Is Evil Independent of God?

Originally posted by Mindship
My, my, what an interesting discussion we have here, re: DID.

[B]Lord Urizen
I can appreciate your point of view. The concept of a "fragmented ego" is an interesting one, especially since, IMO, even a "normal, unified" ego is something of an illusion. That is, a "healthy" ego seems singular because people generally don't pay significant attention to what's really going on inside them and miss a lot of the details. As such, I wonder if the difference between a healthy/normal ego and DID is more one of degree than of kind.

Interesting stuff to speculate about. That aside...

Regret's position, I believe, is that such speculation--an analysis of the unseen ops of the mind--is not the point, from the perspective of behavioral analysis. Behavioral analysis concerns itself with empirical data, addresses observable, measurable, problematic behavior, and seeks to correct this by reinforcing behavior which enhances the quality of life for the person. The operative word here is behavior.

While inner speculation can be quite useful--especially if both therapist and patient have an affinity for that POV--from the Behavioral POV, it is simply not relevant from an observe-n-measure perspective. This is Not to say mental operations are irrelevant on principle; just that they are not Behaviorism's concern. Indeed, they can even be viewed as distractions and hinderances to the functional analysis of observable, dysfunctional behavior.

Bottom line: when a person is in distress, one wants to do what works (ethically, of course) to alleviate that distress. "What works" will depend on large part, again, on what is important to both therapist and patient. Some people like talking therapy and philosophical speculation. Others don't. For them, a behavioral analysis approach is quite valid and indeed may be the single best approach to a problem, which may well include DID.

Pardon my intrusion. I hope my 2-cents worth was helpful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

PS. What does all this have to do with Evil and God, anyway? [/B]

WE are discussing if Moral Neutrality exists.

He says there is ONLY good and evil, no neutral.

I say there IS a neutral, as well as good and evil.

I asked him what if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos ?

He says that D.I.D. might not really exist, and therefore whatever crime that person commits is automatically evil.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Seems like two issues entwined.
When I read your question ("What if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos?"😉, the first thing that comes to my mind is not good/evil, but responsibility. What were the circumstances of this crime, not only the specifics leading to the actual event, but psychological, social and medical histories. I would want a context as comprehensive as possible, so that I could be in a position to split this fine hair, if I had to: even IF he is responsible for the crime, is he at fault?

As for Good and Evil: these are abstract absolutes which I, personally, have a hard time applying to the real world, though I understand their relevance to this thread.

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotcha. Thanks.

Seems like two issues entwined.
When I read your question ("What if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos?"😉, the first thing that comes to my mind is not good/evil, but responsibility. What were the circumstances of this crime, not only the specifics leading to the actual event, but psychological, social and medical histories. I would want a context as comprehensive as possible, so that I could be in a position to split this fine hair, if I had to: even IF he is responsible for the crime, is he at fault?

As for Good and Evil: these are abstract absolutes which I, personally, have a hard time applying to the real world, though I understand their relevance to this thread.

I wanna cut to the chase: Do you beleive Neutrality exists ?

"Moral neutrality." I'm not comfortable with the term because I'm not sure what you mean by it.

In the context of this thread, Good and Evil appear to be taken as absolutes which do exist in the real world (otherwise, what would the "neutral" be neutral to?). They may in fact exist, but as I implied in my prior post, personally I'm not convinced. This is why I look at responsibility.

Put another way, I suppose I could say I don't believe in Neutrality as an absolute because I don't believe in Good and Evil as absolutes.

However: I do believe that there can be sets of circumstances wherein a person can be absolved of / not punished for committing a crime.

Absolve????..........If no good nor evil, then absolved of what, unless I misunderstood you..........which I do quite somethings...sometimes..........

I do believe as in you stated this thing/god is neutral..

Originally posted by Storm
Lucifer was supposedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to be good, yet it turned evil and has used its powers to fight God' s plans. It doesn' t make any sense.

For being able to exercise free will and to choose, choices must be available first. One can' t choose for evil when it has not been brought into existence.

You just made the best argument for God allowing evil - it serves free will. Without the choice of evil, there can be no choice at all and no free will. We humans would be simple cogs in a maching always "choosing" good if there were not possiblility to choose evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot say "God can't". 🙄

God = Everything. Simple is always better.

Of course you can say that - God can't be not God.

God = Everything is unfounded. It's pantheism (which is legitimate opinion) but not in keeping with the unspoken assumptions about God in this thread.

Originally posted by Storm
Lucifer was supposedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to be good, yet it turned evil and has used its powers to fight God' s plans. It doesn' t make any sense.

