rainbow walking

A note to anyone interested: Because I am limited in my access to a computer at this time I can only respond within those limitations. So I am trying to be consistent and respond to each post in the order it has been submitted. Please be patient.




koy: No. That is not what I argued. The core structure of man has not changed in the slightes and cannot or no personal "greatest good" will obtain.

You're changing the terms of my arguments in order to address them.

rw: Sorry, I thought we were still discussing the Hitler’s third strike. What do you mean by core structure?



koy: Yes they do, just not in the manner you're arguing.

rw: How, then, do they force man to make choices? They certainly provide a limitation to his range of choices but even that is limited only by his lack of imagination.



koy: No offense, but you still are, apparently .

rw No offense taken, but I am not.

rw: All of the above, to which you’ve agreed, is part and parcel of my argument and requires no interfering god, but it also doesn’t require the non-existence of such a being either.



koy: Which is? To survive. Individually. Just like the trillions of other beings on this planet.

rw: Ah but Koy, what you fail to consider here is that individual men sacrifice their lives to preserve ideals, which are nothing more than ideas that men hold up as being more important to preserve than their individual existence. Suicide bombers are dying and murdering for religious ideals. Ideas that have the power to shape the popular will of man towards committing suicide for their preservation are very powerful and persuasive ideas but cannot be right if they must be forced upon man. That is why science, as an idea, is superior to any other. It doesn’t force itself on man nor restrict man’s choices but expands man’s choices and persuades man, by its utility to his desire to live. All ideas that become elevated to ideals thusfar, in man’s bloody history, have failed to exemplify his one true redeeming quality: science. No nation has risen to build its popular will around science and structure its institutions and cultural norms around this idealogy that has proven so effective in facilitating man’s evolution and survival. Until such a time as man recognizes and reconstructs the popular will of society around this ideal, men will still funnel the majority of their resources into hedonism or domination of other societies.



koy: And your one fatal error is to think your argument can differ from social evolution. It cannot.

Hence, the PoE.

rw: PoE has nothing to say about social evolution. My argument is a valid explanation of man’s reality whether a god exists or not. But my argument can also facilitate the attributes of such a being and show that non-existence isn’t the only or most logical conclusion.



koy: Now, come on! That's a blatant fallacy. "Time and chance" is the foundation of a progressive, adaptive theory of evolution.

What's more, how would you know this? Did whales sing ten million years ago? How would you know?

rw: Punctuated equilibrium, Koy, is an attested observation of evolution. The observation that long periods of stasis occur between short bursts of evolutionary change. Man has the power, via science, to punctuate his own equilibrium.



[b[koy[/b]: Let's look at that for a second. "Man has the unique position of being able to direct his evoltion in a specifc direction" is one argument.

"If and when he recognizes that direction" is another argument.

One (the former) states that man is in control; the other (the latter) implies that man is not in control.

So which is it?

rw: Man can control his destiny but has been covertly distracted from doing so by his politics and religious ideals. Man still appears to believe, (or the popular will of man still expresses itself in), his politics and or religious ideals that they believe will somehow save him. These institutions are not facilitators of evolution but of stasis and seek only to preserve the status quo of his specific position in history. But stasis leads to regression and closer to the possibility of self extinction.



koy: Here's another fallacy. You're stating (implying) that man has an evolutionary destiny that it must "recognize" (awaken), presumably implanted or designed into it.

You're fallaciously asserting and deifying the concept of "destiny" and removing man from it in order to declare (in essence), "If man doesn't see it has a choice, it will perish." Then you are erroneously asserting that this "choice" was imposed by a god.

rw: I am asserting the concept of science as his only ticket towards any kind of destiny. No where have I asserted this choice as being imposed. Obviously man does not have to willfully engage in any scientific activity. Even more obvious, is the dangerous fact that man has directed the focus of his science more on weapons and surveillance than he ever has on against his real enemies: Death and confinement to this planet.

koy: Man is a natural being. Therefore it will always be "left at the mercy" of evolution. Even according to your own theory, man will always (necessarily) be at the mercy of evolution. That's the purpose of evolution (according to your theory).

rw: Evolution is a description of natural progression. Man is a part of nature, but the only part of nature with the recognition of himself as an evolutionary force and the ability to manipulate and predict genetics and human behavior, thus this empowers him to shape his own evolutionary progression willfully. Man’s will and imagination are the twin powers of his force of nature. To date, these twin powers have lumbered along haphazardly or been focused on issues that arise from his refusal to face his mortality and entrapment as the only real contest he should be engaging in. But he can’t escape it even when his politics and religion are equipping him as cannon fodder and hell fuel he still engages his science to enable him to die less frequently on the battlefield or live less painfully in his journey towards heaven.


koy: See? You've just supported PoE, however indirectly.

rw: Really? Wouldn’t an omniscient god know these things?

