Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
In case you weren't aware, that question is pretty much what this debate is about.
This. As a christian I strongly believe God did indeed give us free will, in which we used it to perform immoral or wrongful actions ( evil ). Evil exists as a contrast to good . I also believe that the imperfection solution is false. The imperfetion solution is heavily based on the definition of perfection. If god was perfect, how can he not create beings as perfect as he is.
I'll play devil's advocate for the moment.
Firstly, because you said you were Christian, I thought I'd let you know is that the Christian definition of evil is that it's the absence of good, not the opposite, there's a difference.
I'm not talking about making people unforgettable, I'm talking about him making the massive joint hallucination unforgettable.
However, it would be much more benevolent then letting evil do its work. And why should an all powerful god care about inefficiency? He can do anything and everything at once
Most of those points are irrelevant. Having laws to prevent evil is fine, but what if there's no evil to prevent, they don't matter anymore, so how does that work to the detriment of mankind?
Then it begs the question why can't everything else be unforgettable? And that goes into why aren't we unforgettable? These questions would eventually lead to a questioning of God's nature and as such become a detriment to him.
He should worry about inefficiency because the method you brought up is inefficient. This hallucination would have to happen in batches compared to the the continuous process we see today.
If there is no evil present, then how do we know what is good. Where do we find pleasure? A lot of things you experience in your life have no meaning. We basically become dull existence. We lose the thrills of life by getting rid of evil. Have you ever experienced thrills in your life?
Note that you used the word "horrid". Why exactly is that horrid?
Yet you demonstrated your own morals as I pointed out above.
As well as a world sub-par to what we have now.
Define "thrill". For me, entertainment has nothing to do with conquering evil.
Yes, I'm pretty sure stoning is like taking a walk in the park.
I agree, moral is a key part of society. However, som things have been invented with out criticism (by that i mean criticism was not a huge factor in the development), so we wouldn't have an IQ of zero.
This is true. Read whichever chapter of the bible Adam & eve are in.
We derive pleasure from entertainment correct?
The two sentences I put in red conflict each other.
(Devil's advocate moment) That's assuming that what the Bible says is true. What evidence is there that makes the Bible more able to be trusted than the Torah?
Can't argue with this. Point for salt.
*facepalm* I really have to start looking for typos. There's supposed to be a "not" in between "was" and "a".
I should really word my sentence differently. If god comes into play, this proves he did not create evil. I, personally, don't think he exists.
I didn't say that the absence of pleasure is evil. I'm saying that because pleasure is good. And you can't define good without evil. That thrills and such would have no meaning. Things like roller coasters or your favorite book lose their value.
Oh, okay. So in referencing what it should say:
All right then.
And isn't the opposite of good evil? When most people think the opposite of having fun, they think being bored. That is the "equation" I'm using.
You've misinterpreted the point. The point I'm arguing against assumes there's no evil present. You're putting the label of evil on something confirms my point against this argument
The situation proposed in this post assumes there's no evil. So in opposition to this, I say pleasure has no meaning. For you to come back and being bored must be evil basically confirms my initial assertion. That pleasure would be pointless and that a lot of good things in life lose their meaning.
Tell me what the purpose of a roller coaster is. Tell me what the purpose of a children's picture book is.
I'll admit using the word "all" was an overstatement. Still things such as the skyscraper, electricity, and various forms of technology would not be refined to where they are now if it wasn't for people taking criticism and using that to their advantage. Though as you said, some knowledge would still exist.
Good can exist with out evil, and evil can exist without good. The two are not tied together.
I assume by "criticism" you meant criticism that the person then edited their theories or product because of the criticism. As much as I know, issac never changed his theories.
How can evil exist without good and vice versa if you cannot define good without first knowing what evil is and vice versa?
The pleasure response in the human body is activated whenever something "good" is happening to an individual. Dopamine is released whenever we feel pleasure, it's what give a person their "happy" feeling. Serotonin, regulates your mood. So during times of pleasure Dopamine levels are high and Serotonin levels are low.
He did have to refine some of his theories. For example his paper on the nature of color.
