscripture or an inference that we made . If it was an inference, why do we take it so seriously?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@wehttam7 Thanks, glad you like my work.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but my understanding is that the notion that God is 'all powerful' is not in the bible, but is instead an invention of early medieval Christian theologians. But we take it seriously because they didn't just make it up out of whole cloth; there is a strong scriptural basis for such an inference.

[M1ST3RHYDE]

I really like the comment sayn we appreciate things in terms of their opposites. It is much cleaner of a statment than I use about the Bitter & sweet example. along the same lines I hate when people say you get what you pay for since obviously no matter what you pay for it it is what you Do pay & In terms of actually giving a payment for Lets say Work I like sayn Good work isn't Cheap & cheap work isn't (always) Good.

I really like your channel, So thank you for being here.

[hoboboxerjoe]

Fantastic vid! Subb'd, favorited

[mfd2000]

hmmmmmmm

[turboboy68]

Great video and you made some excellent points. The only problem is that christians don't understand true logic and reject it. They create their own logic and then justify it by saying it is true. Anyway i understand with your points of view and totally agree. Maybe you can't get a responce from that guy is because you make him question his false logic?

[JOHNCONNELLGROUP]

@picklepumpers

yuou are too retarded to explain little things like creation......... you need to go get a job...

[LordSlag]

Yeah...god's a dick!

[bdf2718]

Hegelian logic is completely fucked. By definition.

Hegelian logic is good. So is anti-Hegelian logic. By Hegelian logic you reconcile the two and come up with something that is even better. Said result is not Hegelian logic.

Hegelian logic is an epic fail.

[refuckulate420]

Great points! Epicurus was a smart man, I find much of his philosophy very enlightening.

[pirbird14]

The problem of evil as discussed by Epicurus proves that, if god exists, he cannot have the qualities ascribed to the traditional omni-god. One or more of those triune qualities must be flawed. But it does not prove that a creator god is impossible.

You have raised some aspects of the issue that I had not considered before.

Here's one you missed: If god is perfect, he could not have created evil; because imperfection cannot come from perfection.

[rother011]

@pirbird14 wait a minute, God didn't create evil, Satan did. I'm no intellectual or, for lack of better words " proper christian", but the Serpent was the one who tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knoweldge. Doing so gave Adam and Eve the knoweldge of the world. The world

[MrOmfgwtf1991]

@rother011 God created Lucifer as his most beautiful angel....so technically god did create evil

[pirbird14]

@rother011

He created everything; therefore he created evil. Knowledge of the world is not evil.

In Isaiah 45:7, he explicitly states "I create evil."

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 He created free will you dumbass. The things that He gave free will to created evil.

[FreakShizzlez]

@FreakShizzlez He created free will becasue he's a humble God, he knew that if there was no free will there would be no imagination, no love, no nothing. He gave us all free will and you guys are still bitching. Satan, His greatest angel, was said in the Bible to be everything but God, the only things he lacked was being humble and the power of creation.

[FreakShizzlez]

@FreakShizzlez So, after seeing how much attention God was giving his newest creatoion, us, he was jealous and decided to play a little trick and see if God's newest creations (Adam & Eve) with free will could fall to the same temptations. We did. the temptation will not be there. The second time, however, when God creates the new world after he destroys this one for his followers, Satan will be no more so there will be no more sin or evil becasue the temptation will not be there.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

If you'd read my previous comment, you'd see that I cited Isaiah 45:7, in which the biblegod specifically acknowledges that he did, in fact, create evil.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 By creating free will. Think about it this way, if you didn't hve free will, you wouldn't and couldn't be you. And now you're putting all the blame on God because he created free will. It is not God's fault that by giving His creations free will and able to be their own selves that they had to take it for granted and spit in His face.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

His reasons for creating evil are irrelevant.

If he created evil, he is not omnibenevolent. End of story. If he created us of weak moral character and didn't know we would do evil, he is not omniscient. If he knew we would do evil and did not create us of stronger moral character, he is incompetent. If he punishes us for doing evil when he knows we cannot resist evil, he is a sadist.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 What the hell does moral character have to do with free will? If we have free will, we create our OWN moral character. If He created us with stronger moral character, we would not have free will. Seriously you're making something that is very simple sound very complicated and it's getting you nowhere.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

I think you should re-read my original comment. If the biblegod exists, he cannot be omnibenevolent because he created evil. Your discussion of free will is merely an attempt to excuse that act of creation of evil.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 I think you should re-read the Bible, because it is quite obvious you don't understand what happened. You keep saying He created evil in an attempt to excuse the creation of free will.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