rainbow walking

Thomas: You're saying that given two beings, such that one prevents ten units of useless suffering, and the other prevents twenty, all else equal, the latter isn't morally better than the former.


rw: I’m saying, and have been all along, that given the possibility that such being could intervene to eradicate all units of suffering, if he only intervenes to eradicate a limited number of units of suffering, having interfered to make this initial eradication, if he fails to complete the operation, (and eradicate all instances of suffering), he is not only “less than moral” but becomes immoral. If he has another reason that justifies his non-interference, then we are obligated to consider this other reason and test it for its merits as a legitimate excuse for his inaction. If “moral assessment” is our means of determining what such a being should do, any thing less than complete eradication fails the test of moral responsibility…so it must, by moral necessity, be either all or nothing. This is not a man of limited resources we’re talking about here but an omnipotent god, remember? So, if such a being does not apparently intervene to eradicate all suffering, then he either doesn’t exist, or he has a better reason for not interfering, that supercedes all or any of man’s pain and suffering.

You don’t get to use moral justification to indict the existence of such a being and then excuse yourself from moral justification when you posit only a limited interference to relieve the suffering of only a few people or the sparing of only one child from being scalded. Such a being, to be consistent to your moral considerations, must either interfere and totally and completely eradicate all pain and suffering or none. A partial eradication does not excuse such a being any more than it would a corporation that had the capacity to produce enough medication to cure all cases of Aids but only produced enough to cure a limited number of cases. Those who were cured would certainly be appreciative but those who were left out would be justified in their moral indignation against such favoritism.




You did not answer this question. "Yes" or "no" please.


rw: I thought this was a sufficient reply:

: thomas: Suppose it were possible. Suppose it were possible to implant the knowledge in the child's brain of what exactly would happen if she poured boiling water on herself. Would you do it?

rw: Certainly I would. But this would in no way gaurantee that she would willfully choose to comply with that knowledge. In order for me to ensure she never get scalded by hot water would necessitate a considerable degree of interference in her life far beyond implanting knowledge of the consequences.

Now, as to an omniscient being making this same decision, as I would, is another matter altogether. Your assumption that his omni-benevolence should automatically dictate he make the same choice has not been substantiated. It is not the case that reducing the suffering of one child would be morally mandated when this act could potentially cause the child to suffer greater pain later in life, (especially when the child also has the option of willfully ignoring such implanted knowledge), or when this benevolent act, on her behalf, could incur tremendous adverse consequences to humanity in the aggregate. You are not considering all the ethical and moral ramifications here Thomas.



Thomas: No. They are choices with good knowledge of the results. The toddler pouring boiling water on her head is not.

rw: Correct, it is an accident. That is why I’ve been asking you, and you have evaded an answer, if what your CP is proposing is that a god become a super safety man.



Thomas: If you could give a child an instinctive drive not to pour boiling water on herself, such that it would most likely completely prevent her from doing it in the future, would you?

rw: Chuckle…Thomas, are you trying to bore me to death with redundancy? How many times and ways do I have to respond to the same question? When are you going to answer mine? Is your CP based on a claim that a god must become a super safety cop or he doesn’t exist?



Thomas: An omnipotent being could figure out a way, unless it's logically impossible.

rw: It’s logically impossible Thomas, but, as you say, an omnipotent being could still create the illogical…only problem with this Thomas, is that the logic required for your CP conclusion gets kicked right out the window in this illogical state of affairs. Create an illogical state of affairs and destroy the logic you need to make the connection between the could and the should in your CP.



Thomas:Please direct me to where. There's only one reply from you on the current page, so you must mean you've answered this question in the current post. But I don't see where. I've only asked it once in my previous post, so you must have answered it without me asking. Please indulge my illiteracy and quote yourself answering the above question.

rw : Yawn…

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

No one's going to agree with you there. Suppose there are two persons. Each can prevent 100 units of suffering. The first prevents ten. The second prevents twenty. And you think they're both morally equal. I agree that they're both immoral, but I don't think they're morally equal, and I doubt anyone else will, either.

I don't. You don't answer the question. You were answering a different question with the quote you gave of yourself. Please just say "yes" or "no." Three characters or two characters. It's not that difficult to type. You could even just type "N" or "Y." Is it better to let a child scald herself than to convince her not to pour boiling water on herself? Y or N?

I've already answered this, twice now. See pages 2 and 3 of this thread. Do a Find in your browser for "super safety man" if you can't find them, and please stop accusing me of evading your questions.

I've never asked this question before, actually, so it's strange that you think I have. If you think I have, find where in this thread. (But you won't be able to, so please, just give me a "yes" or "no.")

No it isn't. Where is the contradiction in saying that toddlers have an instinctual desire never to pour boiling water on themselves? How is that P & ~P?

rainbow walking

koy: Then you are saying that we are automotons, contradicting what your argued previously.

