The Level of Evil is Astonishing

7,318 Views | 110 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by GQaggie
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:

You can claim whatever you wish is "self evident" to you. I think it's absurd to claim it's self evident that a divine personal mind that is good exists.

I think this is directly contrary to human experience. I've limited my self evident presuppositions to those that are actually self evident and have virtually no deniers. But you do you.
The point is that we all have to give an account for reason and logic. This is the ultimate question in philosophy. Just using them is fine but you have no basis to argue for or against anything. They are just tools at that point even though you always end up pointing to a higher principle.

A divine personal mind is not absurd since it gives an account of knowledge itself. You claiming a divine personal mind is absurd has no justification whatsoever as you can't give an account for the tool you're using.
GQaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You need to assume at least the following:
The god is the only god that could possibly exist
The god's nature is fixed and couldn't possibly have been different
The god is necessarily good (there is nothing logically stopping an evil god, and you can even do a maximally evil plantinga argument).
I don't believe I assume the first. I see the logical possibility for a different god.

Regarding the second, I assume God's nature is immutable and that he exists eternally. I see the potential possibility that his nature could be different than it is, but I don't understand how it is a real possibility. If he exists eternally, and his nature does not change, at what point could it have been different?

For the third, it seems to me the wording you have used presupposes a Platonic good. I believe God has defined good based on his nature. If God were instead an "evil" God, then his nature would be different, and good as I am defining it would cease to exist or would be different.

I realize that given my response to the third assumption, one could consider good in that sense arbitrary. My question would be why does it matter? If God is the source of all reality and all reality is grounded in him, the only thing that matters for that reality is what his nature is actually like. It doesn't matter what the other possibilities may have been. All that matters is what actually is. Perhaps a different God would have defined good differently, but all that matters is how the actual God defined it.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't see how this is at odds with or changes things. Seems like all you're saying is agreement on <<things>> is emergent phenomena with animals. It doesn't make a distinction whether those things are physical or metaphysical, or explain why one is functionally different than the other. In the end it's all perception.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It seems you've finally reached the point. It's fundamentally arbitrary if god could have been different.

Now the follow up question of given that it's arbitrary does it matter is a fair one.

The answer to that is maybe. I think if the god of the universe revealed himself to you and asked you to rape a baby you'd probably not do it. But you could also argue that god would write baby raping is good on your heart.

At this point we acknowledge that might doesn't make right it just makes might.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Orthodox Texan said:

Aggrad08 said:

You can claim whatever you wish is "self evident" to you. I think it's absurd to claim it's self evident that a divine personal mind that is good exists.

I think this is directly contrary to human experience. I've limited my self evident presuppositions to those that are actually self evident and have virtually no deniers. But you do you.
The point is that we all have to give an account for reason and logic. This is the ultimate question in philosophy. Just using them is fine but you have no basis to argue for or against anything. They are just tools at that point even though you always end up pointing to a higher principle.

A divine personal mind is not absurd since it gives an account of knowledge itself. You claiming a divine personal mind is absurd has no justification whatsoever as you can't give an account for the tool you're using.


The idea that you need god to use logic or have knowledge is unfounded. Logic can be said to be empirical in a sense, learned from the universe we are in that appears bound by such rules.
GQaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

It seems you've finally reached the point. It's fundamentally arbitrary if god could have been different.
Ha! I knew that would be the opening sentence. In all seriousness though, no, I don't really think it is fundamentally arbitrary. As I said, I can logically comprehend the idea of different gods, but I don't buy that it is an actual possibility. How do we begin to talk about an eternal and unchanging being somehow being different than he is?

Quote:

Now the follow up question of given that it's arbitrary does it matter is a fair one.

The answer to that is maybe. I think if the god of the universe revealed himself to you and asked you to rape a baby you'd probably not do it. But you could also argue that god would write baby raping is good on your heart.

Assuming the type of arbitrary we are discussing though, I'm not sure how you make any arguments about specifics. With a different type of god, maybe there are no humans. Maybe rape doesn't exist. There is no reason at all to think that gods of varying natures would produce universes that look anything alike.

Regarding arbitrariness, it would seem there would be various degrees. For instance, consider two different sets of numbers. In the first set, the size of the set is determined randomly, and every number is randomly generated. This set would be maximally arbitrary. For the second set, only the first number is randomly generated, and it is determined that every subsequent number will be the previous number multiplied by 2. This set is arbitrary in the sense that none of the numbers are specifically determined, and the first number is random; however, it is much less arbitrary than the first set, since after the first number, every other number now has a specifically assigned value.

With gods of varying nature, I would imagine it would be much closer to the second type of arbitrary. The only thing really left to chance is the nature of the god. That nature then determines everything else about the universe including what, if anything, is deemed "right". It is this type of arbitrariness that makes me wonder if it actually matters. Once the god of whatever particular nature creates the reality, he is the grounding of that reality and of all truth in that reality. Whatever he determines as right, is truly right within that reality. Who cares if is arbitrary back at the level of what his nature is? Of what consequence is the second horn?

Quote:

At this point we acknowledge that might doesn't make right it just makes might
What is right?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.