You may know what the "evil' is, but it does not have to actually exist at the moment.
Yes, but you seem to consider happiness to be "tied in" with it's opposite.
Let me ask you, When you're having fun, do usually consider it good or evil?
However, I don't remember changing some of his more famous theories, such as the laws of gravity.
The situations calls for if it doesn't exist ever. So my question still stands.
I consider good to be tied in with evil due to how we can't define one without the other. Being happy is a good thing. (At least to me it is), but I wouldn't know that being happy is good without knowing what evil is and what it feels like. In a sense like that I could say that being sad is a result of evil.
I consider it good. Having fun with my buds is always a nice misadventure for me. xD
The point still stands that even Newton refined his theories after some criticism
I don't know why you feel that way. My title isn't directed to any specific person. I more so have it to fit the expression of my avatar. I wouldn't be that discreet as to my feeling about a person.
Back to what you said earlier, i'm pretty sure the system would still act up even if there was no evil. Organs (or systems) don't think. they just do.
See my response above. Being sad could be a response of evil in you're opinion. if a person has to stop smoking, yet he has been addicted for so long, is his sadness a result of evil?
Yes, i understand about the black & white thing. However, if i put in into "colors", do you have to know one color if you want to understand the other one?
Well, what would you think would be the opposite of that, the "evil"?
The point also stands that one of the most groundbreaking discoveries of science didn't use "criticism".
Ok then
Then what do we label this "acting up"?
Key words in red. To the smoker for the first few weeks of quitting, yes. His sadness is do to a result of his feeling deprived of something that he thinks he needs. He feels slighted by this and is sad about it. While in the long run things may turn out for the better, in the present he feels wronged.
Why would you put good and evil into colors? Colors are definite (provided people commonly accept what we call Red and Blue etc but that's a different story), good and evil is not. The black and white analogy does not associate good and evil to colors but instead shows that not everything can be attributed to extremes, as you attempted to do with pleasure and boredom. The analogy itself is general.
I would consider that to be pain. In my case.
We can't be too sure about this. If you read in the biography, Hooke and Newton had an exchange in letters concerning gravitation. The biography doesn't show what the letters entailed, but we do know that Hooke and Newton weren't the closest of people. I won't assume that there was criticism in the letters, but I believe that it was highly likely. I'll see if I can't find a site where it gives the contents of these letters.
Acting up would be when the system triggers.
Yes, but to most people, the reason why he's sad is not evil (it could save his life)
To tell you the truth, I don't know why I picked colors. But, in its defense, try mixing colors. Would it be easy telling me which color each of those were?
If you couldn't feel pain, would you still feel happy about your misadventures?
Don't you think, if newton used the criticism, it would be mention it somewhere?
Can you call it evil?
In your opinion. To the smoker trying to quit, he feels he's depriving himself of something his body "needs". And he's sad, do you think he does not feel slighted in anyway even if he decided upon quitting himself?
Again, I don't see the connection you're trying to make. We can tell what a color is because a color is definite. But to answer your question if you mixed Red and Blue and got Magenta, then I could tell you what the colors are. What the color I see and what the two colors that made it were. (Colors we perceive is also something identified in science, which is why I could tell you with certainty what color I see and what two colors make it unless it's a primary color)
If by "you couldn't feel pain" you mean that pain doesn't exist. I'd have to say no. What makes one happy is up to interpretation. One cannot not know what truly makes them happy unless they know what makes them experience pain or suffering.
Newton hated Hooke. He wouldn't give an ounce of credit to Hooke even after the letters. He even went so far as to remove any mention of Hooke from future papers he wrote.
The system activating? I would say it is nether good nor evil.
Meh, I guess you're right. However, that still doesn't eliminate the fact that he is sad for a good cause.
The color point is stupid. I realized that.
They just have to know. For example, I would consider the opposite of having fun getting tortured, yet I have never been tortured in my life.
Yes, but don't you think Hooke could've told the people something?
Getting tortured may be one of its opposites. However, it can also be "getting bored", and you probably got bored at least once in your life. Maybe that's why you know when you are having fun.
