Actually, I don't either . It's just that some comments feign
'pith' when there is little there to show for it.
I can understand God's goodness in the face of many things (all things I
suppose), but I don't subscribe to the notion of evil (this puts me at
odds
with lots of religious people of course). I guess I've struggled with this
for a long while, but I've concluded that there doesn't have to be the
duality of good and evil for good to exist. Bad certainly exists, but I
don't believe in evil. Even bad people can be do good in select
circumstances. Certainly, the reverse is true.
At least you've invested some thought in the issue. That's more than
many others do. I think that when the discussion comes up, the terms
need to be clearly defined. It can be asserted that 'good' has no
meaning if there isn't 'evil.' The one is defined in some part by the
other. I wish I had finished G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica." I had
started it last winter, and I put it down in the middle of his
defining "good." Maybe I'll be able to finish it when I retire, if I
ever get that far :)
That's certainly one way to look at it, but if you believe that God can only
be good (to the the tune of Johnny Be Good of course), is all powerful, and
all knowing, then how can evil really exist? Not to be too heavy about it,
but it's more on par with Plato than Aristotle, the latter of which bores
me, so I tend to dislike and discount his arguments.
So, if I make a logical argument, but I mis-spell a word, the logical
argument is "good," but does that make the mis-spelling evil? I claim it's
bad but not evil. Maybe that's a stretch.
Similar Threads
Franken!!!
Threaded Mode