If my will is not free, then I am an automoton.

rw: Are you free to determine your own genetics, parents or social climate prior to birth? No? What about after maturity? Are you then free to self determine your response to these original conditions of your existence? Yes? Ergo…limited will.



koy: Semantics. You are positing an argument (that a non-interfering god exists who created "evil" as a necessary condition in order to trigger man's progression toward virtue) that you believe escapes the response (i.e., the counter) of PoE.

rw: I have postulated that good and evil are assignments specific to man’s mortal existence. They do not exist independent of man’s condition nor were they created, (assuming a god), independently of man. In fact I postulate that good and evil are human constructs useful in systematically categorizing those elements of his existence that either threaten or enhance his mortal life. During the course of these discussions I have begun to realize the importance of keeping these categorizations accurately relevant to the specific threat or enhancement. Good and evil are only the foundational constructs from which are derived all other more specific normative assignments such as right, wrong, excellent , inferior, joy, suffering, love, hate, beneficial, detrimental, safe, dangerous, moral, immoral, ethical, unethical, virtue, vice, and a host of others. All of these normative constructs are an intricate aspect of human language and serve to communicate the relative value associated with the thing or event being discussed.

The above postulate is true whether this state of affairs was created or not. In order to tailor my argument towards PoE I, along with the proponents of PoE, assume the existence of such a being only, rather than conclude such a being doesn’t exist at the end of my argument, I show that PoE actually, when extrapolated out from its assumptions and postulates, actually concludes that such a being must necessarily exist. PoE’s proponents, yourself included, cannot describe a logical state of affairs after applying the could have/should have. If an alternate state of affairs with less or no suffering and evil cannot obtain to a logical alternate state of affairs, then this state of affairs is the only logical state that mortal man can exist as a willful creature. If you create an illogical state of affairs you then have no basis to make a logical connection between the “could have/should have” and the “therefore doesn’t exist”.
This is the postulate in my OP: So I conclude that if a “greater good” can be obtained by man and that “greater good” is understood to be a process developed as a response to evil and suffering, then: If an omni-max being existed he would create a state of affairs where the greatest amount of evil and suffering “could” obtain in order that a GREATER amount of good “would” obtain.

koy: That means that your argument must be valid in toto prior to the application of PoE as a counter argument, for PoE to fail against your proposition.

rw: I would suggest you attend to the validity of PoE rather than worry about my argument. Describe a logical alternate state of affairs where an omni-max being has either created from the outset or interfered to arrange at any point during this state of affairs, to remove or reduce pain, suffering and evil. If you end up with something less than willful man you have failed to create a logical alternate state. All of the premises of my argument are valid and have been substantiated with the exception of the assumption of an existent god. This is an assumption that you and I are both forced to start with to formulate our respective arguments.

koy: Thus, my saying "your god" is merely a shorthand manner of saying "the construct and conditions of your proposition."

rw: I would appreciate you not making such reference in the future as it implies I am arguing as a theist.





koy: By not allowing for a wrong or immoral course of action. Remember, the conditions of your proposition; an omnimax being that has the power to create an arena in which wrong or immoral courses exist. All the omnimax being would have to do is remove "wrong or immoral" courses in reality and/or remove the ability for humans to take "wrong or immoral" courses.

rw: And how do you do this in an arena of willful mortal beings? What then motivates their willful participation in their own existence? “Wrong and immoral” are human assignments to premeditated acts and choices that are perceived to heighten the threat to humanities individual or social existence. Immortality is the only way to remove the threat to existence but this doesn’t address pain and suffering. It only means one can suffer for eternity and never die. Implanting “time-release” programs assumes that man is still willfully progressing and that sometime during this progress a program will need to be launched to prevent specific choices. But the choices it prevents are the ones necessary to stimulate progress. You’re still floundering around in an illogical state of affairs with these time release preventions that ultimately prevent not only evil but also good. In a world devoid of adversity virtue never has an opportunity to arise.

koy: For example, let's say running Windows XP is considered "wrong or immoral" by a god. The god would therefore simply mandate that all computers run only Mac OS and/or simply remove Windows XP as a possible choice.

rw: Mandate? Isn’t that the same as dictate?

koy: Remember, again, your omnimax conditional. Such a god would be able to know instantly whether or not Windows XP (the concept) would result in a "wrong or immoral" course for humans long before the concept were ever introduced or put into use. God's "imagination" and omnimax abilities would allow for it to foresee what we could only experience in a linear fashion. God is not limited to linearity and could therefore remove Windows XP as an option from the arena at the very start.

rw: This being’s omniscience is irrelevant to man as long as it remains non-interfering.

koy: Or, the same god on a limited scale as your proposition posits (non-interfering, except for the first time) could simply genetically implant a "do not use Windows XP" command that lies dormant and is only awakened at the point in time when Windows XP was created by man's "will" (free or not). A certainly pointless limitation, but one nontheless could still be accounted for in your proposition, thus defeating it as a valid scenario challenging PoE.

rw: Why would man create an OS against his genetic grain in the first place?



koy: What is immoral about stealing food in order to survive?

rw: And what of the survival of the person from whom the food has been stolen?

