Who Wins: Good or Evil?

[aguy2]

OK?

Shall we take a look at 'your' very 1st phrase?

To whit: "I'm saying that you're assuming"

 

The rest is punching around straw men of your own construction.

 

You are telling me that 'the reason the Creator of the Universe did so' was to "set up straw men and punch them around".

 

Well, I must admit it is rather fun.

 

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 had been hoping that you would do my work for me and dredge up the rather weak litany of 'christian' theological reasons why 'the Creator of the Universe did so'.

 

You know "set me up some straw men"

 

aguy2

 

Ps. If you would really want me to 'pick the strawmans bones', I'll be glad to do a critique of your treatment. Just say, "OK".

[Sisyphus]

What? Is that a strawman? I don't understand. You did say, "If the universe were created perfect, wouldn't it be so stabile there would be no need for change?" That's an assumption behind your hypothesis, yes? I was offering another alternative that allows for both an omnipotent creator and a changing universe.

[aguy2]

You did say, "If the universe were created perfect, wouldn't it be so stabile there would be no need for change?"

 

Sisyphus! I did not say, I asked! You're confusing a 'statement' from what is called a 'legitimate question'. The question rephrased as a statement would be something like, 'If the universe were created perfect it would be so stable as to be static and unchanging or deteriorating'. This statement could be seen as being supportive of my contention that in most cases 'ideal states of perfection' are illegitimate and undesirable goals, but is in no way supportive of my 'signiture paradigm' except possibily in a negative sense.

 

I was offering another alternative that allows for both an omnipotent creator and a changing universe.

 

If you want me to do a critique of your treatment, just say, "OK".

 

aguy2

[Sisyphus]

Sigh. Sure looked like a rhetorical question to me, but whatever. I don't know if I'm prepared to defend a Leibnizian system, since I happen to think the whole thing is bunk, as well, for my own reasons. But hell, I'm curious. So:

 

"OK."

[aguy2]

For purposes of brevity and ease I am going to insert my critical comments in brackets.

 

I'm saying that you're assuming that a perfect state is a static one [a perfect state could not improve' date= stasis or deterioration would seem to be its only options], 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 [creativity would seem to imply change, so I would see great difficulty for something that exists in a state of stasis to be able to create anything] 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. [a perfect series of events occuring in the best of all possible worlds as a manifestation of true goodness might have some possibility, but observation would seem to indicate this is not the way things are.] Thus what you call the "means" (i.e., the sum of events which take place in the universe) is really one big end. [i can see some verity in the line of reasoning: ends cannot justify means because the means are also ends, but I really don't see what you or Leibniz mean by "one big end"]

 

To look at it another way, since time is just a property of the physical universe [i don't think we know enough about the possible natures of time to make such a confident statement], then an omnipotent creator god must [the use of the term 'must' would seem to place constraints upon the Creator of the Universe that quite likely do not exist] exist outside of it, viewing all events simultaneously, seeing the whole universe at once as a completed thing [i would think the Creator might possibily view its creation in this manner, but it is highly unlikely to be bound by its contraits. Especially if this state would prove to be non-creative], a thing which is nothing less than the perfect manifestation of a perfectly good and omnipotent being's will. [again observation would seem to indicate that this does not seem to be the case with the universe we exist in]

 

aguy2