Who Wins: Good or Evil?

[aguy2]

I was reading Revelation some other day and it dawned on me that it really doesn't give any indication who won. It doesn't even leave out the possibility of a negotiated settlement!

 

Of course M.S. might say that there could be a 'stalemate' that leads to a war of 'attrition' and no matter how many of the 'forces of evil' were killed by the 'forces of good', the 'forces of evil' always had plenty of new recruit/replacements.

 

To make a long story short the 'forces of good' finally figured out that by destroying the 'forces of evil' they were only offering up the victors as new recruit/replacements for the 'forces of evil'.

 

So they decided to 'negotiate'?

 

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

Surely the "Left Behind" series can provide all the answers you desire.

[Daecon]

The difference between ultimate good and ultimate evil?

 

It's the same difference as living in total anarchy (all encompassing evil where chaos and selfishness rules) and living in a police state (all encompassing "good" where evil is punished, no matter what the circumstances).

 

Like in that one episode of "Charmed" where the whole world was changed into being Pure Goodness - the show's creators had the right idea.

[In My Memory]

Aguy2,

I was reading Revelation some other day and it dawned on me that it really doesn't give any indication who won. It doesn't even leave out the possibility of a negotiated settlement!

****SPOILER ALERT****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I win.

[aguy2]

Aguy2' date='

 

****SPOILER ALERT****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I win. [/quote']

 

I may to showing how far behind the times I am, but what is a 'spoiler alert', also 'win' what?

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

A spoiler alert lets you know information is coming up that may ruin the ending for you. What In My Memory is going to win is the apocolypse.

[JohnB]

Since the guy in charge of the Good side also created and controls the Evil side, then isn't the whole thing just one big, long game of Solitaire?

[Edtharan]

If God is All Powerful and evil is not then there is no contest - God wins.

 

So why hasn't God done so? Could evil be nessesary, and therefor eliminating the existance of a competition (as well as the nessesity for a win)?

 

Evil may be a nessesity like death is a nessesity. Without death we do not grow (evolve), so maybe that without evil we can not grow spiritualy. In this senario good or evil can not win because there is no competition.

[ecoli]

Good always wins... because they're the ones who write the history books. THEREFORe, they say that their opinions were right.

[aguy2]

So why hasn't God done so? Could evil be nessesary' date=' and therefor eliminating the existance of a competition (as well as the nessesity for a win)?[/quote']

 

The 'question' or 'problem' you allude to is usually stated as, "Why would a benevolent and loving Creator permit the existence of imperfection or evil in its creation?"

 

If I use my 'signiture paradigm' as a working hypothesis, I can deduce that seeing as the process the universe is involved in is a 'staged process', then it might stand to reason that the achievement of any 'ideal state of perfection' would, in effect, shortcircuit the macro-process.

 

Evil may be a nessesity like death is a nessesity. Without death we do not grow (evolve), so maybe that without evil we can not grow spiritualy.

 

I think because the IDists are basically 'apologists' for the 'goody two shoes' God of conventional wisdom, they are missing the boat insofar as 'death' being a possible indication of an 'intelligent designer'.

In this senario good or evil can not win because there is no competition.

 

Good point.

 

aguy2

[Phi for All]

I may to showing how far behind the times I am' date=' but what is a 'spoiler alert', also 'win' what?

aguy2[/quote']In this instance "spoiler alert" could mean what you did to IMM's funny joke.

If God is All Powerful and evil is not then there is no contest - God wins.

This is the assumption that always spoils the whole God concept for me. I think if God exists It exists as the most powerful being, but not an "All Powerful" being. Omnipotence gives credence to the six day creation, the notion that God could wave his hands and right all wrong, and brings up the paradox of imperfection from a perfect creator.

 

Why can't God work within the boundaries of the universe and physical laws? It would have to possess knowledge of those laws that we don't in order to do the things God is attributed with, but does It have to be capable of circumventing physical laws?

 

 

As to the OP's question, doesn't Revelation end with Jesus saying the time of his coming is near and that when that happens everything prophesied about him will come true? I think that's supposed to mean his side wins.

[aguy2]

I think if God exists It exists as the most[/i'] powerful being, but not an "All Powerful" being.

Here is another take on "All Powerful":

What if our universe where a transition state between 2 radically different 'singularities'; as in a condition where there was only 'mass' and this 'mass' transitions to a state of 'mass/energy' and this state transitions to a state of 'energy'? If a state where 'all energy', wouldn't it be comparable to a state of being "All Powerful"?

 

the paradox of imperfection from a perfect creator.

If the universe were created 'perfect', wouldn't it be so stable that there would be need for change?

