Science vs God - a debate...a conversation

[ajwps]

Pointing back to the original text, why is the precept that Evil as the absence of Good any more valid than Good being the absense of Evil.


I've seen a much simpler form of this obviously creative writing endevour involve this false assumption.

The logicial argument following the students claim should have been the professor questioning why photons as light resemble good more than evil.

In the classroom, a real matter would be the discussion of why exactly the reverse could not be true, that Evil itself exists and Good in fact is the lack of Evil. And therefore Satan exists while God does not.

You just can't address the validity of faith in such a logical venue.

Comrad the only thing Dilloduck doesn't question is his own existence which I am afraid is gravely in doubt.

 

[Zhukov]

And I again find myself running into obvious inflexible and intransigent views

This statement of yours is a perfect example of one who wears blinders

Concrete thinking again? To take your agruement a little further and out of the realm of rigid thinking,

your fixed reality of the order of things.

your obstinate fixed rigid view

Your typical of the observer who sees a large tree but misses not only the individual leaves but also the life functions in the tree that allows it to continue as a growing living entity.[as a botanist, I must say I find this one particularly funny]

Loosen up and try to understand more than what you can hold in your visible hand....

Buddy, you have no idea concerning my way of thinking, and I certainly haven't elaborated on it in this thread. But go ahead, prejudge, ramble on, and continue to rigidly believe the student was speaking allegorically if that's what makes you happy.

You are interested in only what you consider to be an obvious flaw in the student's statement.

Wow, and it only took you four days to figure that out.

 

[ajwps]

Buddy, you have no idea concerning my way of thinking, and I certainly haven't elaborated on it in this thread. But go ahead, prejudge, ramble on, and continue to rigidly believe the student was speaking allegorically if that's what makes you happy.

Pal your thinking process and responses are as obvious as horns on a bull. Your obviously unable to accept the fact unknowingly that you have just turned your King piece down on your chessboard. You were checkmated and you obviously know it.

Wow, and it only took you four days to figure that out.

Exactly. It is obvious you cannot comprehend even the simplest realities of the universe and what you see and feel instead of how you see and feel.

 

[Zhukov]

You were checkmated and you obviously know it.

Again, if it makes you happy to believe that.

 

[popefumanchu]

Have to agree with Zhukov and Bully on this. You can easily witness human behavior and actions, are they controlled by god? How? Second of all, evolutin has been proven thorugh and through.

I was also wondering. If god made us, and love us, why did he create hell? Why make us imperfect then challenge us to be perfect? Why create a punishment for acts he has developed us to do?

Can you witness the reason behind the behavior and actions? Can you observe a mind, consiousness, or a soul? NO.
Evoulution has not been proved. That is why it is called a theory.
If we do not have something to strive for, how can we achieve excellence? You being a socialist, I can understand why you might not understand this.

 

[dilloduck]

Can you witness the reason behind the behavior and actions? Can you observe a mind, consiousness, or a soul? NO.
Evoulution has not been proved. That is why it is called a theory.
If we do not have something to strive for, how can we achieve excellence? You being a socialist, I can understand why you might not understand this.

Why is it that you believe that we are not excellent already? If we are not,which is the correct way to strive?

 

[popefumanchu]

We are devine by nature, yes. However, it is through one's choices and actions that one rises above and achieves what one desires most. Those who understand what is right and good strives to become as good and correct in thier deeds as possible. One who does not strive for something better stagnates, or, in harsher environs, dies. Competition with ones baser instincts, surroundings, and rivals brings higher purpose. Fulfilling one's potential is the purpose.

 

[dilloduck]

We are devine by nature, yes. However, it is through one's choices and actions that one rises above and achieves what one desires most. Those who understand what is right and good strives to become as good and correct in thier deeds as possible. One who does not strive for something better stagnates, or, in harsher environs, dies. Competition with ones baser instincts, surroundings, and rivals brings higher purpose. Fulfilling one's potential is the purpose.