I see. But what of the results of the system's functions?
The tobacco industry doesn't think it's a good cause, they're losing money.
Because I'm arguing that a world without evil wouldn't work. One can't specify what it is because of how variable it is, and we can't define what we think is evil without first knowing what good is and vice versa.
See above. Also, have you ever seen someone be tortured?
Of course.
That's ok, it's an easy mistake to make.
That is also good nor evil, but can be interpreted as either thing.
Though probably more people care that the person has stopped smoking than the tobacco industry losing money.
What about "killing for a good cause"? Also, suicidal people would disagree that living is good.
My point is, when I read a biography of newton, not once had they mentioned that newton used "criticism' to change his theory.
Okay, so in a situation where we have experience no good or evil. How would we label the results of the system's activation?
Do you have proof showing this?
Depends the "good" is up to interpretation by the person doing it. Killing the leader of drug cartel may seem good in the eyes of the killer but what about those members of the cartel? They don't see this as good.
Read between the lines. Everything I've told I've derived from that biography.
Instinct is the best guess. However, you call for just no evil and not no good or evil, so the answer for the latter wouldn't be the same.
More of common sense really. Your friend stopped smoking! Would you be happy that your friend stopped smoking, or sad that the tobacco industry is losing Money?
If you kill the leader of a drug cartel, his commrades would be sad because they cannot, in most people's opinion, spread misery as effectively.
Don't you think, for something as big as that, you wouldn't need to read between the lines?
It would be better if you said "Though probably your friends care that you have stopped smoking than the tobacco industry losing money" instead of refering to people as a whole. We live in a capitalist world, where earning or losing money is usually more important than people's health.
When you said "more people care", a lot of interpretation could be given. I thought you were refering to people as whole, but I probably misunderstood what you meant. Nevertheless, I still think that it would be better if you said "your friends" instead of "more people."
I've all ready pointed out how intuition isn't the best answer in discerning what is good or evil.
"common sense" isn't proof unless you're talking about Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." What would the world be like if everyone said "common sense" was the reason behind why everything worked? Why does Red and Blue make Magenta? Common sense?
While some people outside of the cartel would scream bloody murder and others rejoice. So how can you say that an action is objectively good or evil or neutral?
Reading between the lines is something you should do anytime you read an article, book, report. etc. The ability to draw conclusions that aren't directly stated in the text by using what is in the text is important because not every source is going to say word for word what you're looking for.
No, I understand you argument. That we cannot have good without evil.
Apparently, from your first paragraph, it seems that you are refusing to believe common sense. And, from my guess, so you can support your argument. However, I'm pretty sure most people believe common sense (which i got from common sense).
Well, lets say that the Leader had killed several people by selling them drugs. What do you think is wrong with killing a, by most people's standards, evil person to save the lives of several others?
Yes, I understand that, but my point is that for something as big as "newton got help for his laws on gravity", don't you think they should just say it?
What, is this like "above average" in how long a debate goes? And have i ever said "your arguments are wrong"?
Common sense isn't a viable reason or source to cover for a blanket statement like the one you made. Reason being I only need one example that runs counter to your statement and your whole point falls apart. Just like the next blanket statement you made in the last sentence of the paragraph. You have no proof or sources to back up your information so why I should I believe what you're saying to be true? Someone can say anything and defend his/herself with "common sense".
It's likelihood of the outcome doesn't matter. The fact that the outcome can happen defeats your point.
Murder is murder, regardless of who it is or what justification there is behind it. If I viewed murder as evil then I would view the killing of that man as evil.
For what reason? The content of the biography is completely at the author's discretion. We have no idea what factors affected the way he/she wrote the biography. Maybe the author felt that a reader would be able to infer that detail using the other facts provided.
I was comparing the length of our debate to the biography of Newton. I'm not sure as to where average is here. As to your second question, I don't think you have, but I can infer that because if you didn't think my arguments were wrong, then you wouldn't be making a counterargument in the first place. Evidence being this debate. (Unless you're playing Devil's Advocate.)
