How can something come from nothing?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
If you are convinced that one cannot conceive of (what you refer to as) EVIL unless one makes guesses and calls the guesses "beliefs"...

I believe that human life has intrinsic value and that humans are born with basic rights. That is sufficient to define the concept of evil. Do you not share this belief?

I do not. How many times do I have to tell you that I do not do "believing."

You certainly do a lot of "believing."

Quote:

You can prove me wrong by providing a definition of evil that does not rely on unproven beliefs. I think you are making the claim that you can define "evil" without unproven beliefs.

You said (in reference to my comment that I have NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS) the following: "For one thing, you can't have any concept of "evil".

https://able2know.org/topic/204039-49#post-7111852

You are incorrect. I can, and do, have a concept of evil...and I do NOT have any religious beliefs.

Quote:

I would like to see you do this. I don't believe it can be done.

Max, I do not care at all about what you "believe" or do not "believe."

Quote:

I can't prove a negative... but I don't see how it can be done.

Of course you can prove a negative. If you want to prove this particular negative...do it. Or stop making the assertion.

Quote:

Every human being who has tried so far has failed; they always are shown to be basing their core assumptions on articles of faith.

How the hell do you know what "EVERY HUMAN BEING" has done on this issue.

Do you suppose you are the GOD?

Quote:

So prove me wrong.

No. I am simply going to tell you that I do not do "believing"...

...and that I do have a concept of evil.

If you think some proving is required, do it.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

That's because you're hung up on Conflict Theory, which is actually a fairly new idea.

Conflict Theory goes like this:
1. Science is directly opposed to religion....

You have amply demonstrated that you do not have the slightest idea about me or what I’m 'hung up' on. I do not believe it is useful to debate with others who are in that level of ignorance. Since you are new here I suppose that can be forgiven.

As an introduction, I will tell you that I see no conflict between theology and science. Science is just a small subset of theology.

With that misunderstanding out of the way, I do agree with you that the complete denial of 'beliefs' is absurd.

The only 'conflict theory' I subscribe to is the one described by the phrase 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword'. En Garde!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

A concept of evil is a belief.

If you have a concept of evil, then you have a belief. That is the basic contradiction in your argument.

I am curious (as an aside) what your concept of evil is based upon.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Frank,

A concept of evil is a belief.

No it is not.

YOU just want it to be so...so you can be "right."

You are not.

Quote:

If you have a concept of evil, then you have a belief. That is the basic contradiction in your argument.

Horse ****.

There is no contradiction in my argument. There isn't even an argument. I am simply stating that I do not do "believing."

I make guesses, estimates, suppositions...and I have hypotheses.

I refer to them as guesses, estimates, suppositions, and hypotheses.

If you want to call your guesses, estimates, suppositions, and hypotheses...BELIEFS, for some reason, fine with me.

But stop telling me I HAVE BELIEFS...because I do not.

Quote:

I am curious (as an aside) what your concept of evil is based upon.

I am of the opinion that you are not truly curious about that issue. You have decided that one must have "beliefs" (probably, religious "beliefs") in order to conceive of evil.

In my further opinion...that decision of yours is bullshit.

There is no doubt that we humans have a conception of what is "evil"...and there is at least the possibility that there ARE NO GODS.

If so, then our conception of what is "evil" is human created.

Using "evil" in this discussion is also bullshit.

We humans have decided that certain conduct is detrimental to an orderly society...so we make rules to prevent, as far as is possible, that conduct. You are using "evil"...and arbitrarily imposing "if there is a concept of 'evil" there has to be a GOD...so that you can come to "therefore there is a GOD."

Get off it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You are misstating my point.

You can have religious ideas without believing in a God. Religious ideas are defined as ideas that you can't prove through science or logic. You have to take them on faith.

So I am not saying that ""if there is a concept of 'evil" there has to be a GOD". You made this up.

I am saying that to have a concept of evil, you need to have a belief that can't be proven empirically.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You use the phrase "we humans have decided that certain conduct is detrimental...."

Who are you including in this "we humans". There isn't much agreement from culture to culture about what is detrimental.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are misstating my point.

You can have religious ideas without believing in a God. Religious ideas are defined as ideas that you can't prove through science or logic. You have to take them on faith.

So I am not saying that ""if there is a concept of 'evil" there has to be a GOD". You made this up.

I am saying that to have a concept of evil, you need to have a belief that can't be proven empirically.

Max, as you know, I have agreed with you on many things. But on this issue you are totally full of ****...so much so that I have difficulty taking what you are saying seriously.

I HAVE A CONCEPT OF EVIL.

I ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

If you want to say that IN ORDER TO LIVE...I must occasionally make assumptions or make guesses...do so. And I will agree.