Oops…hour is up.

rainbow walking

Drats...I accidentally hit the post button twice. Sorry.

rainbow walking

koy: If "your" god pre-determined that stealing food in order to survive were an immoral course, then it could simply create man without the need to eat;

rw: The acquisition of food is one of those adverse conditions of mortal existence that create a host of opportunities for man to express his virtues and demonstrate his science. Would you destroy virtue and science to transform humanity into a species of congenital dependants? Give a man a fish and you keep him alive for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will feed himself.

koy: or implant in man a more generous nature, so that if a starving man on the brink of death were to ask for food (instead of having to steal it), it would be freely given to him.

rw: Most men are generous under such conditions when they have food to be generous with, so this is already evident as a human trait. Without the adversity of potential starvation would generosity ever have an opportunity to arise as a virtue?

koy: See? This is where it all falls apart, because unless you are arguing a non-interfering god in toto (meaning it didn't do anything at all except spark life--i.e., equivalent to a force of nature like electromagnetism), then you are forced to deal with PoE and the conditions of your argument does not avoid it.

rw: PoE is forced to deal with me and has not been successful thusfar.

koy: By stating that "your" god interfered by setting things up in a manner so as to guide mankind toward it's "greatest moral good" through the use of necessary evil, you are vulnerable to the counter of PoE.

rw: The vulnerability of PoE is exposed and remains so.

koy: If "your" god can do this, then there must be a reason it did it. If there is a reason it did it, then it is open to analysis and deconstruction according to the conditions of the supposition and if any of those conditions contradict, then you have posited an invalid construct.

rw: Agreed.



koy: Right, which proves your argument false. If your argument were true, then men would have no choice but to learn over time not to rape; to progress toward virtue.

rw: Uh…no, men must have more than a mere knowledge of what to do and what not to do, they also require a motivation for their choices. Once man learns that something “aught not” be done and mandates a law against it, any further action that violates that law is unnecessary. That it continues to occur means there is something else more powerful than the law motivating the illegal act. If men rely on the law only, such acts will always plague mankind, thus man must incorporate his greatest virtuous actions and bring to bear the full weight of his science to determine the root causes of the violation. Thus, even those legally unnecessary events serve as necessary reminders that man has a moral and scientific obligation to resolve the conflict. Such conflicts cannot be ultimately resolved by institutional means, only contained to a manageable level. All sexual acts stem from man’s genetically driven force of replication. When socially acceptable methods of satisfying those drives break down there is a scientific explanation and a scientific resolution.

koy: If evil was created in order to teach humanity to "become more virtuous," then we would see evidence of that, yes? But we don't. In fact, we historically see that humanity--at the very least--remains constant in its immorality; that every generation is dynamically equal in its immorality to every other generation.

rw: Man’s science has taken him from the caves to the moon and beyond. Man’s science is his greatest expression of virtue. The progress of man’s science is the progress of man’s virtue. All of the immorality man has experienced throughout history, and continues to experience, has a scientific explanation. Man is a mortal being trapped inside his own mortality and further confined to a single world. These are the root causes of almost all immorality and premeditated evil in man’s history. Man has further denied himself a resolution when he seeks a resolution politically or religiously. A vast majority of these immoral events are nothing more than an expression of man’s frustration. There is no political or religious salvation…only man’s science can save man as it has through out history…but it can also destroy man. The future is not set in stone. Either man will achieve a greater good or extinguish himself as a species out of sheer frustration.

koy: If Hitler had the atomic bomb, he probably would have used it. Instead, we used it. Does that make the use of it (or creation of it) any "less" immoral?

rw: Yes it does. A “free world” is preferable to an Aryan world.

koy: If Ghenghis Khan could have used an atomic bomb, would he have used it? Probably. So is immorality a factor of linear progression?

rw: Linear progression, morally speaking, moves much slower than scientific progression. There is no set pace. A global population growth will also make it appear that man has reached a level of moral stasis.

koy: No. It is not. So how can morality be a factor of linear progression?

rw: Man’s science is the only factor of linear progression. Morality and virtue are derivatives. But man’s science has yet to reach the height of the popular will of humanity as his only way to address the true enemies of his existence. The popular will of humanity still believes death to be an inevitability and confinement to this planet a sentence never to be commuted in our lifetime. It took less than a decade to put a man on the moon when two nations, of opposing cultural systems, competed. When man realizes the value of competing against his own extinction as fervently as he competes against other men, progress in these areas can become phenomenal. Men are still looking for political or religious salvation to these deeper questions of his morality.



