The Best of All Possible Worlds

Originally posted by brobluto
How are we to know what "perfect" is? Define perfect.

In this context it is the state for which there is no better state. We may not know what perfect is, but if we can imagine a better state then we are in then we can know whether or not we are currently in a perfect state.

You may argue that we are in a perfect state, but I suspect you simply want to avoid such a dubious claim by haggling over the definition of words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In this context it is the state for which there is no better state. We may not know what perfect is, but if we can imagine a better state then we are in then we can know whether or not we are currently in a perfect state.

You may argue that we are in a perfect state, but I suspect you simply want to avoid such a dubious claim by haggling over the definition of words.

No, I am simply implying that your "perfect" is different than my "perfect" and they are different from everyone elses.


Imagining a better state is not the BEST state. I'm sure that if you think it all the way through, which no one is really capable of doing, that you would circle back to where we are now.

"Philosophy will lead a man away from God. A little more will bring him back."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you are still avoiding the question. Which of the three O's does God not have?

[b]would you say that this world was not awesome when it was created?
Yes but maybe not totally awesome. Though I don't know what you mean by 'when it was created'. Are you a young earth creationist?

would you agree that by depriving us of some actions(constra ...[text shortened]... w you are contradicting yourself. If he is controlling it then he is constraining free will.

b]Yet you are still avoiding the question. Which of the three O's does God not have?[/b]
i said in a previous post that god is certainly not omnipotent. omniscient is pretty tricky to argue and deserves a separate thread. omnibenevolent means nothing. who's notion of good? maybe good has a different meaning for a being outside of time. so what question will you ask next now that i answered this question. I only avoided the question as you said because i answered previously

secondly
larry flint said that freedom is not lost all at once, but little by little. pretty deep for a guy who sells porn isn't it?

if you are for God taking away the ability to kill would you support genetically altering unborn children so they are more submissive? or giving the whole population some drug to make them less prone to violence?EDIT: because i won't

Now you are contradicting yourself. If he is controlling it then he is constraining free will
no i am not. where did i say he is controlling it? i said intervening in a controlled way, not that he is controlling it. if you want to debate me read all my post not just skim through it. When he sent jesus to preach a new way(compassion as opposed to the old testament psycho god) he was not restraining our free will but adding some new data into the equation.

Originally posted by brobluto
No, I am simply implying that your "perfect" is different than my "perfect" and they are different from everyone elses.

And I agree with you, but I still maintain that it is not important to the discussion.

Imagining a better state is not the BEST state. I'm sure that if you think it all the way through, which no one is really capable of doing, that you would circle back to where we are now.
I don't think I understand you. Are you saying we are currently in the BEST state? I don't agree with you and suspect you don't really believe it yourself. In fact you are contradicting yourself by claiming that no-one is capable of thinking it through yet simultaneously claiming you know what the answer would be. I suspect you are just trying to insure yourself against contradiction ie if I tell you you are wrong you can come back with "you cant possibly know that".

"Philosophy will lead a man away from God. A little more will bring him back."
A comforting phrase - but I don't think it is supported by the evidence. Can you show that all serious philosophers are theists?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i said in a previous post that god is certainly not omnipotent. omniscient is pretty tricky to argue and deserves a separate thread. omnibenevolent means nothing. who's notion of good? maybe good has a different meaning for a being outside of time. so what question will you ask next now that i answered this question. I only avoided the question as you said because i answered previously

Sorry, my fault. I missed your previous answer.

secondly
larry flint said that freedom is not lost all at once, but little by little. pretty deep for a guy who sells porn isn't it?

if you are for God taking away the ability to kill would you support genetically altering unborn children so they are more submissive? or giving the whole population some drug to make them less prone to violence?EDIT: because i won't
Why wouldn't you? The only reason I wouldn't is the possible side effects. If I found a drug whose only effect was to prevent people from murdering then I would definitely prescribe it to the whole population if I could.
Now, do you believe in having a police force? If you do then you are contradicting yourself.

no i am not. where did i say he is controlling it? i said intervening in a controlled way, not that he is controlling it. if you want to debate me read all my post not just skim through it. When he sent jesus to preach a new way(compassion as opposed to the old testament psycho god) he was not restraining our free will but adding some new data into the equation.
And that new data is a partial constraint. It doesn't matter whether it only affects your decisions by 0.00001% - any effect at all is an effect and constraint and therefore contradicts your claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, my fault. I missed your previous answer.

[b]secondly
larry flint said that freedom is not lost all at once, but little by little. pretty deep for a guy who sells porn isn't it?

if you are for God taking away the ability to kill would you support genetically altering unborn children so they are more submissive? or giving the whole population ...[text shortened]... 001% - any effect at all is an effect and constraint and therefore contradicts your claims.

😀 kind of big brother of you.

the police is there to police the guilty. what you are proposing is policeing all the population. there is a slight difference.


by your views i keep contradicting myself. maybe you are trying to tell me in a polite manner that i bore you and you are tired of this conversation.
are you saying that free will exists only in the case of complete lack of information?
fine if you want i will rephrase. by sending jesus god added information that restricted our free will but not our ability to choose how to act on it. it is like saying "A new shipment of cookies have arrived at the supermarket". you can choose to go get some or not

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, my fault. I missed your previous answer.

