Question 2

Originally posted by Lord Shark
wolfgang59,

[b]I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.

I don't think it is cheating either. Intuition is only useful up to a point. When you start to look at the alternatives to compatibilist free will, for example the various flavours of libe ...[text shortened]... of god's design. That is to say, the best of all possible worlds has the possibility of evil.[/b]

Thank you.

I particularly like

"That is to say, the best of all possible worlds has the possibility of evil."

Originally posted by Lord Shark
That is to say, the best of all possible worlds has the possibility of evil.

Of course, we then enter the thorny issue of defining "evil".

Yes in this context it is difficult. Even the simplistic definition of evil as 'not good' can come unstuck.

Consider a world where its possible to give a numerical value to every deed.
Good deeds are valued at +1, +2, +3 et cetera.
Bad deeds have negative values.

A worthy and wise man is given a wish by his fairy godmother and he decides to eliminate all future evil from the world.

QUESTION: Would not the low ranking 'good deeds' become evil? The numerical value is arbitary so we could just normalise our system and set +10 as the new zero.

Basically is 'evil' relative or is it an absolute?

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course, we then enter the thorny issue of defining "evil".

I usually find definitions quite tricky. The definition of evil is a thread in itself. 🙂

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes in this context it is difficult. Even the simplistic definition of evil as 'not good' can come unstuck.

Consider a world where its possible to give a numerical value to every deed.
Good deeds are valued at +1, +2, +3 et cetera.
Bad deeds have negative values.

A worthy and wise man is given a wish by his fairy godmother and he decides to elimin ...[text shortened]... system and set +10 as the new zero.

Basically is 'evil' relative or is it an absolute?

I think it depends on the kind of relativity that is meant, but within a religious framework it is easiest to argue for a kind of moral objectivism, within which the standard of goodness is absolute and part of god's nature. Although some believers will still want to argue that there is no way humans can appreciate 'good' without a frame of reference that includes 'evil'.