You are simply assuming that there is something " higher " or "better". You have counted yourself out before you have begun.

 

[ajwps]

Why is it that you believe that we are not excellent already? If we are not,which is the correct way to strive?

We are certainly excellent already. Humanity murders, steals, covets, rapes, makes wars, commits incest and generally is excellent in our humanity body's health and ways of living this short life.

Humans have a myriad of illnesses (acquired or inborn) and injuries to our frail very short lived bodys. Some humans are born deformed or dead.

To make a statement about human excellence is only viable to some of humanity but on whole is incorrect.

You ask how do we correct or strive to become excellent?

Use our intellect to improve humanity's health through research and development of everything existing in our solid reality.

To have mercy on our fellow man, do justice, give charity and walk in the ways of righteousness instead of evil. That is all we can do.

 

[dilloduck]

We are certainly excellent already. Humanity murders, steals, covets, rapes, makes wars, commits incest and generally is excellent in our humanity body's health and ways of living this short life.

Humans have a myriad of illnesses (acquired or inborn) and injuries to our frail very short lived bodys. Some humans are born deformed or dead.

To make a statement about human excellence is only viable to some of humanity but on whole is incorrect.

You ask how do we correct or strive to become excellent?

Use our intellect to improve humanity's health through research and development of everything existing in our solid reality.

To have mercy on our fellow man, do justice, give charity and walk in the ways of righteousness instead of evil. That is all we can do.

I was merely debating from the stand point that much of what society calls bad or evil is a judgement call based on nothing but the popular thougt of the day.

 

[ajwps]

I was merely debating from the stand point that much of what society calls bad or evil is a judgement call based on nothing but the popular thougt of the day.

Exactly what 'day of the week' do you believe brings on your concept for that 'popular thought of the day?' What "society" are you talking about?

Exactly from where do you consider the laws came from which Americans now have a justice system with a delicate balance between mercy and justice in this our country?

Do you think that your 'judgement calls' are based on the popular thought of the day and are just fleeting concepts in society's fertile and changable state of mind?

Your logic appears to think that mankind can just innately come to conlusions about complexities of right and wrong, good and evil?

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly what 'day of the week' do you believe brings on your concept for that 'popular thought of the day?' What "society" are you talking about?

Exactly from where do you consider the laws came from which Americans now have a justice system with a delicate balance between mercy and justice in this our country?

Do you think that your 'judgement calls' are based on the popular thought of the day and are just fleeting concepts in society's fertile and changable state of mind?

Your logic appears to think that mankind can just innately come to conlusions about complexities of right and wrong, good and evil?

and which "system" has been devised that determines right from wrong?

 

[ajwps]

and which "system" has been devised that determines right from wrong?

Let me see? You ask which 'system' gives mankind the concepts between good and evil or right and wrong or just and unjust.

Hmmmm.... That 'system's' origin is unknown and has been lost in the sands of time. But the 'system' is not just vagaries of any society's thoughts from day to day. Elsewise this system would vary from day to day and county to county.

DUH.....

 

[dilloduck]

Let me see? You ask which 'system' gives mankind the concepts between good and evil or right and wrong or just and unjust.

Hmmmm.... That 'system's' origin is unknown and has been lost in the sands of time. But the 'system' is not just vagaries of any society's thoughts from day to day. Elsewise this system would vary from day to day and county to county.

DUH.....

I guess the "system" must be innate then!

 

[ajwps]

I guess the "system" must be innate then!

Innate but operative and functions to this very day....

 

[dilloduck]

Innate but operative and functions to this very day....

In spite of us all--

 

[popefumanchu]

Give your life to God. Learn and live according to His word. Always learn, improve yourself, and grow. Set an example for your children. Be a positive force for your family and community. Pursue happiness.
It has worked for all who have tried it.