koy: And why your argument leaves us with nothing but automotons, who, somehow, just don't "get it" in direct contradiction to the conditions of your argument. They must "get it" over time for one of the conditions of your argument to be considered valid.

rw: It is true that men still haven’t “gotten it”, in spite of a scientific history of all the things men have “gotten” through their science. But my argument ascribes no time limit or seeks to establish any consistency to man’s progress. As I said, punctuated equilibrium is a viable observation of man’s social evolution. Long periods of stasis accompanied by short bursts of change towards better conditions and then further periods of stasis as the world catches up. There is nothing automatic about it.



koy: But an omnimax god would have no need of actual "trial and error." It would know instantly (due to omniscience) what works and what doesn't and what the endgame would be in order to avoid all of that in the actual design. You grant this indirectly when you posit a god to begin with, who has determined that evil is a necessity.

rw: But we’re not talking about the creation of an omnimax god. There is no logical way for humans to be created directly into a state of greatest good and preserve their will and integrity as humans. Such a being could create an illogical state of affairs where its creatures are anything but human but that defeats the logic PoE requires to reach its conclusion.

koy: The problem is (and the defeat of your argument), we can see that evil is not a necessity; at least not to the extent that it exists and the manner in which it manifests.

rw: Indeed. And what is it that enables you to see this? If premeditated acts of evil hadn’t been committed to the extent and in the manner they have occurred would you still be here, in the USA, to see anything? Can you unplug any major historical account of premeditated evil without drastically modifying humanity? To what level would you tone down evil and which of its manifestations would you eliminate? If you had the power to do so, would you be a morally just person to only do so on a limited scale, when you could do so completely and with finality? But if doing so created an end result that was anything but good, what then would you do with your power?

koy: For your argument to be valid enough for PoE to have no substantive counter, it would have to mean that all examples of evil are necessary in some way, so, you'll have to justify how. You claim the necessity is to guide humanity to its "greatest moral good" (it's high time we insert that "moral" part, by the way, since that's what you've been arguing the whole time),

rw: It’s high time we refrain from redefining my argument, since that’s what you’ve been doing all along. Setting up these straw man scarecrows and beating them up and down the boardwalk. My argument is based on man’s greatest good period, without restriction to morals, politics, religions or social orders.
Oops…hour’s up!

rainbow walking

Hi Alix,

alix: rw:

Two issues arise from your most recent post.

Once again, you validate the PoE.

You state,




alix: An omnipotent being could do this. If it can't, it's not omnipotent.


rw: Yes, I’ve conceded this a number of times already, an omnipotent being could. However, I’ve also demonstrated how the finished product would represent an illogical state of affairs. Virtue, even if every human was created completely virtuous, still requires adversity of some type to be expressed. When you claim that a god could create humans with this quality or attribute, you still haven’t explained how such attributes can be expressed without a state of affairs similar to our own current state. How does one acquire the attribute of virtue when it requires adverse conditions to manifest? If all humans are completely virtuous, where do the adverse conditions arise?

Now if PoE ends up with an illogical state of affairs in the could have, it negates itself in the should have unless you are asserting that an illogical state of affairs is preferable to a logical state of affairs. In an illogical state of affairs there’s no logical connection between omni-max attributes and any state of affairs. If illogic dominates, what logical reason can you assert for an omni-benevolent being to be motivated to create any state of affairs? None. Rather than support PoE’s conclusion, you end up demonstrating that such a being absolutely must exist for any degree of logic to be valid.

alix: If it doesn't choose to, it's not omnibenevolent. Either way, the PoE is validated by your own arguments.

rw: Then you are asserting an omniscient being should be dominated by his omni-benevolence to create an illogical state of affairs just to spare mankind the pain and suffering that represents the adversity required for virtue to exist. If PoE must destroy logic to obtain, how can you claim its conclusion to be logical or logically derived?





alix: is interesting - but it has no relevance to the PoE.

rw: It certainly does have relevance to PoE because it is intricate to my argument against PoE. It goes towards the premise that man’s willful participation and responsibility for his own acquisition of his greater good is, itself, a greater good than a greater good created by divine fiat. That is to say, that man’s self acquired greater good trumps a god created greater good, and that an omniscient, omni-benevolent being would know this and allow man to attain the greatest good. So it replaces PoE’s implication of a god being immoral for not interfering in man’s affairs by ascribing a moral reason that trumps PoE’s implied contradiction to omni-benevolence. When you couple this with PoE’s inability to describe a logical alternate state of affairs this god could have created, you end up with PoE being pinned to the matt by its own logic. Instead of arriving at a conclusion that such a being doesn’t exist, PoE, when deconstructed and put to the test, ends up concluding that such a being must necessarily exist.

alix: I am puzzled: are you, or are you not actually discussing the PoE in this thread?

