Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,Again, no. Just because you decide to redefine what "bad" means doesn't mean something is actually bad. Say we rate all experiences on a scale , where 0 is totally neutral, -100 is extremely painful, and 100 is extremely pleasant. You're acting as if we need the existence of negative numbers to be able to distinguish between the positive numbers, when that plainly isn't the case. If I need people to be starving to be able to appreciate my burger (or veggie burger), that just makes me a dick. It doesn't make the burger bad. If the only "unpleasant" experience you have ever had is a burger when you want steak how can you say it wouldn't be awful to that person without resorting to your own experience? How can you say "burger but not steak" is objectively good without resort to your own experience? And you are completely ignoring the "burger for vegan" problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Scot, do you not understand burden of proof?You mean like providing evidence that could validate any of religions' grandiose claims? Shouldn't that be the first step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Just because you decide to redefine what "bad" means doesn't mean something is actually bad.So who gets to say what is actually bad? This depends strongly on culture and there is little agreement on the issue. Even things which are obviously unpleasant like pain and death are considered valuable in some cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM, If the only "unpleasant" experience you have ever had is a burger when you want steak how can you say it wouldn't be awful to that person without resorting to your own experience? How can you say "burger but not steak" is objectively good without resort to your own experience? And you are completely ignoring the "burger for vegan" problem.Pretty easily. If I enjoy a burger, i don't stop enjoying it just because I've also had steak. I just enjoy it a little less than the steak. If something comes along even better than steak, I don't stop enjoying the steak, either. The idea that I would seems very weird to me. How would you ever enjoy anything in life if that is your attitude? And "burgers" and "steak" are meant to symbolize 'good' and 'better' here, not actual burgers and steak, so please drop this vegan burger thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 You mean like providing evidence that could validate any of religions' grandiose claims? Shouldn't that be the first step?Tywin,Because claimes regarding religious faith are, after all, hypothesises offered under the framework of Scientific Method.KOM,easily. If I enjoy a burger, i don't stop enjoying it just because I've also had steak. I just enjoy it a little less than the steak. If something comes along even better than steak, I don't stop enjoying the steak, either. The idea that I would seems very weird to me. How would you ever enjoy anything in life if that is your attitude? And "burgers" and "steak" are meant to symbolize 'good' and 'better' here, not actual burgers and steak, so please drop this vegan burger thing. It's no "my attitude". It is my point regarding someone who's only experice is something that is less than what they desire which, if it is that person's only ever less than pleasant experience is in their experience "bad". Your enjoyment of a burger and steak is with reference to a broader experience that, presumably, includes hunger. That wouldn't be the experience of the person in the hypothetical world without pain. As such getting the burger when you want Steak could be, to that person, a "bad" experience. It is only silly when you refer back to the real world where real pain and other bad things exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,It's no "my attitude". It is my point regarding someone who's only experice is something that is less than what they desire which, if it is that person's only ever less than pleasant experience is in their experience "bad". Your enjoyment of a burger and steak is with reference to a broader experience that, presumably, includes hunger. That wouldn't be the experience of the person in the hypothetical world without pain. As such getting the burger when you want Steak could be, to that person, a "bad" experience. It is only silly when you refer back to the real world where real pain and other bad things exist.Again, you're just redefining the word 'bad'. Fine. I'm saying that a world in which 'bad' means 'the lesser of two things I enjoy' is both possible and preferable to the world we live in. If you're saying that without pain you simply wouldn't be able to enjoy pleasure... I must admit I don't really understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Again, you're just redefining the word 'bad'. Fine. I'm saying that a world in which 'bad' means 'the lesser of two things I enjoy' is both possible and preferable to the world we live in. If you're saying that without pain you simply wouldn't be able to enjoy pleasure... I must admit I don't really understand that.KOM,I'm not "redefining bad". I'm pointing out that "bad" would be perceived quite differently in a world where "bad" things, as you define them, cannot occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,I'm not "redefining bad". I'm pointing out that "bad" would be perceived quite differently in a world where "bad" things, as you define them, cannot occur. You are though. You're insisting that in the world I've posited, "bad" would be used to refer to burgers as compared to steak. I'm saying that in that world, the word 'bad' wouldn't need to exist at all since, as you stated, bad things (as we currently know them) wouldn't occur.Maybe a different example would be better, since hunger is somewhat intrinsic to the enjoyment of food. What about reading a good book? I don't enjoy reading Crime and Punishment because I'm in some type of pain right now from not reading it. I just enjoy it. I also don't need Twilight to exist in order to enjoy asoiaf. In this hypothetical world, everything would be like choosing between a bunch of books you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,If you have "better and worse" in my opinion you end up at "good and bad". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,If you have "better and worse" in my opinion you end up at "good and bad".I don't think that's necessarily the case. For example, I like The Empire Strikes Back and The Force Awakens. I think the Empire Strikes Back is better. However, this does not lead me to conclude that The Force Awakens is bad, even if those are the only two movies in existence. If you want to say that The Force Awakens is 'bad' by virtue of being worse, I think that's a different definition of the word 'bad' than what is commonly meant by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,You are, again, presuming an objective standard. If the only two movies you've ever seen are TESB and TFA one becomes worse than the other. One is "bad" and one is "good" because that is your entire universe to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Scot,I'm not presuming an objective standard. I like one better and one worse. However, since I enjoy both of them, I consider them both good. There are no bad movies in my two-movie universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Risto,Exactly, In a perfect universe where nothing "bad" ever happens how would we know our existence is "good" with no "bad" to compare it to? The alternative that it is wrong for us to exist in anything but perfection, again, seems like a resort to nihilism.In this universe with no evidence of the existence of a god bar what people experience in their own mind how would people know there is a god? And since people are convinced there is a god, why does it seem impossible for them to know about "good" and "bad" in a hypothetical universe where neither does exists (in the way we define it)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Reading the debate over good and evil kept making me think of Zoroaster. Digging around I found this pretty interesting tree of influence/lineage so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Seli,The debate arose because people were condemning Christ as being cruel and capricious because he only healed a few rather than healing everyone for all time and eliminating all pain and suffering. In other words all "bad" things. As such Risto and I pointed out that creating a universe were nothing "bad" was possible and where free will existed seems logically problematic. I also pointed out that in a Universe were we evolved to consciousness it is possible that the deceases that plauge mankind may have evolved along with us and be a necessary evil in the process of that evolution. Finally, I pointed out that to a being with, at a minimum, godlike power and knowledge that there may be broader impacts to healing everyone and eliminating all disease that we cannot see but they can and as such there may be unseen reasons why full healing and the end of all disease may not be practicable.In any event whatever your believe or non-belief I hope everyone has a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 That's a straw man.I never place any requirement to heal all people for all time. My argument was1) He had no problem healing lepers. He had no problems giving his followers commandments to do things. Apparently both could be done without throwing the universe's cosmic balance out of wack or trashing free will.2) Were he divine, he should have known how to stop the spread of that particular disease - washing hands (EXTREMELY effective against Leprosy)3) When given the opportunity to spread information about the importance of washing up, he ridiculed the people who did practice good hygiene.Therefore: Either he did not care enough about those he healed and those who were outcast to give them a simple command (ORHe didn't know that germs exists and / or they can be controlled by washing your hands.Apparently Altherion's answer to this problem is Jesus only heals when he gets buzz marketing from it.Anyway - you are totally trying to expand the scope of my statement to make it fit the argument you want to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 BR,If you're going to nitpick about who and when Christ healed why wouldn't you ask why he didn't heal everyone for all time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisch Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 For what it's worth...I think of religion as a cocktail of history, mythology, philosophy, and ceremony, with a twist of personal experience. Like all cocktails, it's not for everyone and proves dangerous when abused, but in the right doses, it's great to share with loved ones and can get you through a lousy week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Because he demonstrated that he was willing to heal Lepers. He did it often. We have a use case that healing those with Leprosy doesn't cross the streams / break the prime directive. He did it. He healed at least 11 of them. I am willing to examine things at that scope, but then your answer to that becomes circular, and textbook special pleading. You blow it out of proportion because you don't want to answer the question at its core, as outlined above. At least that's how I see it. Is your contention that healing a 12th would deny us "free will"? Or do we lose "free will" only if Jesus had said "You know what - you are right - we should wash up. It will save lives" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 BloodRider, I'm not sure which parts of my post you are replying to (I see only that you quoted me; there is no text inside the quote), but my point was that there is no natural stopping point. If he had healed a 12th, somebody in the resulting reality would be asking why he didn't heal a 13th. If he had taught them about hygiene, somebody would be asking why he didn't also teach them about antibiotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.