Actually, I say the biblegod admits to having created evil, as per Isaiah 45:7. I have not addressed the question of free will because it has no bearing on the question of whether this god created evil. If he created it, he is not omnibenevolent. Why he created it is a separate point.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 Actually it has quite alot of bearing on your argument. You just admitted yourself (actually you have been admitting) that your choosing to ignore. You want to think that Goid created evil, but the fact is, he did not. He created free will.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 And actually, the Hebrew word "evil" has a wide variety of definitons-adversity, affliction, disaster, etc...and in this context God is NOT referring to moral evil, but to the disaster God brings to those who rebel against Him. Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Master..." Thank you try again.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

Your choice to narrow the meaning of the word "evil" in this context is arbitrary, unless you are going to claim that these disasters are good things. If they are punishments, they are evils brought for the purpose of correction or for balancing the scales of cosmic justice or just out of divine pique. Don't forget that cannibalism and adultery are among the punishments that god threatens to bring in Leviticus 26:27-29, Jeremiah 19:9 and others.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 Threatens to bring to those that disobey and rebel against Him, which Isaiah 45:9 states (didn't I already say this?). Because God is so humble, he doesn't take to lighlty to those that disobey Him. Who was God's favorite and His most beloved angel? Lucifer. And what did God do to Lucifer when he disobeyed Him? Sentenced him to face eternity in the pits of Hell.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

"(didn't I already say this?)"

Yes, you did; and in so saying you are acknowledging that the biblegod created evil, unless you think that disasters are good things.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 God already gave us a chance buddy, we decide to choose evil so what do you think God's going to give us when we disobey him? Retribution in the worst ways possible.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must have been created by God. However, evil is not a thing like a rock or electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole, but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all He created was good.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

Numerous biblical passages depict evil as a kind of metaphysical thing which can lie at the door or be loaded onto a scapegoat (Lev. 16). or enter into the world (because of Adam's deed) or be cleansed because of Jesus' sacrifice.

In reality, of course, neither good nor evil is an actual substance.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 But the point is that without even the choice of evil, free will would have been an illusion. God above all else wanted His creations to be able to make their own choices through free will, thus there had to of been another choice besides good, which is the absence of good, evil.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

Every time you "explain" why the biblegod created evil, you acknowledge that he did in fact create it. The why is irrelevant, unless you're claiming that the end justifies the means, an argument refuted in this video. If you want to refute that argument, respond to the author. My point simply addresses the fact that god cannot be omnibenevolent if he created evil.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 Even if He did create the metaphysical "evil", that does NOT mean He isn't omnibenevolent (perfectly good), because He did NOT will any of His creations to be it. He gave them the choice and the choice was up to them. This does not make God any less omnibenevolent, just His design of us imperfect.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

This returns us to my original point. If god created evil, he cannot be omnibenevolent because imperfection cannot come from perfection.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 But hey, I'll give you a thumbs up for the misinterpretation win!

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

I am not addressing the question of free will because it is irrelevant to the question of whether the biblegod created evil. If he created all things, as the Christians claim, he also created evil. Since I don't address that topic, I neither "excuse" nor condone free will.

The fact is that if this god created everything, he also created evil. If that is true, he cannot be omnibenevolent. Imperfection cannot come from perfection.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 But the Bible clearly states that God did NOT cerate everything. The one thing He didn't cerate is evil. You can thank Satan and Adam and Eve for that. That is where you're still confused. Imperfection did not come from perfection, it came from angels and ultimately us who had the limitless freedom of free will.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

Where is the text that specifically says the biblegod did not create evil? There is no text saying that the angels created evil, nor is there a text showing that the angels were created by any being other than the biblegod.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 What are you talkiing about? Lucifer commited the first sin when he bacame jealous of how God created us in His image. In his rage he decided to play a trick on us to fall to the same temptation.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want robots that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their programming. God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 Being a humble God and not wanting to control us (or any of his creations), God thought that well, by creating us and giving us freedom that we would listen to Him undeniably. God didn't force us to be evil, we chose to do that ourselves.

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

He created the evil that he wants us to choose not to commit.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 One of the good things God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose. In order to have a real choice (free will), God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it is not a thing that required God to create it.

[FreakShizzlez]

@pirbird14 And by citing one verse you're ignoring the whole Genesis story? Lol wtf?

[pirbird14]

@FreakShizzlez

You're not trying to claim that there is anything in Genesis which shows the biblegod did not create evil, are you?

[DaniKiller]

great points.

[UnusVita]

I would argue that all evil is superfluous because even in the world in which we live it is not necessary to experience evil in order to appreciate good, one does not have to experience pain to enjoy pleasure one may appreciate pleasure more after experiencing pain, but pain is not a necessary component of pleasure.

