(July 23, 2012 at 12:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Again you depart from the subject. Yes I know generic creation can create things of destruction.
The assignation of meaning is a simple and obvious logical step. To create = positive = good.
Once more you fail to either successfully confront the reasoning or present viable options.
You are simply wrong if you assume that creation is necessarily good. Creation is an action and has no inherent moral qualities, so your "simple and obvious logical step" is kaput. You will first have to prove that creation of ANY kind is necessarily inherently a "good" action. You also have to prove creation precludes evil of any kind.
The + and - on a bettery don't translate to good and bad, morally. the faster you process this, the better. I won't sit here and talk to you about the moral nature of the creation of a straw hat from its components, nor will I debate you on the merit of destroying said hat.
Creation and destruction aren't inherently good or bad.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
