Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Debate: Is Evil Good Or Bad (Hassanain Rajabali)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Seriously? How is this even a discussion? Of course it's bad. Next we're going to be having debates on whether or not shaitan is bad or good.

dude, some people argue, sickness natural disasters, things in which "seem" evil are evil, i disagree those are just part of Allah's trial. But People dont understand the definition of evil, they take it too broad, evil is resulted in rejection of good period. Satan, he has free will, his actions are bad because he rejected what Allah has considered good. Satan became part of Allah's trial once he disobeyed Allah by his own free will.

Edited by pureethics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I didn't watch the whole thing, only a couple mins in the beginning.

What it seems to me is a session on HOW TO DEBATE. Forget about the debate topic. In these sessions no matter what personal opinion you have, you have to create arguments for the side you have to debate for. It's just training...

sorry if I am mistaken..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I didn't watch the whole thing, only a couple mins in the beginning.

What it seems to me is a session on HOW TO DEBATE. Forget about the debate topic. In these sessions no matter what personal opinion you have, you have to create arguments for the side you have to debate for. It's just training...

sorry if I am mistaken..

sorry, its near the middle...he actually debates it, verrrrry interesting about 22 min

Edited by pureethics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This debate had no coherency whatsoever - they were conflating concepts and terms and, inevitably, speaking in cross purposes. The clarification that the respected scholar delivered at the end was fundamentally flawed, too. Nothing is the opposite of evil? Evil has no opposite? This makes no sense. Good and evil, per se, are mutually exclusive as concepts. Tolerance is the very antithesis of intolerance. Murder is the very antithesis of executing a murderer.

The other point raised by the group "for" the notion that evil is good was that trials are a conduit to improvement; but is trial evil in itself? What is meant by trial exactly? It was very vague and abstract. In any case, trial isn't an evil. Evil represents something that is socially unproductive and stagnates every facet of growth. A test or trial is a subjective, personal experience where issues are inextricably interwoven, but the good / evil binary is distinguished by the recognisable principles they stand for, and their outcomes.

Evil doesn't assist goodness. Embarking on a quest to study a complex subject will naturally impend struggle and hardship, but that does not denote evil, nor would anyone define it as such.

It's merely the byproduct of reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Lame debate.

All you have to ask Rajabali is, "Are you great/good if you created evil?", not whether avoiding it makes you great and to be great you need evil to exist.

Game over.

Right. I called him out on his flawed argument in post #6. His explanation would lead to exactly that false assumption, that God is a sociopath.

The problem is when people use simplistic terms without explicating what they mean by the terms "good" and "evil." In reality, God didn't create good, nor evil. These notions are simply a byproduct of the principles of the universe which He put in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am pretty sure Rajabali would say, He doesn't create evil, He creates only the good.

Although he said "there is no contrary to evil," which assumes the creation of evil. His line of thought on this issue gets into a pickle.

God didn't create evil or good.

But the meteorite issue I'm struggling with in all honesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

If God didnt create evil or good, then what makes God who created you when you had no significance of being created. That would make Him the Most Merciful and Gracious, which would mean He is All Good, thus implies everything He creates is Good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If God didnt create evil or good, then what makes God who created you when you had no significance of being created. That would make Him the Most Merciful and Gracious, which would mean He is All Good, thus implies everything He creates is Good.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We're extremely presumptuous with our language, and we pay little to no attention to what those presumptions are.

God created thorns. Are thorns intrinsically good or evil? Thorns protect the thorn bush, but it can fatally injure people at the same time.

What about meteors? Are they "good?" Not at all. They are moving bodies that are created from accidents. They swim around solar space, aimlessly, with no purpose but occasionally hits earth and causes damage. How is this "good?"

If anything, it's outcome is evil and I'm struggling to justify its existence in my theistic mind.

That aside, you can see that everything in creation has its pros and cons. The outcomes of situations is what we term good or bad, and these are merely effects of the design which God created.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We're extremely presumptuous with our language, and we pay little to no attention to what those presumptions are.

God created thorns. Are thorns intrinsically good or evil? Thorns protect the thorn bush, but it can fatally injure people at the same time.

What about meteors? Are they "good?" Not at all. They are moving bodies that are created from accidents. They swim around solar space, aimlessly, with no purpose but occasionally hits earth and causes damage. How is this "good?"

If anything, it's outcome is evil and I'm struggling to justify its existence in my theistic mind.

That aside, you can see that everything in creation has its pros and cons. The outcomes of situations is what we term good or bad, and these are merely effects of the design which God created.

Listen brother first you must grasp the initial condition :

DID YOU DESERVE TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD? ARE YOU IMPORTANT TO Allah? ...wait whats that? No, okay then! Allah is merciful for bringing you to existence when your not even important, yet when he wants to take your life away you accuse him of evil...how just is that! You can think all you want but you wont truly understand unless you look at this from a 3rd person view. Your so caught up into the materialistic, you dont even consider the ever lasting. Thorns are there to protect the plant, but when you hurt yourself on them you blame Allah its evil. How about you be thankful you have pain receptors in your brain that Allah has provided? Or look at it in the sense that Allah protects everything whether they have intellect or not, is that not true Justice? Anyone that brings good and evil into the existence of nature must be looking for excuses. Especially natural disasters and asteroids and such. Its just how the system of the universe in which Allah created acts. If we had no natural disasters and asteroids, we would have never got to the position we are today. Look at our protective systems we build for natural disasters or how we can use asteroids to figure out space and such. Plus those things are checks to your own self saying, "hey dont get too caught up because one day youll die. This is not your permanent life. Stop committing sins."....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We're extremely presumptuous with our language, and we pay little to no attention to what those presumptions are.

God created thorns. Are thorns intrinsically good or evil? Thorns protect the thorn bush, but it can fatally injure people at the same time.

What about meteors? Are they "good?" Not at all. They are moving bodies that are created from accidents. They swim around solar space, aimlessly, with no purpose but occasionally hits earth and causes damage. How is this "good?"

If anything, it's outcome is evil and I'm struggling to justify its existence in my theistic mind.

That aside, you can see that everything in creation has its pros and cons. The outcomes of situations is what we term good or bad, and these are merely effects of the design which God created.

"Meteors" seem to be mentioned positively in the Quran (to prevent the Satans from entering the lower Heavens). Clearly God sees something good in it that we may not. Shouldn't that suffice?

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I am pretty sure Rajabali would say, He doesn't create evil, He creates only the good.

Nope, quite the opposite. The initial argument made by the boy clearly stated, "God created evil" (23:19). Rajabali did not refute that claim at all, rather went into secondary good/evil arguments.

  1. Rajabali played with the aspect of avoiding evil makes you good (quite the opposite), which makes evil in itself an entity which is independent, otherwise he would've said "he avoided good".
  2. He also claims that to get rid of evil one would be a great man, which means evil is an entity that can be ridden of.
  3. He claimed that evil is part of the equation that must exist for the formula to work.
  4. Etc. Etc.

These speakers are professionals, but have many inconsistencies. They are experts as speaking fast, aggressively, and make their little points which is secondary to the fundamental issue at hand, and by the time you try to dissect the argument the speaker is on to a different topic.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Nope, quite the opposite. The initial argument made by the boy clearly stated, "God created evil" (23:19). Rajabali did not refute that claim at all.

  1. Rajabali played with the aspect of avoiding evil makes you good (quite the opposite), which makes evil in itself an entity which is independent, otherwise he would've said "he avoided good".
  2. He also claims that to get rid of evil one would be a great man, which means evil is an entity that can be ridden of.
  3. He claimed that evil is part of the equation that must exist for the formula to work.
  4. Etc. Etc.

These speakers are professionals, but have many inconsistencies. They are experts as speaking fast, aggressively, and make their little points which is secondary to the fundamental issue at hand, and by the time you try to dissect the argument the speaker is on to a different topic.

Lol did u even watch the video? He was trying to show them how to debate from both sides of the argument. Near the end he actually talks about it.

Besides don't claim he is inconsistent if you haven't watched all his videos on this subject. You will see his view clearly in each one. You can start by checking out my links.

Edited by pureethics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nope, quite the opposite. The initial argument made by the boy clearly stated, "God created evil" (23:19). Rajabali did not refute that claim at all, rather went into secondary good/evil arguments.

These speakers are professionals, but have many inconsistencies. They are experts as speaking fast, aggressively, and make their little points which is secondary to the fundamental issue at hand, and by the time you try to dissect the argument the speaker is on to a different topic.

By the way that verse does not mean God created evil. It says "from the evil of what God created". It means that the evil is from the creation and the creation is created by God. Big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

By the way that verse does not mean God created evil. It says "from the evil of what God created". It means that the evil is from the creation and the creation is created by God. Big difference.

No, the 23:19 is the time from the youtube video when the boy said, "God created evil", it's not a verse.

Lol did u even watch the video? He was trying to show them how to debate from both sides of the argument. Near the end he actually talks about it.

Besides don't claim he is inconsistent if you haven't watched all his videos on this subject. You will see his view clearly in each one. You can start by checking out my links.

