God's Non-absence

[We Never Know]

"What or who" depends. Someone may have cut the legs of their dog off, or perhaps the dog was born without them, a defect in it's generation.

Someone cut them off, I agree that person caused that evil(your words).

But if the dog was born that way, who caused that evil then?

 

[Lain]

I think your notion is too abstract because that definition leads us to some very bizzarre places and far away from what I think is the core of the issue, that is, morality and moral judgement.
EDIT: To whit:


Those are wildly different situations with wildly different moral connotations, which I think is the key element of our dissonance here. I would argue that it would be absurd to categorize a dog born without legs as evil, unless we assign moral agency to genetics.

I would agree, basically "evil" to me is not always moral. I do not have that connotation every time I call something evil or good. When I read of evil in the philosophy and theology I look into it is used in that broad way so it probably removed that connotation from me, to necessarily say evil is directly a moral issue, but I can see how someone would have it.

 

[night912]

Although we have an instinctive idea of what makes "good" good and "bad" bad, there is the absolute versus relative argument. We understand that by benefitting the group and society can we benefit ourselves, but when it comes to extreme examples of good and evil the concept is not so clear. Throughout history there have been tyrants who committed genocide at the push of a button. Whether they can be defined as good or evil depends on their actions. However, we are defined by not only what we do, but our programming as well. The human brain can be programmed to express pure negativity or pure goodness (if possible) whether their appearance is obvious or not. Evil can exist as a concept alone which is malleable to destruction. If evil is an absence then good or God is a non-absence.

I ask you to define "good," but your entire post consisted of irrelevant rambling and nothing remotely close to what can be used as a definition.

So I'll ask again, define "good."

 

[Ostronomos]

I ask you to define "good," but your entire post consisted of irrelevant rambling and nothing remotely close to what can be used as a definition.

So I'll ask again, define "good."

It is not impossible but escapes me at the moment.

 

[night912]

It is not impossible but escapes me at the moment.

So since you don't know what "good" means, everything that you said regarding "good," are all meaningless. Got it.