The Student Room Group

The Problem of Evil: A Significant Challenge to Theistic Belief?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SexyNerd
its not but they can't be arbitrary because god is compassionate. its plato's argument.


Just because Plato something does not make it correct.
Original post by orcprocess
Just because Plato something does not make it correct.


arbitrary morality is his argument.
Original post by SexyNerd
arbitrary morality is his argument.


Just because Plato makes an argument doesn't mean it's correct.
Original post by SexyNerd
how can you have objective morality without god?


If you believe in an objective morality, it's just as easy to say that it's an intrinsic feature in humanity as it is to say that an omnipotent being gives us the standards of morality.

Morality itself is to me totally separate from religion - it is constantly changing and being challenged, and comes about relatively through culture, psychology and your upbringing. To me, the idea of morality being given by a God or Gods is a worrying one - but I don't wish to undermine your opinion.
Moral evil can be explained away fairly easily, but I see a problem with natural evil.

How can any omnipotent and benevolent God allow evil to occur in such a way? Why do young kids die of cancer? If they're below the age of reason, why would they even 'need' to suffer in such a way to ensure a place in Heaven? Why do people get Alzheimer's disease? They cannot possibly benefit from soul-building.
The distribution of evil is completely skewed.

Not to mention the fact that surely no amount of reward can justify suffering. That's like some massive, beast of a man offering to pay a weedy little girl one million pounds so he can beat her to a pulp. It's completely immoral.

I have a massive problem with evil and God, and am yet to come across any good argument against these things particularly.
Original post by orcprocess
Just because Plato makes an argument doesn't mean it's correct.


i know, i don't think it is correct, he answers it any way.
Original post by SexyNerd
i know, i don't think it is correct, he answers it any way.


So you admit your argument is wrong. Excellent.
Original post by JakeAReynolds
If you believe in an objective morality, it's just as easy to say that it's an intrinsic feature in humanity as it is to say that an omnipotent being gives us the standards of morality.


how so?

Morality itself is to me totally separate from religion - it is constantly changing and being challenged, and comes about relatively through culture, psychology and your upbringing. To me, the idea of morality being given by a God or Gods is a worrying one - but I don't wish to undermine your opinion.


no thats fine, but if its due to culture/society, then we have a problem, which has been explained in the last few pages, if you care to read.
Original post by orcprocess
So you admit your argument is wrong. Excellent.


no, im saying plato is wrong, that if god created morality, which would make morality arbitrary. which can't be the case because god is compassionate (plato came to the same conclusion).

if you dispute this, you must show morals that appear to be arbitrary.
Original post by SexyNerd
no, im saying plato is wrong, that if god created morality, which would make morality arbitrary. which can't be the case because god is compassionate (plato came to the same conclusion).

if you dispute this, you must show morals that appear to be arbitrary.


If reason is the basis for morality then it is not subjective as reason is universal.

Whilst I don't particularly think the Euthyphro dilemma works nor does your "everyone reasons differently" dilemma.
Original post by orcprocess
If reason is the basis for morality then it is not subjective as reason is universal.


yes, however i'm sure you've read the counter argument...

Whilst I don't particularly think the Euthyphro dilemma works nor does your "everyone reasons differently" dilemma.
Original post by SexyNerd
i study philosophy also... it is a fallacy, you're using the idea of good and evil to disprove god, when neither of which could exist without God.


Name the formal, or informal, fallacy then. I can assure you, it probably is not fallacious by your definition.
Original post by SexyNerd
no, im saying plato is wrong, that if god created morality, which would make morality arbitrary. which can't be the case because god is compassionate (plato came to the same conclusion).

if you dispute this, you must show morals that appear to be arbitrary.


Let's take a few moments to ponder your argument. You reason that only God can give us 'goodness' and 'badness' so your argument presupposes God's existence. God's existence is not supported by evidence or sound arguments, therefore to assume this may be hasty.

Additionally, have you ever considered that perhaps morality developed as an evolutionary mechanism that aided survival? For instance, kin selection and reciprocal altruism have been noted in other primates. Source: http://www.ssc.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/silk/PDF%20Files%20Pubs/Kin%20Selection.pdf
Reply 213
Original post by DomPugh
Do you think the problem of evil is a significant challenge to theistic belief?


To theistic belief no, to Christianity yes: when I was a theist I always justified it by saying that we can only experience good through the triumph over evil.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending