Privatio Boni: What is the Substance of Evil?

Below is a Facebook Chat conversation that I had today with Andrew.  It’s really very interesting, and should be worthwhile to read. 

7:16pmAndrewAndrew 

but are there other more successful arguments out there that reveal more about God’s intentions? I mean, all the arguments I know only give me good reason to believe in God, not to believe that he is all loving or merciful. How do I know he isn’t pure evil?

7:16pmAndrew

nevermind, for some reason I always get into a discussion about philsophy or politics when I talk to you lol

It is really strange

7:17pmPayton

haha, yeah

I don’t know about omnibenevolence

that’s a very tricky one to think about

as a matter of fact, I should stop using the owrd

word

you’re familiar with the Moral Arguments?

7:18pmAndrew

the axiological argument? yes

7:19pmPayton

exactly, I think they may be construed to support God being “all good” (questionable term…)

but only if we combine them with the concept of <i>privatio boni<i/>

italics FAIL

put it into wikipedia

privatio boni

It’s a short article that would take too long to explain

it’s one of the solutions to the problem of evil

7:20pmAndrew

cool, thx

7:21pmPayton

tell me when you’re done reading it, it’s really interesting

7:21pmAndrew

k

7:23pmAndrew

its an interesting way of looking at things

7:23pmPayton

yes it is

I would believe it

that evil is insubstantial

and is, like a shadow, dependent on the good

remember when you asked me about God conserving creation?

and whether this meant He was conserving evil?

7:24pmAndrew

yes

7:25pmPayton

Let’s look at it this way:

even if God had created the universe with evil in it, he would not have created evil

if I pour an amount of water into a glass, am I creating both water, and also emptiness?

7:25pmAndrew

of course not

7:26pmPayton

If I fill the glass halfway, I have obviosly not added half water, and half emptiness to acheive this

and if I conserve it thus, I am not conserving the emptiness, only the water

so God is not conserving evil

7:28pmPayton

indeed, when speaking of creation, the evil is precisely NOT created! lol

that would be its definition

7:31pmAndrew

what do mean by not creating evil?

do you mean evil does not exist?

7:32pmPayton

well, emptiness is the absence of the water. similarly, evil is the absence of good

“privatio boni”

7:34pmAndrew

then we can never truly call a person evil, only their individual actions. For I don’t think a person can be absent of good

7:35pmPayton

I was about to say, “yes, evil would be always extrinsic”. But is that true? Can there be no intrinsic evil?

like intrinsic value? (aka, good)

7:36pmAndrew

Well, if there is intrinisc good, it seems that there would have to be intrinsic evil. For how can we know what intrinsic good is if we have nothing to compare it to?

7:36pmPayton

for example, money has extrinsic value. it’s value lies outside of itself, becuase it is only paper

7:36pmAndrew

what is pure good without pure evil

7:37pmPayton

what does “pure” mean?

Fill the cup halfway with water. is the water only half pure?

surely not

is the emptiness only half pure?

7:38pmAndrew

so what coclusion can we make about intrinsic evil?

7:38pmPayton

well, I’m still thinking about it

I think the evil is not a thing in itself, certainly. But does this prevent it from having intrinsic value?

7:39pmAndrew

I mean, how can we know what is intrinsically good if we have no knowledge of its opposite: that which is intriniscally evil?

7:39pmPayton

the use of the word intrinsic is the key here

I would say “good in its own right”

rather than “good FOR …”

7:40pmAndrew

right, its goodness is not dependent upon anything but itself

7:40pmPayton

well I’m sure that’s saying a bit too much, but yeah, basically

7:41pmAndrew

but how can we make such a conclusion? Wouldn’t knowing what is good in itself presuppose that we have knowledge of what isn’t good in itself?

7:42pmPayton

yes, I think so

it would not presuppose it, mind you. it would IMPLY it

7:43pmAndrew

I am working on the terminology, give me a break lol

7:43pmPayton

haha, yeah

7:43pmAndrew

anyway, I think we can conclude there is intrinic evil if there is intrinsic good

7:43pmPayton

I think “things” would be analogous to the cups with water we discussed earlier

those things which are intrinsically good are cups with any amount of water, and those extrinsically good have the capability of containing water

an intrinsically evil thing would be the absence of a cup entirely

so an intrinsically evil thing is a non-thing

so I don’t think there is intrinsic evil

much less extrinsic evil

but then again, am empty cup cannot be extrinsically good

it is only extrinsically valuable, since it could go both ways. It has the capability of containing water, and also the capability of not existing, or breaking

7:48pmPayton

so let’s amend our analogy. Intrinsic evil is a broken cup, and there is no extrinsic good or evil, since extrinsicness can bring about either

so we say extrinsic “value”, being neutral

or an empty cup

which can break or be filled

but a full cup can also break!

so we might say that even that which is intrinsically good, has the capability of being emptied, or broken as is

7:49pmAndrew

so if God is intrinsically good, can be emptied?

7:50pmPayton

 

I wouldn’t say He is intrinsically good

I would say that He is the mark of what is good

that things are good insofar as they resemble Him

He is not a cup with water, He IS the water

7:51pmAndrew

but if the cup shatters, what happens to God?

7:51pmPayton

He is still there, I suppose

the cup is breakable, but for the purposes of our analogy, I don’t think we should think the same of the water

for when the cup breaks, the water does not also break. It is merely spilled, and cannot really be lost

7:53pmAndrew

unless it lands in a black hole…

7:54pmPayton

LOL

7:54pmAndrew

lmao

7:55pmPayton

yeah, but this was a cool discussion

you know, I think I’ll post it on High-School Apologetics, if you don’t mind, lol

7:56pmAndrew

no problem

If you ever update it lol

 

Sarah’s Confusing Post

Sarah recently responded to a question posted by a man named Brett on the Cosmological Argument.

“God, or the “eternal cause”, is eternal in time, and infinite in space. Thus He (or it) is infinitely larger than the universe, but is unchanged by the passing of time.” : Sarah

I really don’t understand what it is she is trying to say here, and I just wanted to post this in order to distance myself from the inevitable fallout from Sarah’s post. I think it’s extremely confusing and deceptive, and takes up far too much space making unnecessary points, and even more making incorrect ones.

The beginning is good, though. I more or less agree that therein lies the answer to Brett’s question. I would normally take the time to personally dismantle any objections or answer questions, since I’m easily more philosophically capable than Sarah, (though she has me beat in some areas.)

To reconnect with the beginning of my post, I just want to point out what I thought was the most retarded thing Sarah said, which is quoted at the top of this page. Barring consideration of the corporeal Christ, God has no size. He does not occupy space, so I have no idea what Sarah means. Moreover, Sarah does not seem to understand that actual infinites such as she has described cannot exist. You cannot have one physical object which is infinitely larger than another physical object. That simply cannot be. (I will post on this topic later)

The distinction to be made is between actual infinites, potential infinites, and eternity. An actual infinite is a thing which is physically infinite as a measure, not as a property. An abyss would be a good example. Another good example would be a beginningless universe, or a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. A potential infinite can be characterized as something indefinite or potentially infinite. An example would be an endless universe. A universe which goes on forever does not happen all at once as one big infinitely long timeline with two ends. It would have one end (the beginning) and at no given point in it’s history could someone look back and say, “The universe is infinitely old”. No matter how far you go along the line, there is always a finite traversed-distance behind you.

I will post more later.

-Payton