Castle Paradox

Bagne · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:54 am Post subject:

I should add:
Just because this good/evil spectrum exists, this doesn't mean that an objective good doesn't exist.

I've spoken with many people who are aware of the relativity of good and evil and they conclude that there therefore is no such thing as true goodness, and that the idea of "good" is entirely a human invention.
In other words, they believe that murder is bad and heroism is good only because most people tend to think this way.

While I can't prove them wrong, I don't think it's necessary for them to arrive at that conclusion. An objective good very well can exist as an ideal, while everything on the spectrum is approximating that ideal.

J_Taylor · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:40 am Post subject:

I agree. With everything. Yes, I believe GOOD exists. I, personally do NOT agree with the concept of EVIL, though.

I believe murder is not GOOD, obviously. But does that make it EVIL? Well, if the world was going to explode and only you held the secret to save it (just an example...) and somebody was going to kill YOU, would it be EVIL to kill them? I believe not. Obviously, killing one person would be more desirable than letting the world exploding and intrinsically killing everybody.

Ironically, Star Trek had this theory to a degree. For those of us who've seen it, remember 'The many over the one'? I believe that was a Vulcan concept (go figure) They were considered the most logical beings in creation. Does that mean they were evil for even considering killing one/less over killing many? Not in my opinion.
_________________
Elemental: .75%
Heart of Darkness: 0% (crash)
The Mansion: .05%
Shattered Alliance: .05%

See a pattern forming? I do, dammit.

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:53 am Post subject:

AJHunter · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject:

J_Taylor · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject:

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

2 words: Free will.

Somehow I think I'm copying my brother...

...

Oh... I didn't mention that, did I? Well I will now. Dracon and I are brothers. Just as an FYI, in case you guys notice similarities in the way we talk.
_________________
Elemental: .75%
Heart of Darkness: 0% (crash)
The Mansion: .05%
Shattered Alliance: .05%

See a pattern forming? I do, dammit.

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject:

Camdog · Joined: 08 Aug 2003 Posts: 606

I've always found it strange that people insist on god being both all-powerful and all-good, and then jump through all kinds of logical hoops to explain how the current state of the universe jives with that idea of God.

A deist might say god created the universe, but now does nothing to influence it, either by choice or inability. I guess some might say a being must be all good and all powerful to be termed god, but it seems to me that a being that created the universe and decides the fate of my soul could be reasonably called god, even if that being exerts no control over the physical world.

Philosophersnet.com has a neat quiz about ideas of what god is and how well they stand up to logic. It's thought provoking and pretty fun, even if you disagree.

Moogle1 · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject:

Shadowiii · **It's been real.** Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 2460

I bit one bullet; but when I went back and picked the other answer (just to see), I was hit by the bullet, so I couldn't win. Huh.
I took no hits, though. Really cool test; I enjoyed it.
_________________
But enough talk, have at you!

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject:

J_Taylor · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject:

Bagne · Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:43 am Post subject:

@ James
I think I follow you.

I too took a hit on the Loch Ness.
And I too was frustrated with the wording.

My problem was this:
They said something like "After considerable investigation, you find no evidence of the Loch Ness ..."

And this was regarded as analogous to "Without a compelling argument or evidence for the existence of God ..."

I don't think it is - and this misunderstanding is basically what triggered my long debate with Moogle. If you're engaging in "considerable investigation" I would assume you're testing hypotheses and so on. If you test your expectations, and get nothing, I would consider this evidence that your expectations are wrong.
This is different to simply having "no evidence" for the existence of the Loch Ness, or "no evidence" for the existence of God.

Am I just trying to force an unintended meaning to these statements?
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation

J_Taylor · Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:37 am Post subject:

@Bagne: No, I don't think you're trying to force a meaning into that. I got that impression, too. Quite irritating, actually. but it was an interesting quiz.
_________________
Elemental: .75%
Heart of Darkness: 0% (crash)
The Mansion: .05%
Shattered Alliance: .05%

See a pattern forming? I do, dammit.

Bagne · Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:16 am Post subject:

That quiz was neat.

Are there others about other cool philosophical issues?
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation

msw188 · Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 1041

I agree with James about the wording. I didn't realize it until I tried taking it myself. They use the word 'justified', not reasonable, and I think James' compaint about the Loch Ness is perfect. Indeed, in the lack of evidence, I find both belief and non-belief to be justifiable, which is why I answered that God becomes a matter of faith. I don't see why this would be a logical contradiction.
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161

This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com