"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4af1a18f$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I'm not saying evil is good for you. But I don't buy the argument that
> > "since I could imagine a better world, there's evil in this one"
argument.

> I think this is going back to the "no, we're not just talking about minor
> imperfections" in the original article. Are you really claiming there
isn't
> anything bad or evil in the world?

Sure there is - as far as I am concerned. But that only proves that the
universe does not cater to my needs or whims. While I can imagine better
universes from my pov, I cannot claim that it's universally (no pun
intended) and objectively better.

> > First, imagining is not the same as realizing

> Omnipotence.

Not even. I mentioned earlier at one point; I can imagine a man that's 400
billion light years tall. I can imagine a universe with 172 spatial
dimensions. But really, all I am doing is describing a single attribute in
rather abstract terms. Language allows us that much, but I don't think such
imagination counts as understanding by, well, any stretch of imagination.

> > "better" for who?

> I can easily imagine worlds that are better for everyone. I don't think
too
> many people objected to the eradication of polio or smallpox. I think
pretty
> much everyone is hoping HIV doesn't mutate into a airborne zombie-creating
> supervirus. Neither the driver nor the pedestrian is benefited by a head
> going thru the windshield.

Doctors, medical researchers, airbag and seatbelt makers probably benefit.
</cynical, tongue in cheek>

> Maybe there are a few "insane" people who want to die of polio. However,
it
> would seem to be a better good to cure them of their insanity than to give
> them polio.

You'd be taking away some groundbreaking art from humanity's collective
should all insanity be cured.

Now, what about the other side of things? In a perfect (limit of bettering)
universe, it's not enough to eliminate evil or bad, but good needs to be
maximized. Then the question becomes, is there a limit to good? How many
Bach's should a truly benevolent God give to his people? One, ten, a
million? I don't think any number is enough. For any perfection witheld from
sentient beings by an omnipotent being is itself an evil act. That's after
all, why one would think death is evil. In fact, an omnipotent god who fails
to bestow omnipotence, omniscience and omni-anything to his creations is
evil, is it not?

Hence the problem with imagination. It's easy to say that eliminating death
and suffering would eliminate evil. But it's not death itself, lack of
eternal life that's evil. That is, evil is in the lack of things, abilities.
If you give me eternal life, I'll find ten things that I lack, ten faults I
find with the universe. Give me those ten, and I'll come up with ten
thousand. Hence "just don't let anybody suffer" does not look like a
workable model to me. Much like a kid dreaming of a world where chocolate is
the only food, or me "imagining" a 172 dimensional universe.

Post a reply to this message