Originally posted by brobluto
This is my point. You can't concieve the good of it because you don't know all of the consequences, or the effects that were set in motion because of it. (also, your own morales effect your judgement)

What if a rape was the catalyst that sent the cops looking for the rapist, but led them to a terrorist cell just before they could leave to blow something ...[text shortened]... g.

There is no evil and there is no good. things just ARE, right wrong or indifferent.

a dictator invades a country and kills thousands of people. you being a business man go there and get a contract that makes you millions of dollars. and you donate half of that to charity. would you say that you being able to donate those money to charity makes what the dictator did any less evil?


and we are not talking about going back in time and killing hitler. we are talking about what is good and evil. it can be argued that out of every evil event, something good will eventually happen because event set in motion by any action will create all kinds of ripples. but that doesn't make the first act necessary or any less evil.

so you are saying that given the choice to save one woman or letting that woman die to save three is excusable or morally correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So based on your comments, am I correct that you do not think that the current world is the best possible world?

of course not. we say it is not true every day when we get out of bed and try to improve our lives. if we would be content with what we have, all human life would eventually die.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course not. we say it is not true every day when we get out of bed and try to improve our lives. if we would be content with what we have, all human life would eventually die.

So a perfect world is one in which all human life has died out?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So a perfect world is one in which all human life has died out?

if we would say that no improvement can be made to our world, we would have no reason to exist. and then we would die, either for real or figuratively speaking. so that world would not be a very desirable place.

now we are going into the meaning of life debating.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if we would say that no improvement can be made to our world, we would have no reason to exist. and then we would die, either for real or figuratively speaking. so that world would not be a very desirable place.

now we are going into the meaning of life debating.

So you are saying that a perfect world cannot exist? Or that the best possible world cannot exist?
Lets see.... A world which cannot be made better is worse than a world that can be made better. So making a world better until it cannot be made better is in fact making it worse.....
I give up. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
A world which cannot be made better is worse than a world that can be made better.

That doesn't follow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying that a perfect world cannot exist? Or that the best possible world cannot exist?
Lets see.... A world which cannot be made better is worse than a world that can be made better. So making a world better until it cannot be made better is in fact making it worse.....
I give up. 🙂

it is an infinite process. so the perfect state is never achieved. so by making it better you are not making it worse because you are never getting close to the perfect state (which i say would be the end of humanity)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That doesn't follow.

It does according to Zahlanzi.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is an infinite process. so the perfect state is never achieved. so by making it better you are not making it worse because you are never getting close to the perfect state (which i say would be the end of humanity)

Its not so much that a perfect state can never be achieved but rather that there is no such thing as a perfect state because a perfect state requires there to be a better state to aspire to hence creating an incoherency.

But in the light of the theme of the original post, do you agree that the fact that the world is far from perfect is an indication that God could have done better and thus one of the popular claims listed by vistesd must be wrong?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
a dictator invades a country and kills thousands of people. you being a business man go there and get a contract that makes you millions of dollars. and you donate half of that to charity. would you say that you being able to donate those money to charity makes what the dictator did any less evil?


and we are not talking about going back in time and kil ...[text shortened]... oice to save one woman or letting that woman die to save three is excusable or morally correct?

I'm saying that your categorization of a dictator invading a country as evil is ill-founded. Prove that it is evil and define evil.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not so much that a perfect state can never be achieved but rather that there is no such thing as a perfect state because a perfect state requires there to be a better state to aspire to hence creating an incoherency.

But in the light of the theme of the original post, do you agree that the fact that the world is far from perfect is an indication th ...[text shortened]... t God could have done better and thus one of the popular claims listed by vistesd must be wrong?

How are we to know what "perfect" is? Define perfect.

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

define love

or peace

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not so much that a perfect state can never be achieved but rather that there is no such thing as a perfect state because a perfect state requires there to be a better state to aspire to hence creating an incoherency.

But in the light of the theme of the original post, do you agree that the fact that the world is far from perfect is an indication th ...[text shortened]... t God could have done better and thus one of the popular claims listed by vistesd must be wrong?

but i am trying to explain that. would you say that this world was not awesome when it was created? would you say that it is not our fault entirely for messing it up? and would you agree that by depriving us of some actions(constraining our free will) is not a desirable thing because one you take away some liberties you will eventually take them all?

for this matter this world is awesome. not the best world possible, god gave us a good start and the ability to improve ourselves and the world we live in. it is our job to care for us now. god will only intervene from time to time in a controlled way (maybe when he sent jesus)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but i am trying to explain that.

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

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(constraining our free will) is not a desirable thing because one you take away some liberties you will eventually take them all?
No I emphatically disagree and so does most of the human race. I am a strong supporter of taking away the liberty to kill and a number of other liberties besides. In fact I would strongly support it is God chose to make it impossible to kill, steal, enslave and rape.
I also think your claim that taking one liberty guarantees the loss of all liberties is nonsense and you know it.

for this matter this world is awesome. not the best world possible, god gave us a good start and the ability to improve ourselves and the world we live in. it is our job to care for us now. god will only intervene from time to time in a controlled way (maybe when he sent jesus)
Now you are contradicting yourself. If he is controlling it then he is constraining free will.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
define love

or peace

I'm not using love or peace. I'm using perfect. Perfect is the way things should be. Flawless.

Edit: Whether or not you agree with it is your fault, not god's