(February 26, 2015 at 4:04 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: You're on a valid path with your ultimate form of evil, you should tease that out and see where it goes. It's an equally valid concept worth considering as it seems that in order to feel that something g is good, you kinda need a scale, huh? So without bad, what meaning could good have? I just think the word "evil" muddies up the water because it usually carries a supernatural connotation. Fun talk though, enjoy the link!

Well, could we not also understand "evil" to mean the absence of goodness rather than a positive reality of "evil-ness"? In an imperfectly analogous way: we speak about light and darkness. Darkness isn't a positive reality in itself. The word merely signifies the absence of a positive reality, i.e. light.

The "lowest" "amount" of goodness would actually be nothing, i.e. the absence of being. The highest amount of goodness would be complete/full/fulfilled being. A good person would be, therefore, synonymous with a person who lives the most completely human, i.e. perfect <=> lacking nothing proper to humanity, fullness of humanity, fulfilled humanity, etc. life (which begs further questions about that sort of life). An evil person would therefore be synonymous with a person who lives a life which lacks a significant amount of those things that would fulfill a human's being.

I think it is time to leave the concept of positive evil behind us.

---

(February 26, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 25, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Does every person agree about how they think other people should act towards them?

I think people of sound mind do. Do you want to be kicked in the face? No? Then don't do it to me.

What if you ask that question to a person and he says "yes, I want to be kicked in the face" instead of "no"? Is he just a statistical outlier . . . or is he wrong about what is good for him?

Do you kick him in the face? Do you let him kick you in the face? How do you resolve the conflicts with the people whose minds you consider "not sound"? I am authentically curious.

@The Reality Salesman, that is a good point. I have a gut feeling as I read @Ignorant's definition and conditional deductions that there are a lot of missing steps and undefined terms. The definition of good seems unnecessarily complicated by claiming that "goods" are for the sake of other "goods". I assume this derives from a desire to show that all natural processes drive toward "goodness itself" which we arbitrarily name "God". (Why not "pasticholony" instead of "God"?)

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "good", they define "evil" to be the absence of "good". I imagine this is a way to thwart any argument that this type of definition could be restated with "evil" replacing "good"? God cannot be "evilness itself", because "evilness" isn't anything?

@Ignorant, is your definition the same as Plato's definition and the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia? I think your definition assumes a background in philosophy, and this is why it seems so nebulous to me. (I don't know how to criticize your definition, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean due to my lack of background knowledge.)

(February 26, 2015 at 5:48 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: The definition of good seems unnecessarily complicated by claiming that "goods" are for the sake of other "goods". I assume this derives from a desire to show that all natural processes drive toward "goodness itself" which we arbitrarily name "God". (Why not "pasticholony" instead of "God"?)

No, we don't arbitrarily name it God. All of the goods we seek, we order according to what we have judged will obtain happiness. Happiness is the "final" good in that chain of goods, not necessarily "goodness itself". As I said earlier (Here), "goodness itself" may not even exist, but that does not mean that "a goodness that obtains human happiness (i.e. fulfillment, completion, etc.)" doesn't exist. I have only suggested that such a good doesn't seem to exist in our universe (at least no one has found it yet). If such a good did exist, every single human being would be selling themselves short if they did not order their every action to obtaining it.

Quote:In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "good", they define "evil" to be the absence of "good". I imagine this is a way to thwart any argument that this type of definition could be restated with "evil" replacing "good"? God cannot be "evilness itself", because "evilness" isn't anything?

=) Despite your experience of Christians on the internet, the Christian tradition did not define terms with the sole intention of "thwarting arguments" from atheists! =) Terms are described in a such a way that they can be used with as little ambiguity as possible in as many different contexts as possible.

But also consider a different implication for humanity by understanding evil this way: If evil is the absence of good, then YOU or I could never be completely "evil" either. There is some hope for humanity in that understanding... at least for me.

Quote:@Ignorant, is your definition the same as Plato's definition and the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Which definition? About Goodness? No. The one about Aristotle seems closer to my position. The "Scholastic Doctrine" has some issues, but this part is pretty close (but there is a lot of philosophy in the background, FYI):

"Being and the good are objectively one. Being conceived as desirable is the good. The good differs from the true in this, that, while both are objectively nothing else than being, the good is being considered as the object of appetite, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect."

"The privation of any of its powers or due perfections is an evil for it, as, for instance, blindness, the loss of the power of sight, is an evil for an animal. Hence evil is not something positive and does not exist in itself."

Quote:I think your definition assumes a background in philosophy, and this is why it seems so nebulous to me. (I don't know how to criticize your definition, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean due to my lack of background knowledge.)

That is fine. Allow me to attempt a less-philosophical description:

Q1) What do you want?

A1) "Gn"

Q2) Why do you want Gn?