[Solthiel]

Fantastic video. Very articulate, very well stated, very well informed. Thank you.

[floorballzorro]

Interesting viewpoints, greetings from sweden!

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thank you for saying so. Might I recomend subscribing if you are interested?

[floorballzorro]

Good idea, done :)

[illogician23]

Nice post!

The problem of evil poisons religious thought but it's important for atheists not to dignify the concept of 'evil' by treating it as if it were a real thing. 'Evil' as a concept has no application outside of theology and comic books. The world has things that morally offend us: suffering, greed, hatred, starvation, slavery. But to call these things evil is to view them through bronze age lenses. Next we start ascribing 'evil' motives to people and that's just bad psychology.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Great response man. Somewhat more involved than mine and far better.

You really think Mike deserves your respect though? Check out his 'cup-of-tea' vid in my favoirtes, it may give you a better understanding of his character.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Yeah, that was rather childish of him, but I wasn't referring to his character (I hesitate to judge anyone on the basis of their YouTube videos; like Aristotle says, one swallow does not a summer make), I was speaking to the quality of his arguments.

It's also worth noting that while he replied to your missive, he hasn't made a substantive reply to any of my more comprehensive critiques.

[youmeandsomeknives]

His arguements? You're kidding...

[SisyphusRedeemed]

No, seriously. Not everything he posts is profound or penetrating of course, but several of the arguments he has made were, in my opinion, worth spending the time to do a point by point rebuttal. I didn't find his arguments convincing, of course, but I do think they are worthy of consideration.

You might also want to check out my video "Why does faith deserve respect?" to see more about my attitudes on the subject.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Very well.

[EmperorLibertarian]

@SisyphusRedeemed No doubt you are familiar with the Epicurus riddle.

Can you please explain this part...

"Is he able and willing, then whence cometh evil?"

I don't understand the whence part either due to

either the colloquialism or English syntax

furthermore, what relation does being willing and able to stop evil have to do with "the whence cometh evil" part?

thanks much obliged.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@EmperorLibertarian It's saying 'if god is able and willing to stop evil, why doesn't he?' "Whence" in this context means 'from what source?' In other words, what source could be giving rise to evil if God is able and willing to stop it? Why isn't it stopped?

Make sense?

[EmperorLibertarian]

@SisyphusRedeemed ..ah yes it does..thank you very much.

[EmperorLibertarian]

@SisyphusRedeemed ..don't know if it appeared or not..but just in case it didn't thank you...

[Faaabula]

Excellent response to Mike's vid. You nailed the flaws in his argument.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thank you for saying so.  I does me best.

[DonsonJack]

Good video mate =)

I uttered something similar in the comments section of the video, you are responding to, but your answer was alot more fulfilling.

I think you ..well..owned him :D its a bit rude way to say it, i know =)

But it seems that many Religious people dont take the ´problem of evil´ seriously.

they dont seem to compare/contextualize evil in the context of omnipotent creator..or something similar.

well..good video, keep up the good work

Jack

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thanks Jack, I appreciate the feedback.

If you like what I've done, may I humbly recomend subscribing?

[DonsonJack]

Already done =)

[forsakenmemoryuk]

i like you, you know your stuff. and you basically said everything i wanted to in a nutshell as there isn't enough room in these comment boxes to fit what i needed to say, plus i think your delivery was probably far better then mine could of ever been... i have the thoughts but always seem to lack the best ways to express them vocally... thanks keep up the good work...

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thank you kindly, I appreciate the praise. I've worked hard to get where I am, so it is nice to know other's appreciate it.

[mikecampochiaro]

I was not aware that you responded to 3 of my videos. If you wish to deliberate on stickam, I frequent that medium. Hegel was the last great academic philospher ;)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Hi Mike, thanks for replying. I don't use stickam, but looking into now, and maybe I'll sign up. Hegel has a lot going for him, don't get me wrong (practically inventing the Philosophy of History single-handedly is no small feat) but his logic was... not his best work. But don't you take issue with his Protestantism?

[rinnhart]

"...you need to reconcile the existence of evil with an all powerful God."

Thus, up why the "Problem of Evil" is still a problem.

Great vid.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thanks, I thought it was pretty good.

[CousinoMacul]

That was a good response. His argument that "you can't understand up without down, north without south" is quite fallacious. All he did was pick examples that followed the same pattern as his argument.

I could just as easily ask "Can we understand gravity without experiencing anti-gravity?" or "Can we understand the forward progression of time without having lived the backwards movement of time?"

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Those are good examples. I originally had a point about not needing an 'anti-universe' to understand the universe, but I decided to cut it, as it lead me into a huge critique of Hegelian logic, which I didn't want to get into.