rw: Well, this thread has covered a lot of territory, so I can certainly understand how confusing it can become to correlate all of my arguments with the OP. I hope this has helped unravel the puzzle somewhat.

rainbow walking

mosaic: I'm only on thr second page but rainbow, why, after hearing your argument am I wrong to murder and rape chidren? Do "evil" things? See, I've come to the conclusion that while I'm merely indulging in my psychotic tendencies, that in of itself will serve as some lesson to humanity. I have no way of measuring or tabulating this but merely asserting this is suffiecient since you can come up with any number of events to correspond to the event. That is, if I didnt rape a specific girl, the parent would not have established a "help for parents of raped children" fund. Maybe, when the parent was frantically searching for the girl, she bumped over someone who was about to be stabbed in the back, and thus by extension, being a rapist helped saved a life...which then spawned some other event and so on..Etc. All illusory incidents in which no objective consessus on the greater good, or neccesity it served can be gaged.Your ethics are twisted. But even if I postulate that many of the possibilities are purely negative, you will blankly assert that it serves some greater goood, is neccesary because life is so but uneccesary because life is.

rw: Why do you say my ethics are twisted? I’m not the one who just came to an illogical conclusion that man ought to choose evil to facilitate a greater good. That is completely counter-productive to why man even aspires to good in the first place. The premise that gratuitous evil naturally leads to greater good is a logical observation of man’s history. It is not, nor should it be, construed as a license to commit evil. The observation is not illusory, unless you wish to posit that Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inferior to totalitarianism, that free choice of employment is inferior to slavery, or that the voting rights of women is inferior to women being subjugated to man’s domination, that driving to work is inferior to walking, or turning on the eye of a stove to prepare one’s food is inferior to building a fire in the mouth of a cave. You are taking liberties with the parameters of my argument that are not granted. I have specifically stated on a number of occasions that necessary aspires only up to the point where man learns and legislates against any premeditated evil act. After that point it becomes a matter of man’s vigorous prosecution of law breakers and robust scientific investigation into the causes of such behavior. Ergo…it becomes man’s responsibility such that a god is not morally obligated to interfere.

In the defense of my argument I defined murder, rape, theft, and slavery as evil acts. You are free to conspire to commit such acts and even labor to bring your conspiracy to fruition, if all you want to accomplish, (besides your own personal destruction and innocent suffering of others), is to verify my postulate that political and religious institutional artifices cannot save humanity.
All such acts, taken together in the aggregate, will eventually lead humanity to the same conclusion. Laws and law enforcement can only respond to such behavior after-the-fact, thus they rarely ever prevent such behavior from becoming a reality. However, depending on how vigorously man prosecutes violators, such instances can be reduced. Both the evil act and the prosecution of justice in response are necessary for different reasons. The necessity of justice is obvious and self explanatory, the necessity of evil is not so obvious, indeed a claim of necessity appears counter-intuitive until we consider that mans choices and actions are the defining characteristic of his virtue or lack thereof.

In my argument I have postulated that the motivation underlying all such premeditated acts of evil is twofold: Man’s sense of his own mortality and his confinement to a planet of limited resources. Because humanity has not yet come to realize the subtle yet pervasive role these factors play in his daily choices and activities, he still assumes that his politic is the best methodology for addressing the abnormal, and his religious worldview best explains its degree of frequency and its ever increasing horrid manifestations. Thusfar man’s religion fails to account for science and man’s politic fails to apply the potential of science in those primary areas whose resolution would relieve many of the subconscious pressures driving man’s social and individual vices. One thing all humans hold in common is the desire to exist as long as feasibly possible. If this were not the case medicine would have never become a factor of man’s existence. Another thing all humans hold in common is the necessity of freedom to pursue their own personal goals pursuant to their personally defined position in the world around them.

One small step towards man’s “greater good” is to apply his science towards ascertaining “why” individuals entertain and commit such acts. Until the will of the populace is convinced of the role of science in his acquisition of the greater good, all such illegal acts of violence will continue, necessarily so. Science is about the business of “predicting”. It is possible to achieve a scientific means of predicting human behavior prior to the fact of the commission of crimes. It is also possible to address the factors involved in leading man towards criminal behavior.
The more sophisticated law enforcement institutions have already become wedded to science in the aid of apprehending criminals, but the extension of science to define the reasons humanity continues to abridge the law remains more of an academic curiosity than an all out goal. The psychology of the criminal mind is a discipline of science that has only begun to scratch the surface of defining the complex chain of causative agents leading up to the contemplation of violence as a viable means of securing ones personal goals.