For being able to exercise free will and to choose, choices must be available first. One can' t choose for evil when it has not been brought into existence.

Sure you can. You can choose yourself.

The whole idea of moral evil is that it is not a substance, not something that possesses being in itself. It is rather a perversion of good, and is only actuated when good beings desire what would otherwise be good things in a wrong order. This is how moral beings always lose themselves. They choose a partial good and mistake it for the whole. And when the other, higher goods intrude and make claims upon the conscience, the partial good demands that its territory remain protected at the expense of everything else. The lover of the partial good now finds himself in a quandary. He is invested in the thing he loves yet finds himself at odds with the encroaching world. He must either relinquish his love and reconcile himself or commit himself utterly to unceasing rebellion. In time, rebellion hardens into something like confirmed hardness of heart. This is the path from partial love to confirmed evil.

This is why ardent patriots sometimes become bloodthirsty tyrants, or covering seraphs become angels of darkness.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then he gave us an ever changing roadmaps, as the standards of good and evil, even those intepretted from the Bible are ever changing throughout History...

Why not just give us a clearer map? The Bible obviously hasn't been working that well in terms of promoting an only-good way of life for those who beleive in it.

A very good and valid question. I think the answer is that there is something essential about the struggle and the genuine desire and seeking of God, without we would never be able to appreciate and experience the proper union with God.

Originally posted by docb77
Right, the bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

If we did have a perfect translation of the Bible, it would only do us as much good as we had the ability to read it.

A map, no matter how accurate, only does so much good if the person reading it doesn't understand scale, or the compass, or the symbols that go into it. Many Christian groups may try to read the bible without checking the compas.

Right, and what's the compass? The Roman Catholic Church. Hence the claim of the Church for infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Without such infallibility the usefulness of the Bible is reduced to solipcism.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then you are equaliting Evil with Nuetrality.

Evil is a very real and very negative thing....it cannot exist SIMPLY due to God's absense.

A lot of debators will argue that evil is the absense of God, and that sounds like bullshit to me. The absense of God would equal nothingness...not evil.

Evil is NOT a nuetrality, or a simple negation of good...evil is its own thing, it consists of much diversity in the forms of cruelty, hatred, and sadism. Evil is a very real thing, and is due to MORE than just an absense of a diety...

That all sounds like bullshit to me. Assertions and not arguments. The hot/cold and dark/light analogies were arguments. You simply make statements.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Nothing in Psychology can be fully proven, since Psychology is the study of the MIND which is not tangible or solid. That does not render it non existant.

[/B]

That's the same reason why your assertion that you did not choose your sexual orientation may or may not prove it to be so.

Originally posted by The Achiever
Right, and what's the compass? The Roman Catholic Church. Hence the claim of the Church for infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Without such infallibility the usefulness of the Bible is reduced to solipcism.

No, the compass is revelation from God. In other words, answers to prayers.

Even assuming the traditions of the Catholic church were infallible, that would just leave one with more maps, not a real compass.

Originally posted by The Achiever
You just made the best argument for God allowing evil - it serves free will. Without the choice of evil, there can be no choice at all and no free will. We humans would be simple cogs in a maching always "choosing" good if there were not possiblility to choose evil.

Total Bullshit 👇

Without evil, you'd have infinite good or neutral choices to make. You must live in such a black and white world, that you think everything exists in dichomoty. How sad ❌

Being "Good" doesn't make you a zombie, and being isolated from evil doesn't make you any less free...

Originally posted by The Achiever
That's the same reason why your assertion that you did not choose your sexual orientation may or may not prove it to be so.

There's a MAJOR difference Achiever....

There assertions of Psychology are just as valid or invalid as my own, as we three have no access to the total truths of the Mind.

However, in terms of Homosexuality I have an advantage..I happen to BE bisexual, they happen to be Straight.

I would know a HELL of a lot more about bisexuality/homosexuality than they ever would, since I experienced what it is to be one myself.

I KNOW I did not choose it. That simple....whether or not you choose to beleive me, or call me a liar is a whole other story.

Originally posted by The Achiever
That all sounds like bullshit to me. Assertions and not arguments. The hot/cold and dark/light analogies were arguments. You simply make statements.

The Hot/Cold arguments were just as valid or invalid as my "statements" as there is no absolute truth assossiated with either argument.

None of us know the true phenomena of Good and Evil, as good and evil are INDEPENDENT of religion and logic.

Their little theories aren't even supported by thier Faith, so that takes away even more possibility of truth to thier arguments.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So let's get to the point...

You basically believe that D.I.D. doesn't exist? Despite all the cases that have been reported, besides all personal testament, besides all treatment success, besides all case similarities, and besides all the studies done on D.I.D. period...