But if you require that I have "beliefs" in order to meet one of your positions...I am telling you that you are totally wrong.

As for the "concept of evil"...that has almost no meaning whatever.

Give me an example of what you suppose to be "evil"...and I will attempt to explain how anyone can arrive at a concept of it without doing any "faith" bullshit. (I suspect the attempt will be met with rejection, because you have decided not to accept anything that nullifies your assertion, but I will give it a shot.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You use the phrase "we humans have decided that certain conduct is detrimental...."

Who are you including in this "we humans". There isn't much agreement from culture to culture about what is detrimental.

There IS agreement from culture to culture that SOMETHINGS are detrimental. In order for society (culture to culture) to exist, some identifiable rules must be in place to facilitate the society.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I HAVE A CONCEPT OF EVIL.

I ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

It is my assertion that these two statements are contradictory. You can not have a "concept of evil" without having a belief. A concept is a form of belief.

You disagree with my assertion. Ok fine.

This is our main sticking point.

Quote:

Give me an example of what you suppose to be "evil"...and I will attempt to explain how anyone can arrive at a concept of it without doing any "faith" bullshit.

You can't suppose something is evil without a belief. They are the same thing.

I recently used a chemical weapon to kill thousands of unsuspecting victims because they had chosen to set up a home in my property. It is unlikely they understood why they had to die, they don't understand the concept of a person having legal ownership of a property. And yet they died en masse, women and children alike.

I don't believe that insect life is sacred, so I don't see this mass slaughter of innocent life as evil.

I do believe that human life is sacred. This belief makes all of the difference.

If you don't believe that human life is sacred, than the biggest acts of genocide in human history were acceptable.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I HAVE A CONCEPT OF EVIL.

I ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

It is my assertion that these two statements are contradictory. You can not have a "concept of evil" without having a belief. A concept is a form of belief.

You disagree with my assertion. Ok fine.

This is our main sticking point.

The statements are not contradictory...not in any way.

A concept is a concept.

I have no idea of why you insist I must do "believing" in order to have a concept of anything, but that is your problem...not mine.

Quote:

Quote:
Give me an example of what you suppose to be "evil"...and I will attempt to explain how anyone can arrive at a concept of it without doing any "faith" bullshit.

You can't suppose something is evil without a belief. They are the same thing.

I recently used a chemical weapon to kill thousands of unsuspecting victims because they had chosen to set up a home in my property. It is unlikely they understood why they had to die, they don't understand the concept of a person having legal ownership of a property. And yet they died en masse, women and children alike.

I don't believe that insect life is sacred, so I don't see this mass slaughter of innocent life as evil.

I do believe that human life is sacred. This belief makes all of the difference.

If you don't believe that human life is sacred, than the biggest acts of genocide in human history were acceptable.

I do not do "believing"...so of course I do NOT "believe" human life is sacred.

And since "sacred" MEANS of or relating to a god or gods...my original guess that you are working toward a god seems to be correct.

Get the hell off it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Is the only problem the use of the word "belief"?

You don't believe that the Holocaust was evil. But you suppose the Holocaust was evil.

If someone supposes that there is a God who answers prayer, and leads a prayerful life based on that supposition, that would be fine.

I suppose that would solve the problem. If we are just arguing over a word then I have no problem using another word.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you don't believe that human life is sacred, than the biggest acts of genocide in human history were acceptable.

I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED...

AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE BIGGEST (AND SMALLEST) ACTS OF GENOCIDE IN HUMAN HISTORY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Not sure why you think those two things are mutually exclusive, but you are all wet.

I most assuredly do not "believe" that human life is sacred...

...and I most assuredly do not consider any acts of genocide to be acceptable.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I get it now Frank. I just have to use the correct terminology with you.

You don't believe... you "suppose" or you "consider".
You don't have beliefs... you have "opinions".
You don't have faith... you are just "assured".

So if someone supposes there is a God, and assuredly considers that He answers prayers... you would at least understand them and be able to accept their shared humanity.

I wonder if someone supposes there is a God is religious or not, but that seems like an academic question.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

you do understand the power of evidence.
After many years of arguing with Frank, I find his argument more compelling .

3 Replies

@farmerman,

The problem with Frank's argument is this.

- I believe that taking innocent human life in a genocide is evil.
- Frank supposes that taking innocent human life in a genocide is unacceptable.

Other than word games... what's the difference between my belief and Frank's supposition?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I get it now Frank. I just have to use the correct terminology with you.

You should always use the correct terminology.

If you are guessing something...call it a guess.

If you are supposing something...call it a supposition

If you are offering an opinion...call it an opinion. (I think most of us here posting on the Internet have opinion.)