A2) "So that I can get G(n+1)"

Q3) Why do you want G(n+1)?

A3) "So that I can be happy"

According to your (i.e. everyone's) own personal judgment, you (everyone) think that this...

You => Gn => G(n+1) => Happiness

...will work (i.e. actually bring us happiness) in reality. We all plan and order our actions thinking that this will happen for us. Goodness is the "aspect" of things the provide the actual reason to seek them, and we seek them in such a way to bring us happiness.

That is the subjective part of goodness. Goodness is the reason you try to get something, or the reason why you try and do something.

Q4) Did you get Gn?

A4) "Yes"

Q5) Did Gn get you G(n+1)?

A5) "Yes"

Q6) Did G(n+1) get you happiness?

A6) "No"

Gn, because it ACTUALLY led to getting G(n+1), is OBJECTIVELY GOOD for the sake of getting G(n+1).

Seeking happiness through the actions of getting Gn and then G(n+1), because it FAILED at getting happiness, IS OBJECTIVELY NOT GOOD for the sake of getting happiness.

This is the objective part of goodness. When we seek things that WE THINK will bring other goods that we want (ultimately being happiness), we know we were right if they actual bring us what we want (like Gn bring g(n+1)), and we know we were wrong if they don't bring us what we wanted (like when we thought Gn and G(n+1) would bring us happiness).

(February 25, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: Volunteered over Christmas in Sierra Leone to help combat ebola.

God gives everyone a conscience. Glad to to hear that you listened to the soft still voice and had the ability to act upon it. All that is left for you to do now is recognize the source of the voice and thank it.

(February 26, 2015 at 9:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 25, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: Volunteered over Christmas in Sierra Leone to help combat ebola.

God gives everyone a conscience. Glad to to hear that you listened to the soft still voice and had the ability to act upon it. All that is left for you to do now is recognize the source of the voice and thank it.

These are just empty claims and you know it.

Thankfully many religious people manage to be decent people DESPITE their religions.

(February 26, 2015 at 9:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 25, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: Volunteered over Christmas in Sierra Leone to help combat ebola.

God gives everyone a conscience. Glad to to hear that you listened to the soft still voice and had the ability to act upon it. All that is left for you to do now is recognize the source of the voice and thank it.

My god given conscience tells me the bible is bullcrap. I guess he screwed up. Then of course there are the complete sociopaths who don't have empathy by definition.

@Ignorant, thanks for the further explanation of you definition (G(n), objective/subjective, etc.). That gets me closer to understanding your definition.

One thought: is there only one "goodness itself" that satisfies all the desires for each human? Connecting "goodness itself" to "God" (monotheistic) implies that one size fits all.

I wonder if a decision tree would be a clearer explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree ). Each node in the tree would have a probability function describing the expected goodness from that decision ("subjective goodness"). After making that decision, the probability becomes a certainty ("objective goodness"). And if the person reaches a node where he/she never wants to leave, then we call that "happiness"/"goodness itself"/"God". But this is making God a subjective human state of mind. (IMO it would be better to say "expected goodness" and "actual goodness" instead of "subjective goodness" and "objective goodness". Nobody can measure the "goodness" except the experiencer, so it is still subjective even after it is experienced. Another minor point is that the actual results of each decision create an entirely knew decision tree to strategize about.)

Of course a given human state of mind might correspond to many nodes in the decision tree (if it can be reached in many different ways). But why can't there be zero-to-many distinct human states of mind that are completely satisfying - even for a single human? IMO the human states that are completely satisfying are different for each person. I don't know how God fits into the definition. (We could define "completely satisfied" to be when you are experiencing goodness that is better than any goodness that you can imagine attaining by deciding to change your state. This stopping state might actually be inferior to previous states of goodness, but it is where you decide to give up before you make it worse.)

Probably I'm still misunderstanding.

(February 26, 2015 at 2:04 am)Godschild Wrote:

(February 25, 2015 at 10:31 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Just calling them as I see them. If you don't like your willful ignorance being called out, do something to fix it.

You're blind as a bat.

You calling someone blind would be funny if it weren't so sad.

You consistently make baseless assertions with absolutely no evidence to back them up while denying established science with plenty of supporting evidence.

Buy a clue GC.

---

(February 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Positive claims entail the burden of proof, and "the geologic column does not exist," is a positive claim. Are you seriously telling me you've been here for as long as you have and you don't understand such a basic concept of argumentation?

You underestimate the power of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Both are strong with this one.

(February 26, 2015 at 9:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: God gives everyone a conscience. Glad to to hear that you listened to the soft still voice and had the ability to act upon it. All that is left for you to do now is recognize the source of the voice and thank it.

yeahhhhh no... were just electrical synapsis and grey matter buddy that is pretty much the human brain and consciousness in a nutshell.