[b]secondly
larry flint said that freedom is not lost all at once, but little by little. pretty deep for a guy who sells porn isn't it?

if you are for God taking away the ability to kill would you support genetically altering unborn children so they are more submissive? or giving the whole population ...[text shortened]... 001% - any effect at all is an effect and constraint and therefore contradicts your claims.

Why wouldn't you?

this deserved a separate post.
answer: because it is evil. and i would rather die than live in slavery

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I agree with you, but I still maintain that it is not important to the discussion.

[b]Imagining a better state is not the BEST state. I'm sure that if you think it all the way through, which no one is really capable of doing, that you would circle back to where we are now.
I don't think I understand you. Are you saying we are currently in the ...[text shortened]... t is supported by the evidence. Can you show that all serious philosophers are theists?[/b]

I do believe that we are in the BEST state. Everything is harmony. You may not like it, but it works. Anything less than the best would not work.

I am not contradicting myself by saying that no one can understand it. The universe is infinite, and so are the repercussions of our actions, or inactions. We are finite beings. Therefore, we can not possibly understand ALL of the consequences stemming from our decisions. We only look at how it will effect us in the short term.

I believe the interepretation of "God" in the quote is to be a form of higher power, whether that be the CHirstian God, Muslim God, the First Mover, "that then which no greater can be thought", whatever. Show me a serious philosopher that doesn't believe in a power/force greater than themselves.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this deserved a separate post.
answer: because it is evil. and i would rather die than live in slavery

It is not slavery.
Why is it evil to stop murder?

the police is there to police the guilty. what you are proposing is policeing all the population. there is a slight difference.
But in this case we are only stopping the guilty so there is no difference between the proposal and policing - unless by 'police the guilty' you mean it is OK to arrest those who have committed a crime but evil to stop them from committing the crime in the first place.

So, do you think it is evil for banks to have safes. After all, they are preventing the whole population from committing bank robbery. Isn't that sooo big brother of them. We must all be given the free will to rob a bank as and when we choose. Banks safes are slavery! Viva bank robbing!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by your views i keep contradicting myself. maybe you are trying to tell me in a polite manner that i bore you and you are tired of this conversation.

No, I am trying to tell you in a polite manner that you are contradicting yourself. If you bored me I would simply not bother posting.

Originally posted by brobluto
I do believe that we are in the BEST state. Everything is harmony. You may not like it, but it works. Anything less than the best would not work.

How is that not a contradiction? You say we are not in the best state then say we are. Which is it?

I am not contradicting myself by saying that no one can understand it. The universe is infinite, and so are the repercussions of our actions, or inactions. We are finite beings. Therefore, we can not possibly understand ALL of the consequences stemming from our decisions. We only look at how it will effect us in the short term.
The contradiction I was referring to was your claim that you knew the answer to be found after doing something impossible.

I believe the interepretation of "God" in the quote is to be a form of higher power, whether that be the CHirstian God, Muslim God, the First Mover, "that then which no greater can be thought", whatever. Show me a serious philosopher that doesn't believe in a power/force greater than themselves.
Take your pick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheist_philosophers

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not slavery.
Why is it evil to stop murder?

[b]the police is there to police the guilty. what you are proposing is policeing all the population. there is a slight difference.
But in this case we are only stopping the guilty so there is no difference between the proposal and policing - unless by 'police the guilty' you mean it is OK to arre ...[text shortened]... he free will to rob a bank as and when we choose. Banks safes are slavery! Viva bank robbing![/b]

They are not removing free will to rob a bank. Just more difficult.

You have to realize that free will isn't about getting everything you want just because you want it. It's about deciding on something and having the ability to work towards it.

AND THERE IS NO EVIL! Things are the way they are. DEAL WITH IT!

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not slavery.
Why is it evil to stop murder?

[b]the police is there to police the guilty. what you are proposing is policeing all the population. there is a slight difference.
But in this case we are only stopping the guilty so there is no difference between the proposal and policing - unless by 'police the guilty' you mean it is OK to arre ...[text shortened]... he free will to rob a bank as and when we choose. Banks safes are slavery! Viva bank robbing![/b]

So having locks on your door is the same with genetically alter the humans to be more submissive. hmmm.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
So having locks on your door is the same with genetically alter the humans to be more submissive. hmmm.

You are trying to use a strawman. I did not say "genetically alter the humans to be more submissive", I specifically said a drug to stop people from murdering with no other side effects.

And yes, the effect is the same and you know it or you wouldn't be trying on the strawman.

Originally posted by brobluto
They are not removing free will to rob a bank. Just more difficult.

So if I invented a drug that made is more difficult to murder with no other side effects it would be equivalent wouldn't it? Would you object to prescribing it to everyone?

AND THERE IS NO EVIL! Things are the way they are. DEAL WITH IT!
I don't remember claiming there was evil. But there is nothing wrong with me calling a particular action 'evil'. It does have a meaning.