mosaic: How do you tabulate history? Rate progress on an ethereal scale? You seem to leave out the possibility of humans ultimately failing, degenerating in an endless case of war. And if that happens, what was the purpose or value of a meta-path? Why does omnibelevonce prescribe such and end and why should we even assume that what we consider omnibelevonce is that of "god." Shouldnt we repudiate such mechanic neccesity? Such a world where this has to happen? I might in fact from your premises assert that the greater good is the total rejection and hate of god. That god wants us, to deny and hate him, even destroy him so we are no longer bound by its a priori neccesities. That is, the absence of god(who cant create moral beings who dont endure suffering) is the absence of evil itself. Since his omniscience, knows only of worlds where for things to be valued they have to be earned.

rw: None of the above adequately addresses man’s condition. Will hating a god, or attempting to destroy a god improve man’s condition? Prevent man from committing crimes? The only alternative to a world where values are earned is a world where either no values exist, or such values as do exist pop into existence at the whim of man’s fancy with no effort on his part. Neither of these worlds sound plausibly logical to me…or anyone else.

mosaic

You say a whole lot without addresing my point. What is to prevent me? If I sincerely beleive that greater acts of evil will result in greater good, then why not make the personal moral sacrifice and do so? Be the bane to existence that will result its its new birth? Your idea is morally twisted because iyt is the sort of mythic ideals that gross marxism lives by. It gives higher meaning to suffering which is antiethical IMO.

And your defition of neccesary, is weak. Until vigorous prosecution? By what means? Currently, we jail masses of drug abusers. Foolishly, I believe. Now, the action of doing drugs to learn that it is bad then after jailing people only opens up more problems. Namely, how do you deal with them. The next solution will lead to more problems. The linear existence you see fails for this reason also. New problems arise every day, some graver than before, some lesser. The problem with your argument is that it first makes evil neccesary.


2nd point. You didnt address anything here. You argument is that because god, could because of omniscience know that no sate of affairs without evil being first presented is illogical and counter intutive to the progress of man. Yet, the end result of our process is this illogical state of affairs. So are we not overcoming, lving in a state unimginable by god if we reach it? As far as worlds without values seeming illogical to you, why do you think so?Its quite obvious because of our condtions, not because they can be omnipotently verified. Final question, after attaining a greater good, how does society proceed from there? If you have an idea of this, then I dont why this state of affairs being created is illogcal.

rainbow walking

koy: How is a child dying of bee stings a necessary evil and how does it contribute to humanity progressing toward a "greatest moral good?"

rw: A child dying of a bee sting is not evil, it is an accident. To call it evil is to demonize bees. If the parents knowingly placed their child in a situation to be stung to death and or refused medical attention…that would be evil. Accidents happen everyday that cause death. As man learns to devise safer measures in child rearing this will work towards his greater good. It also demonstrates my postulate that man is progressing towards extended life spans.

koy: Likewise, how does man knowing it is wrong to rape, but it does so anyway contribute to humanity progressing toward a "greatest moral good?"

rw: This seems to be a recurrent theme in most of the rebuttals of my argument. It can further be argued that man aught, therefore, to go out and rape as many times as possible to further the greater good of humanity. But this is a skewered interpretation of my argument. It is taking the aspect of “necessary” out of context and twisting it into a justification to do the opposite of man’s greater good. I have been arguing for the conditions of a meta-path, not for the necessity of specific acts. In other words, my argument builds on the premise that the conditions that make rape a possible choice are necessary, not that the act is itself necessary. There is a difference and the distinction lies in the responsibility of man to respond to these conditions virtuously, either individually by restraining himself under such conditions, or institutionally by administering justice when individual men fail to exhibit virtue under said conditions.



koy: None of which addresses my question.

rw: Then please rephrase your question since my response does address question regarding the legal structure of certain moral questions. If you had a different concept in mind here, involving your question, I am at a loss as to what it is.



koy: What? You are arguing that an omnimax god (could have) created evil as a necessary condition in order to guide humanity toward its "greatest moral good."

rw: No, I have been arguing that a god would have created a state of affairs where the greatest amount of “evil” could obtain , (notice the could, not would), in order that a greater amount of good would obtain. This is not a claim that a god created the concept of “evil”, nor that he forced man to bring into reality any degree or specific premeditated act that would be categorized as “evil”. This is only a postulate that if such a being existed, and a willful creatures progress towards a greater good was this beings primary goal, that he would create a state of affairs that would facilitate man’s willful acquisition of his greater good…on his own and by his own best efforts. This is only a claim for a state of affairs with few restrictions to man’s premeditated choice in either direction. And, please note, that in my OP I qualified the statement of a greater good arising out of evil with an if. If I am wrong it means man’s science and politic has not evolved as a response to what man perceives to be threats or enhancements to his existence, but has evolved as a reaction to other forces. Then I must ask you what other forces compel man’s science and politic if not in response to evil, pain and suffering that are early warning signs of chaos, sickness, and death? Just because man has developed sophisticated masks to marginalize these factors doesn’t make it any less obvious.



koy: And to my arguments.