I found inconsistencies from the initial argument made by the boy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

These speakers are professionals, but have many inconsistencies. They are experts as speaking fast, aggressively, and make their little points which is secondary to the fundamental issue at hand, and by the time you try to dissect the argument the speaker is on to a different topic.

What does that say about the intellectual level of most believers, in general, that they're not even able to identify inconsistencies and logical fallacies?

Not one person in the crowd could point out the blatant flaw.

I think it's lack of deep reflection; the cause of blind faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

No, the 23:19 is the time from the youtube video when the boy said, "God created evil", it's not a verse.

Yes did you hear him? the guy quoted Surat Al Falaq (Min Shari Ma Khalaq) = From the Evil of what He created.

Anyway, the point Rajabali was making is God did not create evil precisely because evil is the willful rejection of good. Evil comes from ourselves not from God.

Look, most of these teenagers who are sitting down there saying "owwww" and supporting Rajabali probably don't comprehend what he is saying fully. But the argument Rajabali is making is very good, deep, powerful and needs to be carefully thought over.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
What does that say about the intellectual level of most believers, in general, that they're not even able to identify inconsistencies and logical fallacies?

Not one person in the crowd could point out the blatant flaw.

I think it's lack of deep reflection; the cause of blind faith.

I agree. But the problem is that debating is a skill itself. Even if a person is more knowledgeable than Rajabali but has weak/average debating skills, he will get destroyed in a live debate. Rajabali and other popular speakers have excellent debating skills which compensate for some inconsistencies.

Anyway, the point Rajabali was making is God did not create evil precisely because evil is the willful rejection of good. Evil comes from ourselves not from God.

Rajabali did not say that God did not create evil but rather said "the potential of evil is created by God", which equates that evil is an independent entity with potential, hence a creation. You cannot have potential of nothingness, something has to exist to have potential. There is more inconsistencies but if what I've said doesn't make sense so far then it's pointless going further.

The main issue is that many religious folks cannot admit to the fact that God created evil, otherwise it makes God look bad, hence have to tippytoe around the existence of evil without linking it back to God, but it doesn't work, this youtube video us proof enough.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

These keyboard backseat peddlers are annoying. If you are knowledgable and confident enough, then get on the stage and join a real debate yourself.

People please have the humility to say you don't fully understand. Give us a disclaimer that this is the best of your understanding. Stop acting like whiny kids saying "look!, look! he's wrong, he's wrong!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Rajabali did not say that God did not create evil but rather said "the potential of evil is created by God", which equates that evil is an independent entity with potential, hence a creation. You cannot have potential of nothingness, something has to exist to have potential. There is more inconsistencies but if what I've said doesn't make sense so far then it's pointless going further.

The main issue is that many religious folks cannot admit to the fact that God created evil, otherwise it makes God look bad, hence have to tippytoe around the existence of evil without linking it back to God, but it doesn't work, this youtube video us proof enough.

Let me summarize the entire argument:

"God created the potential for evil" means that God permitted evil to exist through us in order for goodness to exist.. If this is what is meant by God creating evil then I am perfectly fine with it. I don't mind saying God created evil if we mean that He created evil indirectly and only for the sake of the greater good. The implication of agreeing to this is that evil is in fact a hidden good since it exists for the sake of goodness.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Let me summarize the entire argument:

"God created the potential for evil" means that God permitted evil to exist through us in order for goodness to exist.. If this is what is meant by God creating evil then I am perfectly fine with it. I don't mind saying God created evil if we mean that He created evil indirectly and only for the sake of the greater good. The implication of agreeing to this is that evil is in fact a hidden good since it exists for the sake of goodness.

Isn't this just a convoluted way of saying good and evil are products of reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

For those who have difficulty thinking philosophically about such issues, perhaps.

Is killing good or bad?

Neither.

It depends on the context.

Therefore, God did not create evil nor good.

Enlighten me with your philosophical insight as to why my reasoning is flawed? Far as I can see, all my axioms are in place and conclusion solid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Is killing good or bad?

Neither.

It depends on the context.

Therefore, God did not create evil nor good.

Enlighten me with your philosophical insight as to why my reasoning is flawed? Far as I can see, all my axioms are in place and conclusion solid.

??

I agree with that too. I don't think it is flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

??

I agree with that too. I don't think it is flawed.

Excellent. Therefore evil is not a hidden good that assists goodness to be manifested, as you claimed. Anthropomorphising inanimate concepts doesn't solve anything. Good and evil naturally subsists on principles of reality and its individual contexts; this is where you find the epistemic value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
"God created the potential for evil" means that God permitted evil to exist through us in order for goodness to exist..