Quote:

You don't believe... you "suppose" or you "consider".

At times...yeah.

At other times, particularly where there is no unambiguous evidence, I simply acknowledge that I do not know the answer to the question at hand...and just leave it at that.

Quote:

You don't have beliefs... you have "opinions".

I definitely have opinions...which I refer to as opinions.

Quote:

You don't have faith... you are just "assured".

In what respect? What have I said to which you are making reference?

Quote:

So if someone supposes there is a God, and assuredly considers that He answers prayers... you would at least understand them and be able to accept their shared humanity.

I accept and share humanity with everyone. I don't understand what you are driving at. Do you? What do you mean by "assuredly considers?"

Quote:

I wonder if someone supposes there is a God is religious or not, but that seems like an academic question.

If a person makes a blind guess that there is a GOD...or if a person makes a blind guess that there are no gods...

...I accept their guess on that question.

I prefer not to make guesses on the question, because I have no unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess. (Occasionally, I do make a guess, if a person insists.)

What are you supposing about my position on that?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you do understand the power of evidence.
After many years of arguing with Frank, I find his argument more compelling .

Thank you, FM. I realize we have considerable differences of opinion on this "god" question. I always appreciate what you have tosay on the topic.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I accept and share humanity with everyone. I don't understand what you are driving at. Do you? What do you mean by "assuredly considers?"

This is my key point, and the reason I take up this argument.

When non-religious people (or Atheists or whatever else you want to call them) imply that they are superior to religious people because they don't have "superstitions" they are being hypocritical.

It is my position that every person has a core set of suppositions (or beliefs or guesses or opinions or whatever else you want to call them). These unproven suppositions are the basis of our inking (or faith, or concept or whatever word you want to use) that killing innocent human beings is wrong.

Me killing 100,000 innocent ants is not only legal, it is expected behavior. But killing 100,000 humans is evil. If you don't have a precept ( or basis or intuition or whatever you want to call it) that human life is very important (or sacred or preeminent or whatever you want to call it) then there is no reason to make this distinction.

You can get rid of the concept of God. You can't pretend that your moral values are based any more on objective fact that anyone else.

As long as you accept that you are no less superstitious than religious people, then we have no quarrel. It is the implication that Atheists are superior to religious people that gets my hackles up.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I accept and share humanity with everyone. I don't understand what you are driving at. Do you? What do you mean by "assuredly considers?"

This is my key point, and the reason I take up this argument.

When non-religious people (or Atheists or whatever else you want to call them) imply that they are superior to religious people because they don't have "superstitions" they are being hypocritical.

It is my position that every person has a core set of suppositions (or beliefs or guesses or opinions or whatever else you want to call them). These unproven suppositions are the basis of our inking (or faith, or concept or
whatever word you want to use) that killing innocent human beings is wrong.

Me killing 100,000 innocent ants is not only legal, it is expected behavior. But killing 100,000 humans is evil. If you don't have a precept ( or basis or intuition or whatever you want to call it) that human life is very important (or sacred or preeminent or whatever you want to call it) then there is no reason to make this distinction.

You can get rid of the concept of God. You can't pretend that your moral values are based any more on objective fact that anyone else.

As long as you accept that you are no less superstitious than religious people, then we have no quarrel. It is the implication that Atheists are superior to religious people that gets my hackles up.

I am not superstitious...and knock on wood, I never will be.

It is my opinion that my position on the question of whether or not gods exist...IS superior to anyone who asserts "there is a GOD" or "there are no gods."

My position is:

I do not know if any gods exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Well I surely don't!
Franks argument is either hypocritical or naive.
(And so is your defence of his argument)

The most abstract concept of God who perhaps solely rests on this intuitive idea of Universal UNITY is inescapable for any thinking mind even when you don't formalize a final position.

Science itself was looking for a long time for a Theory of Everything.
That on itself has a lot to say on what Science deep down expects to achieve even in its most sober moments...this "Everything" specially in Eastern tradition is for many the very essence of what "God" represents to the common folklore story telling developed under the Aeons.

I go as far as to claim Science on this topic has misunderstood itself its own goal and above all HISTORY!

"God" does not need to be a beard old man in the sky, the idea of UNITY suffices...having an intuition on the Rationality or lack there-off of Reality is as I said inescapable! Thus Frank must be either intellectually unaware of his metaphysical subconscious hopes or arrogantly stubborn on his last stronghold of mystified play with languaging. In sum his sentence on lack of belief cannot disentangle itself from a conceptual swampy muddy mess.

One cannot claim silence when silence speaks miles. There is a distinction between what one claims to be and what one actually is!

4 Replies

How can something come from nothing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know