braces_for_impact

Hi all, I watch more than post on the philosophical forums, as philosophically speaking I am just a lightweight. Thanks for being rather interesting teachers.

It seems to me this entire thread seems to be based on an underlying premise that all acts are inherently evil or good, or result in evil or good. But it ocurred to me, what about neutral acts, or acts that result in neither good or evil? How would this effect (if at all) either one of the two major views represented on this thread?

Surely some acts are neutral? If I go for a swim, is that somehow down the road good or evil?

While I understand that evil exists in the world and that the ability to choose good over evil could partially result in necessary (justified?) evil, how does this explain evil that is not preventable? This may be difficult for you to follow so let me explain...

A man kills a woman in an alley. No one else is a witness. The woman could not prevent the man from killing her. Now the man could have made the choice NOT to kill. To me, this does not seem a good act. This seems to me simply to be a choice not to perform evil. To prevent a murder would be a good act.

Now I understand that some people would have the view that because of the womans' murder in the example, some good could come of that somehow down the road, and we with our puny limited intellect will never be able to connect the dots. I don't buy that view myself, I think an omniscient deity could do better.

Now in many types of logic if one reverses the premise it can sometimes show how the premise is flawed. In this case, what if acts of good were being performed to serve a greater evil? If great evil can lead to great good, would one not have to concede the reverse is also possible? Would not an evil deity possibly allow some good in the world simply to give his pathetic chess pawns hope so that he can one day perform a greater evil? Would not such a deity likely masquerade as a perfect, omnibenevolent consciousness?

Just some thoughts, thanks for your time.

Jobar

I sometimes look at theological arguments as a chess game; the moves for this particular variation (which seems to be the strongest defense against the PoE gambit) go

Theist: God exists ___ Atheist: PoE
Free will ___ Gratuitious suffering (or one of several other moves)
Unknown purpose ___ ...

and here we also have several potential countermoves, but I would like to comment on the weakness of the UPD. The theist is admitting that he does not have an answer. Now, this may suffice to stave off an absolute disproof of God by the atheist, but it seems to me that the improbability of the theist's argument climbs into the same realms as that for leprechauns and Invisible Pink Unicorns. We don't have absolute disproofs for those, either- but it seems to me that at this point the theistic game collapses and a graceful concession is the only logical response.

The fact that such a response is so seldom seen indicates to me that the theists are not actually attempting to be logical in their belief.

diana

Man: Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
Man: It is. You just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.
Man: Ooh, you did!
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.
Man: You did, just then.
Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!
Man: Oh, look this is futile.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.

(It had to be said.)

d

malookiemaloo

Was wondering who would be the first to point this out!!

Seriously though, how on earth can you philosophise as to whether God exists or not. Isn't it all a bit of a nonsense?


m

diana

[QUOTE]Originally posted by malookiemaloo
Seriously though, how on earth can you philosophise as to whether God exists or not. Isn't it all a bit of a nonsense?
[QUOTE]If by "it" you mean "God," of course I agree wholeheartedly. But there are those who think God is perfectly sensible. Hence the need to philosophize about it.

If you wish to pursue this tangent, please start a thread in order to avoid derailing this one. Thank you.

d