 

aguy2

[Phi for All]

Here is another take on "All Powerful":

What if our universe where a transition state between 2 radically different 'singularities'; as in a condition where there was only 'mass' and this 'mass' transitions to a state of 'mass/energy' and this state transitions to a state of 'energy'? If a state where 'all energy'' date=' wouldn't it be comparable to a state of being "All Powerful"?[/quote']I'm an Occam's Razor fan myself. Wouldn't it be simpler to say there might be a being who understands the physics of the universe to a more complete degree than we do?

[aguy2]

I'm an Occam's Razor fan myself. Wouldn't it be simpler to say there might be a being who understands the physics of the universe to a more complete degree than we do?

 

If it weren't for the 'questions' raised by '1st cause' I would tend to agree.

 

aguy2

[bascule]

Who wins? Depends on if you're a premillenialist, postmillenialist, or dispensationist... Christians today still argue this silly question

[Sisyphus]

Here is another take on "All Powerful":

What if our universe where a transition state between 2 radically different 'singularities'; as in a condition where there was only 'mass' and this 'mass' transitions to a state of 'mass/energy' and this state transitions to a state of 'energy'? If a state where 'all energy'' date=' wouldn't it be comparable to a state of being "All Powerful[/quote']

 

No.

 

If the universe were created 'perfect', wouldn't it be so stable that there would be no need for change?

 

Well sure, if you think God has one end state in mind that He's working towards by means of events. But why would you think that? Why can't the end be the events themselves?

[Edtharan]

Originally Posted by Phi for All

the notion that God could wave his hands and right all wrong, and

brings up the paradox of imperfection from a perfect creator.

But if God created evil as a method for us for spiritual growth then God would not be interested in waveing his hands and righting all wrong. As this would be against God's design.

 

Originally Posted by aguy2

If the universe were created 'perfect', wouldn't it be so stable that there would be need for change?

Hence my asertation that evil is a nessesity.

[Daecon]

Evil is moral entropy.

 

The Universe may have started out good - but by the end it'll be Evil.

[Sisyphus]

Evil is moral entropy.

 

The Universe may have started out good - but by the end it'll be Evil.

 

Ha. What does that even mean?

[aguy2]

Well sure' date=' if you think God has one end state in mind that He's working towards by means of events.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the Creator of the Universe did so for some reason?

 

But why would you think that? Why can't the end be the events themselves?

 

Are you asking, 'why should existence have a reason or purpose to exist'?

 

Or alluding to the line of reasoning that goes, 'Ends can not justify means, because each mean is an end in itself'?

 

Or something else all together?

 

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

I'm saying that you're assuming that a perfect state is a static one, that there is some "perfect configuration." If that's the case, then it would indeed not make sense that a perfect and omnipotent being created the universe we live in, which is non-static. But if you don't make that assumption, the contradiction (or at least that particular contradiction) disappears. Instead, there can be a "perfect series of events," a kind of Leibnizian "best of all possible worlds" in which everything that occurs is just a manifestation of true Goodness. Thus what you call the "means" (i.e., the sum of events which take place in the universe) is really one big end.

 

To look at it another way, since time is just a property of the physical universe, then an omnipotent creator god must exist outside of it, viewing all events simultaneously, seeing the whole universe at once as a completed thing, a thing which is nothing less than the perfect manifestation of a perfectly good and omnipotent being's will.

[aguy2]

I'm saying that you're assuming that a perfect state is a static one' date=' that there is some "perfect configuration." If that's the case, then it would indeed not make sense that a perfect and omnipotent being created the universe we live in, which is non-static. But if you don't make that assumption, the contradiction (or at least that particular contradiction) disappears. Instead, there can be a "perfect series of events," a kind of Leibnizian "best of all possible worlds" in which everything that occurs is just a manifestation of true Goodness. Thus what you call the "means" (i.e., the sum of events which take place in the universe) is really one big end.

 

To look at it another way, since time is just a property of the physical universe, then an omnipotent creator god must exist outside of it, viewing all events simultaneously, seeing the whole universe at once as a completed thing, a thing which is nothing less than the perfect manifestation of a perfectly good and omnipotent being's will.[/quote']

 

I was talking 'meat and potatoes' this is 'term salad'.

 

Would you care to go back 1 post and deal with:

 

"Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the Creator of the Universe had some reason for doing so?"

 

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

]Would you care to go back 1 post and deal with:

 

"Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the Creator of the Universe had some reason for doing so?"

 

Ok, then: yes.

[aguy2]

context:

"Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the Creator of the Universe had some reason to do so?"

 

Ok, then: yes.

 

Would you care to venture any speculations on what this 'reason' might be?

 

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

Well, as I've said before, I don't particularly think the idea of a Creator makes sense at all, but if we ignore that, then I think I describe the answer to your question in post 21.