rw: And mine as well, but you continue to insert certain assumptions into my argument to create straw men. The point is, the majority of my argument is based on observable facts of man’s existence and are true whether a god exists or not.



koy: Accept for the fact that we don't teach death as anhilation; we instead teach that death is not the end and as a result have removed the power to motivate men to imrpove their behavior.

rw: Then you claim that death, (which is not a good thing for man), has the power to motivate man towards improved behavior? How so?



koy: No, you need to go much further than that, since living longer does not necessarily equate to "eventually no death."

rw: Indefinite life…not immortality.

koy: Sam Kinison is an excellent example. He abused his body so horribly that it was a "miracle" he didn't die of an overdose or heart disease or the like. He checked himself into rehab and it "took." He was treating his body right and no longer abusing drugs and alcohol and was on the road to fully recovery when he was killed by a car accident.

Now, in a no-god universe, that is expected and ironic; in your supposition, however, it is contradictory and illogical. Here was a man who had lead an incredibly immoral life (by most standards; even my own), who saw the errors of his ways and rejected all of it in order to live a better life, only to have one of "your" god's necessary evils take his life.

Why?

rw: Accidental death is not a necessary evil, it is, however, within the scope of man’s responsibility to address the possible causes of accidents. There are basically 6 categories of death: Murder, war, disease, old age, suicide and accident. Sam’s life style, in this case, has little to do with his death in a car accident…unless he was driving under the influence.

koy: Wouldn't it have served humanity's progression toward "greatest moral good" to make sure Sam didn't die in such a random, pointless manner, especially so soon after his remarkable self-imposed "redemption?"

rw: Can we speculate that Sam would have remained redemptive?

koy: You have been arguing that a god (could have) set up our universe in a necessary manner according to its omnimax abilities (omniscience, primarily), in order to guide humanity toward a "greatest moral good," yet here is a perfect example of how our reality contradicts such a premise.

rw: I see no contradiction, but I would certainly allow that there are exceptions to every rule.

koy: What "greatest moral good" is served by Sam Kinison being killed in a car crash not one year after having eschewed all of his personal "evils?" He was an extremely popular performer, whose drug and excessive lifestyle was a "hot topic" throughout his controversial career (indeed, being the son of a preacher man and a preacher himself previously ads to it). Wouldn't humanity's "greatest moral good" progression been better served by making sure Sam lived to be a ripe old age, going around the world using his celebrity and humor to teach the evils of his past ways?

rw: Why assume his previous lifestyle was so evil?



koy: Again, what has that to do with eventually no death? Those sea turtles do die, after all.

rw: They exist as evidence that aging can be genetically slower; that nature can stack the genetic deck in favor of longer life spans. Indefinite life…I would take 700 years over 80, unless I had to live in a body wracked by old age after 70. I am assuming that a body capable of lasting 700 to 6000 years would require an extremely slower aging process.




koy: You tell us. It was something you brought up as support for the idea of a progression toward "greatest moral good."

rw: I have assigned no such misnomer as “perfection” to any possible state of affairs…you have, so the burden is on you to answer my question first.

rw: : Besides, I’m not asserting a forced indefinite lifespan but only proffering death as a choice, rather than inevitable. You keep wanting to slip these deeply connotative terms, like perfection, into this discussion. Perfection is another of those opinionated subjective assignments. [/quote]



koy: I have no choice if you keep vacilating on what exactly it is your proposing. A necessary evil must have a reason why it is "necessary," yes? You have been arguing that the necessity of evil is to insure humanity's progressing toward a "greatest moral good" standard.

rw: I thought I made the reason for the necessity of evil clear? If a willful virtuous creature is responsible for his behavior and responses to stimuli that threaten or enhance his life, adverse conditions must exist as the stimuli to motivate his will towards virtuous behavior and scientific responses. All I am arguing for are the conditions whereby evil and suffering could manifest…not that it has to manifest in any specific way or degree.

koy: One of the things you pointed to as evidence of this progression was, erroneously, humanity conquering death, which as we both now, apparently, agree, has nothing to do with the "greatest moral good" standard, so I guess I'm now at a loss as to why you brought it up in the first place.

rw: There is nothing erroneous about humans conquering death…we do it everyday. We buy time and extend our lives as long as possible. It has become the source of a great deal of science and medicine. Such science and medicine exemplifies man’s virtues and thus expresses steps towards man’s greater good. You, on the other hand, appear to be erroneously extolling death as a positive value and a motivating factor towards an undefined “improved behavior”. I await further expansion from you on this claim.



koy: So? What is the qualitative significance of pointing this out? The only manner in which we would be "less than" the maker is in that initial uncaused-cause dilemia.

rw: The qualitative significance runs much further than this. But I will reserve this question for a more in depth analysis later, as my time is limited and I wish to address some other arguments in this thread. I’ll be back.