You are still under the beleif that people who suffer from D.I.D. make it up for whatever reason....primarily a "cop out purpose"

Am I correct or incorrect in interpreting your stance?

First :

Atheists basically believe that God doesn't exist? Despite all the cases that have been reported, besides all personal testament, besides all spiritual success, besides all case similarities, and besides all the experiences of religious experience period...

------------------------------------------

Treatment treats the behavior. It [treatment] can be assessed and reinforcing and punishing aspects can be observed. There is no method for treating anything other than behavior. The only observed success is a change in behavior. It has never been observed that treatment of an internal process or construct has occurred.

The studies on DID are studies of behavior that are then used to infer some internal thing that may or may not exist. They are not studies of DID, they are studies of the behavior that is then used to infer a splintered consciousness. There is no scientific method for studying internal constructs. The only studies possible are behavioral studies that are then used to infer some magical "mind" concept, some internal construct, that may not actually exist. Language in reference to internal processes are unnecessary and premature given our inability to study them.

The rest of your statement has as much weight as any religious argument.

Yes, you are basically correct in interpreting my stance. Although, given time a person may become "trapped" in a pattern of behavior due to the schedule of reinforcement following the given behavior. An example of this would be gambling addiction, these people do not often admit to the addiction. I believe that the behavior presented in DID patients is probably similar.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I wanna cut to the chase: Do you beleive Neutrality exists ?

Realistically, I do not believe it possible to act (this including context and intent) with total neutrality. Neutrality is merely the null position on a measure between Good and Evil with near infinite possible degrees of Good and Evil. Theoretically it is possible, but improbable. Now if we disregard intent and context and look only at the action, I believe many acts can be considered neutral, but by adding context and intent the act slips to one side or the other.

I believe all actions can be placed on such a measure. And then adjusted due to context and intention.

Originally posted by Regret
First :

Atheists basically believe that God doesn't exist? Despite all the cases that have been reported, besides all personal testament, besides all spiritual success, besides all case similarities, and besides all the experiences of religious experience period...

------------------------------------------

Treatment treats the behavior. It [treatment] can be assessed and reinforcing and punishing aspects can be observed. There is no method for treating anything other than behavior. The only observed success is a change in behavior. It has never been observed that treatment of an internal process or construct has occurred.

The studies on DID are studies of behavior that are then used to infer some internal thing that may or may not exist. They are not studies of DID, they are studies of the behavior that is then used to infer a splintered consciousness. There is no scientific method for studying internal constructs. The only studies possible are behavioral studies that are then used to infer some magical "mind" concept, some internal construct, that may not actually exist. Language in reference to internal processes are unnecessary and premature given our inability to study them.

The rest of your statement has as much weight as any religious argument.

Yes, you are basically correct in interpreting my stance. Although, given time a person may become "trapped" in a pattern of behavior due to the schedule of reinforcement following the given behavior. An example of this would be gambling addiction, these people do not often admit to the addiction. I believe that the behavior presented in DID patients is probably similar.

There is a lot more evidense to clarify the existance of D.I.D. then there is to support the existance of God (Christian-Judeo-Islamic God)

D.I.D. cases have less contradicitions and more clarity then ALL of the testiments of God combined.

However, if you want to disregard information that supports the reality of D.I.D., then go right ahead, I am not going to argue that with you.

My point is this: For arguments SAKE, if DID exists, then how can you hold a person with this disorder responsible for a horrible act that one of his or her alters commits ?

There is no good or evil in this case, because no one is to blame. Therefore, the act is neutral.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
There's a MAJOR difference Achiever....

There assertions of Psychology are just as valid or invalid as my own, as we three have no access to the total truths of the Mind.

However, in terms of Homosexuality I have an advantage..I happen to BE bisexual, they happen to be Straight.

I would know a HELL of a lot more about bisexuality/homosexuality than they ever would, since I experienced what it is to be one myself.

I [b]KNOW I did not choose it. That simple....whether or not you choose to beleive me, or call me a liar is a whole other story. [/B]

Being homosexual/bisexual does not give you some special stance on the subject. Being heterosexual provides the same experiences. Did I choose to be heterosexual? Was it a genetic thing? Being homosexual/bisexual biases you in the same manner as being heterosexual biases me, obviously I would know a HELL of a lot more about heterosexuality than you ever would, since I experienced what it is to be one myself. If you did not choose to be homosexual/bisexual, then you were never heterosexual, as it was not in your genetics. Given this, you really don't have "a leg to stand on" if I chose to be heterosexual and not homosexual, and it wasn't genetically dictated for me.