Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> "Of course, one of the consequences of this is then that we are also 
>> too cognitively limited to understand what’s right and wrong"
>>
>> This, unfortunately, doesn't follow from the point I'm making.  What 
>> would follow is that we're too cognitively limited to understand 
>> what's right and wrong for *God*, but it's perfectly consistent to 
>> believe that doesn't at all preclude us from understand what's right 
>> and wrong for humans.
> 
Sigh.. Are we seriously rehashing a more than 2,000 year old argument 
that Aristotle solve with, "I don't know, but the gods certainly don't 
seem to have a clue either.", and Plato later "fixed" by stating, "Yeah, 
well.. Even if the gods don't know, its real anyway, so must be like 
some sort of thing that just exists, which permeates everything, so 
those paying attention can figure it out." Both views are based on 
*ignorance*, but the later one at least has the value of a) not positing 
that a god has to make all of it up, or, even more absurd, that any of 
the gods we have invented describe that god in the slightest, and b) it 
would provide an explanation, if such a bloody thing was needed, for why 
everything from Corvids, like Ravens and Crows manage to have bird 
funerals, or a sort, to other primates, showing the capacity to let 
themselves lose, to help a friend win.

It does present a problem though for people suggesting a god doing it. 
Why bother making it so damn common, yet so inconsistent, and seemingly 
bound *entirely* to the level of social interaction, cooperation and 
mutual trust a species needs to survive, almost like an "adaptive 
trait"? If, as a god, you could have made it bloody clearer that it was 
put there divinely, that good and evil are real concepts, not just 
general vague, "everything that my species doesn't like is evil, while 
all the stuff that makes me feel nice I'll call good.", why make it 
indistinguishable from something which that happened by necessity, not plan?

Its like the latest two Mr. Diety movies. One a angelic PZ convinces god 
that its a lot of work to make everything in 6 days, but there is this 
algorithm that will take a lot longer, will generate species with all 
the same half assed mistakes that the deity planned to use anyway, being 
lazy, it would just take a lot longer, but he would get all the credit 
anyway. The next one was him talking to his son, trying to work out the 
whole original sin, trinity, salvation thing, to which the result was, 
"So, I am sacrificing myself, who is me, to myself, who is you, to pay 
for a sin that never happened, because we used PZed's molecular machine 
thing, instead of the 6 day creation, so no original sin was ever 
committed?"

Basically, ridiculous, since it requires ignoring all the stuff that 
implies that a god just simply *unnecessary* to come up with it in the 
first place, and assuming that a god came up with it, because, well.. 
there just happened to be one, that's why! Think nearly the same 
argument is going on over at a news paper site, sort of. Some clown is 
using the same arguments in a book, to suggest the afterlife is real, 
and, as usual, you get the bozos defending the idea showing up and 
saying, "It doesn't matter if Einstein **specifically** and **clearly** 
stated that he didn't believe in a god, so and so says he did, in such 
and such book, I Googled it damn it, it must be right!", in their own 
defense of, "See, smart people believed it, just like all the dumb ones 
did, so argmentum populum, is *must* be so!"

There is nothing insightful (to who ever started this mess) about any of 
it, unless you simply haven't seen the argument before. Just as there 
are lots of people claiming that there is some "deep" theological ideas 
underpinning modern theology, point to a bunch of scholars that are 
supposedly making them, then, invariably, when those people are asked 
what the "deep" issues are, they trot out the top 10 list of overused, 
constantly rebutted, and/or just fallacious, arguments everyone else 
uses. Its like listening to someone tell you that his shirt isn't red, 
saying it is, being replied to that, no, its not red-red, but special 
red, just as so and so, only to, when asking them, get the same, "No, 
its not red at all.", argument. Not only are the arguments used in 
religion all circular, their supporting authorities are moebius shaped, 
with one referring to the next, who refers to the next, who refers to 
the first one, none of them making any different arguments, or offering 
better evidence, just an infinite regression of CC: tags.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its like listening to someone tell you that his shirt isn't red, 
> saying it is, being replied to that, no, its not red-red, but special 
> red, just as so and so, only to, when asking them, get the same, "No, 
> its not red at all.", argument.

BTW. Letters that go missing = evil. lol

'just as*k* so and so'


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4aefbee6$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Indeed, there's the epistemological issues. As a kid, many of us might
have
> > thought being forced, and sometimes tricked, into eating broccoli was
> > torture, and hence an evil act.

> I think that this is a bogus argument, basically because it's trivial to
> imagine a world where all the things that taste good are the ones that are
> good for you.

Yes but it's also trivial for a kid to imagine a world where everything is
sugar coated chocolate. He doesn't know the difference between bad food and
good for and doesn't care. If he did, he'd imagine a world where nutrional
food tastes good (like you do), instead of making chocolate only food. You
know about nutrition, so you are one level above the kid, but maybe there
are things that you (we) do not know, that make our imagination just as
naive to someone at a higher level of understanding.

> Being forced to eat broccoli seems like evil because it *is*
> evil - it's bad that healthy stuff tastes awful. Indeed, it's bad that
there
> even is such a thing as unhealthy food.
>
> This is the "it's good for you to suffer" argument, which is a subset of
the
> "it isn't really evil after all" argument that I found clearly described.

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.
First, imagining is not the same as realizing (incidentally, that's where
Anselm's ontological argument fails, but that's a different matter). Second,
"better" for who? I can imagine a universe where I'm god and everyone
worships me. Certainly, it's better for me than the present one. You are
inherently making a selfish claim if you say the world you can imagine,
however good and fair you believe it to be, is better than the real one or
one that somebody else imagines. By thinking that elimination of pain is a
universally good thing, for instance, are we not saying that maschists do
not count?

Post a reply to this message

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?

> First, imagining is not the same as realizing

Omnipotence.

> "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.

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.

In any case, I think this is pretty well addressed in the original article too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

"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

somebody wrote:
> Sure there is - as far as I am concerned. But that only proves that the
> universe does not cater to my needs or whims. 

Well, yes, but that's the point being made, yes?

>>> 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'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

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

I imagine almost all doctors would be quite happy if everyone was suddenly 
totally healthy.

>> 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.

That's why "insane" is in quotes.

> 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?

I would think so. But that's, after all, the point. :-)

> 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.

OK. I am pretty sure I don't know where this conversation went now.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>
http://directionlessbones.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/challenge-suggest-a-more-evil-principle-than-this-one/


I reject the first premise on the grounds of lack of evidence.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message