As I said, evil has to exist for it to have potential. Existence is a prerequisite for anything to have potential. Rajabali unknowingly confirmed God created evil by saying it has potential.

If this is what is meant by God creating evil then I am perfectly fine with it. I don't mind saying God created evil if we mean that He created evil indirectly and only for the sake of the greater good. The implication of agreeing to this is that evil is in fact a hidden good since it exists for the sake of goodness.

Let's put aside all the reasons for why evil exists, that's not the point.

Did God create evil or not?

If not, then nothingness cannot have potential = Error

If yes, there is no such thing as indirect creation as you stated = Error

The fundamental initial point has to be crystal clear, either God created evil or he didn't create evil (good/evil are just a subjective grade scale to judge human acts) . There is no "indirect creations" or "potential of nothingness" answers.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
As I said, evil has to exist for it to have potential. Existence is a prerequisite for anything to have potential. Rajabali unknowingly confirmed God created evil by saying it has potential.

Your forgetting something.

"The potential evil" is evil only from our point of view. But from God's point of view it all good.

Let's put aside all the reasons for why evil exists, that's not the point.

Did God create evil or not?

Sure, He definitely created what we perceive as evil.

If not, then nothingness cannot have potential = Error

If yes, there is no such thing as indirect creation as you stated = Error

It depends from what point of view we see this. Evil exists relative to our point of view. Evil does not exist relative to God's point of view.

The fundamental initial point has to be crystal clear, either God created evil or he didn't create evil. There is no "indirect creations" or "potential of nothingness" answers.

I agree that He did create evil, but this evil is evil only from our point of view. And I also disagree that God created evil because from His point of view He creates only the good.

Refer to my reply to inferno below.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Excellent. Therefore evil is not a hidden good that assists goodness to be manifested, as you claimed. Anthropomorphising inanimate concepts doesn't solve anything. Good and evil naturally subsists on principles of reality and its individual contexts; this is where you find the epistemic value.

Do not to confuse "moral evil" with "natural evil". As for moral evil there is absolutely no doubt it exists. As for natural evil, I am arguing it does not exist.

Examples of moral evil: Selfishness, Arrogance, and Denial of Truth.

Examples of so called "natural evil": Meteors, Volcanoes, Tornadoes, Death, Disease etc..

What I am arguing is that reality as such is Good, because reality as such is God. Now we can either be ignorant or knowledgable of reality (the Good). If we are ignorant of the Good this ignorance becomes our way of perceiving reality as evil and not good.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

eThErEaL,

It's inconsistent that you apply the criteria of evil when a person instigates a crime against another, but in regards to the nature of reality you'll consider it intrinsically good, no matter what, even if a meteor creates an unwarranted disaster in a holy city.

This is dual ethics and doublethink.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

eThErEaL,

It's inconsistent that you apply the criteria of evil when a person instigates a crime against another, but in regards to the nature of reality you'll consider it intrinsically good, no matter what, even if a meteor creates an unwarranted disaster in a holy city.

This is dual ethics and doublethink.

Good Question. If I were to draw a circle within another circle then the small circle would be "ethical evil and ethical good". but the large circle surrounding the small circle would be natural good.

Meaning that ethical good and evil, when take as a whole system, are themselves "natural" good.

So no one can say ignorance, arrogance and selfishness are ethically good, but they are allowed to say that their "potentialities or possibilities" are naturally good.

By the way what is your main point your making from your arguments? Are you merely trying to argue to show why we are logically inconsistent? or do you have point to make? If so, what is your point?

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Good Question. If I were to draw a circle within another circle then the small circle would be "ethical evil and ethical good". but the large circle surrounding the small circle would be natural good.

Meaning that ethical good and evil, when take as a whole system, are themselves "natural" good.

So no one can say ignorance, arrogance and selfishness are ethically good, but they are allowed to say that their "potentialities or possibilities" are naturally good.

You're making a colossal assumption here. You assume the natural system is good without explaining "how" it is inherently good. The attributes of God are reflected within creation, therefore it must be good? "Is pious pious because God loves pious?" It's very similar to what you're claiming.

If God is "good," then everything we consider ethically good should reflect His creation. For example, perpetrating a crime like damaging someone's private property for no reason we deem evil. To be consistent, the same criteria should be applied to a meteor that damages earth for no real reason.

By the way what is your main point your making from your arguments? Are you merely trying to argue to show why we are logically inconsistent? or do you have point to make? If so, what is your point?

Why does anyone argue about anything? Either because something doesn't quite add up or doesn't sound right.

Edited by inferno
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...