 

[ajwps]

In spite of us all--

These systems or rules for 'good' rather than 'evil' are not in spite of but because of your own belief in your innate instinctive personal ability to know the difference.

 

[deaddude]

Moral relativism is flawed, as is moral stagnation.

Evil is not the absence of good. I wave my hand into the air, no good comes from this but when my hand stops moving no harm has come from it either. This action was devoid of any good, yet it was devoid of evil. It was neutral.

To use the analogy of darkness and light, Darkness is not the absence of light; it is the absence of visible light. The ultraviolet and infrared might be shining brightly, but we are merely incapable of seeing them. To retranslate this back into good and evil, we see the actions of a person; we see the most obvious form of good and evil, the visible spectrum of good if you will. To see into the other spectrums of morality we require specific knowledge of the circumstances, much as we require special equipment to view the other spectrums of light. These spectrums operate both in total darkness and in blinding light.

The spectrum of visible light goes from Violet to Red; in the analogy let us refer to the Violet as the ultimate good, and Red as ultimate evil. Green would then be neutral since it is in the exact center of the Spectrum. Now Ultraviolet would be the invisible good acting through a person and infrared would be the invisible evil. These invisible spectra cover such things as motives, and intensions. Since Violet is the furthest away is far from infrared it would be hard for an act as good as violet would be difficult too taint with evil intentions and motives.

In simpler terms is an evil act with very good motives and intensions still evil, and vice versa

Moral relativism is necessary because the circumstances do affect moral
outlook. Killing someone in cold blood is punishable by death but killing some one in self defense is not punishable at all.

 

[ajwps]

Moral relativism is flawed, as is moral stagnation.

Evil is not the absence of good. I wave my hand into the air, no good comes from this but when my hand stops moving no harm has come from it either. This action was devoid of any good, yet it was devoid of evil. It was neutral.

Actually it depends on the reason you wave your hand in the air as to whether it is for good or evil.

If you wave your hand to another as a signal to warn of danger approaching you have made 'good' come from it and conversely, if you wave your hand in the air to direct another to their death, you have made 'evil' from waving your hand. So strickly speaking if it depends on the circumstance and use of waving your hand in the air.

To use the analogy of darkness and light, Darkness is not the absence of light; it is the absence of visible light. The ultraviolet and infrared might be shining brightly, but we are merely incapable of seeing them. To retranslate this back into good and evil, we see the actions of a person; we see the most obvious form of good and evil, the visible spectrum of good if you will. To see into the other spectrums of morality we require specific knowledge of the circumstances, much as we require special equipment to view the other spectrums of light.

The physical properties aside, when you use an analogy of good as being light and evil as being darkness, then you are using these observations as moral metaphors for these two states of goodness or evilness.

For instance: Most basic knowledge: US drops A-bomb on Hiroshima, killing hundreds of thousands. With this knowledge the US appears to be the "bad guy." More knowledge: Several statisticians estimated an invasion of Japan, the alternative to the A-bomb, would have had a death toll of over one million. With this knowledge it would seem that the A-bomb was the better of the two alternatives.

So there are times when a lesser evil can become a greater good. In other words, it depends on how you use either of these two concepts. Evil can be good and conversly what appears to be for good is actually evil.

Still more knowledge: Several scientists predicted that the Detonation of the A-bomb would result in the burning of the atmosphere, destroying life as we know it. In this case the image becomes blurred, was it worth the risk? ect.

A more significant question arises from your premise. Why is that evil men with the power to destroy all life on earth, for some inexplicable reason, have failed to do so since the birth of the bomb?

Moral relativism is necessary because the circumstances do affect moral outlook. Killing someone in cold blood is punishable by death but killing some one in self defense is not punishable at all. If a god exists, hopefully (S)he is better capable of detecting the hidden spectra.

The following image demonstrates how electric fields (magenta) and magnetic fields (blue) might sweep across a ball-of-light and induce another ball-of-light off the pole.