When you become a God, will you use evil the way God does?

That's exactly the point. A baby can't survive unless other members of the species put its welfare before their own. Why do they do that? To promote the survival of the species.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My birth was neither good nor evil, in my POV. At times my mother probably wavered between thinking it was evil and at other times good. Good and evil tend to be determined by how we feel and emotions waver. So if good and evil are not absolute, I don't see how they can exist. They are mental constructs, imaginative ways of describing things in relation to how things make us feel.

The only thing certain about my birth is that it happened. And as a result, I will certainly die at some point. What happens between the two events is anyone's guess, and still neither good nor evil. Stuff just happens and we deal with it and move on. My cat died this past week. There was no deep reason for it. No godly plan. It hurt me when he died. But to assume any event is either good or evil suggest that events themselves have intentions. They don't. Events are not living things. They do not feel. They do not plan. They just happen.

People can plan. People can feel. People can intend things. If anything can be described as good or evil, I would only loosely use it to describe intentions. But then again, if you tell me you intend to euthanize a living thing. Some may say your intentions are evil, playing god. Others may say your intentions are good, being merciful, preventing suffering. So you are again back to that good/evil existing only in the mind of the beholder. Along with beauty and other such adjectives that express how we feel about objects or events.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. But our first instinct is selfishness. We head for the breast.

What came first? The chicken or the egg?

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not know what to say to one who values his life so little that he does not see his birth as a good thing.

Regards
DL

 

If the mother was selfish, she wouldn't feed the baby. Her "first instinct" is the survival of her offspring.

The egg, of course - and I've never heard of a selfish egg. The chicken risks her own life to protect it.

 

Risk, perhaps. Give it up, not likely.

Does the mother not need to insure she is alive to feed her baby?

It is well accepted that all altruistic acts have a self-serving aspect to them.
Self sacrifice is extremely rare in nature. In fact, I cannot think of any cases and have not seen any.

Humans will do it but I think our thoughts can trump instincts. I do not think the lower animals can.

Regards
DL

 

No. She needs to insure that somebody is alive to feed her baby.

You've never been stung by a bee? Never heard of anybody who was?

Self-sacrifice is not "exremely rare". It's virtually universal in social species. It's the whole point of being social.

 

Obviously, everyone won't manage it to the same degree that i do, any more than other gods' creatures manage to emulate their various perfections.
I only ask that they try. No sound annoys me like the grinding of axes.

Indeed. Scribble, scribble, lecture, type. Libraries, colleges, conferences, journals, internet.

What has the dysfunction of war-like empires and their weapon cults to do with knowledge?

Main conduit of knowledge from one generation to the next. If we don't want to share knowledge, why do teachers exist?

------------------

Did you miss the part about immortals not needing to reproduce?
But if my creatures wish to reproduce, i won't make them leap through flaming hoops over so simple a matter. Line forms to the right, one papoose each; read instruction booklet carefully; enjoy in good health.

Or are you failing to distinguish between the natural world as we find it prior to the invention of gods and the intelligently-designed one you asked us to describe?

 

I value my life, but I keep my reality in perspective of all that exists rather than allowing my head to swell assuming I am more important to the world than I am. I matter most to those close to me and that's good enough for me. But had I not been born would it matter? Would you or anyone else miss me? Absolutely not.We don't miss what we never knew or had. If I had not been born, my children would not exist either. For all the bad decisions I have made in life, one could say that anyone I have hurt in my life would not have suffered the pain I caused them had I not been born. But chances are they would have felt pain from someone else if not me and my affect on their life is in reality quite minimal in the grand scheme of things. The only lives I have had a strong affect on are the lives of my children. Had I not been born, they also would not be here so life minus me causes no significant pain that didn't or wouldn't already exist in the world. Think about the infinite personalities that do not exist today simply because they were never conceived and/or born. Can you say with certainty that our society is at any particular loss for it? Sure we can imagine that maybe an exceptionally smart individual who could have solved medical mysteries such as the cure for AIDS or Cancer was aborted and we will continue to fight sometimes in futility against these illnesses. The reality is that very few people, relative to how many people have ever lived, have actually contributed anything major to the world society that their existence created some lasting change or positive influence. So few in fact that there are a finite number of books dedicated to them. And most people get through life just fine not knowing the names of a large percentage of those historical figures. Also, had Thomas Edison not invented the light bulb, someone else would have. So in reality Thomas Edison wasn't that important in terms of the light bulb. He, with an assistant, was just the first to figure out how to get them to stay lit for a long time. Historical figures, especially inventors get famous only because they are the first to invent something, not because they were the only one who thought of it or the only ones capable of pulling it off.

Sure I may say something so profound on an online forum that stops someone from killing themselves. but if I manage to inspire someone to live, most likely that person wanted to live anyway and sought out an excuse to do so and would have found that excuse somewhere else had I not existed.

IMO, humanity's value comes from the amalgamation of every thing every human being has accomplished and/or experienced. Humanity as a whole has significant value to itself. But individuals, while wisely valuing themselves on a personal level, are insignificant to the value of humanity in general.

Your body as a whole is a significant machine that can accomplish many things. All of its parts working in harmony to sustain them all. But if for some reason a few cells are killed or removed, the tonsils maybe, the value of the body is the same. It can still function just fine and accomplish anything it otherwise could without those few cells being in tact.

We tell our children that they are each unique from an early age in order to instill self esteem. We need this illusion to motivate us to be the best we can. Otherwise we may just roll over and wait for death. The greatness of humanity is dependent on the illusion of greatness among the individuals. We all know we are part of something greater than what we individually are. But many of us assume there is some mysterious superbeing that gives us purpose. In reality the greatness we are part of is humanity itself. We owe it to humanity to justify our existence by being the best person we can, and to contribute to the progress of our species. But to assume an individual birth or existence in general is good or evil is presumptuous. What happens between birth and death are what matters the most.

 

I see where you are at.

I was thinking higher orde animals, families and herds. Not hives. True that there is self-sacrifice in hives. Their members are built for it and warriors are not breeders.

The queen of a hive will not die for her offspring.

Regards
DL

 

Well I was trying to talk of evil as the O P indicates. We are getting into creating a new nature for man, education and population control so I admit I was not prepared to take off on so many tangents.

Your system seems to also have a lot of hands on and direct interference which is a far cry from the reality most of us are used to. That allows for so many options we could chat forever.

Thanks for clearing up that teacher thing. It was just the way you had written it. I have no argument against.

"What has the dysfunction of war-like empires and their weapon cults to do with knowledge? "

You may not be aware of how the U S and Russia stripped Germany of most of it knowledge, in terms of scientists and technical manpower right after the war. This is my example of people not sharing knowledge.

Regards
DL

 

Now I have a better view of where you are at.

I agree with much of this but I did note a crack or two.

You indicated that good and evil are perceptions and not real or absolute. I agree.
Those perceptions still make us happy or sad so the emotions they bring out are real.

You cannot deny your perceptions and do class them as good or evil.
"I matter most to those close to me and that's good enough for me."

"We tell our children that they are each unique from an early age in order to instill self esteem."

Why?
Is it good or evil to have self esteem?

When your children were born alive and well, was that good or evil,----- regardless as to how important or not you think they are to the world?

Regards
DL

 

I just realized that I didn't properly read the OP. Let me give a more appropriate response.

The existence of evil can only be if there is a God declaring absolutes in terms of morality. This being said, the only way any God can rid the world of evil is for the God to cease existing or to become apathetic to the state of humanity. In terms of evil, anything that displeases God would be evil. If God stops caring one way or another, then nothing would please or displease him/her. Such apathy then eradicates the existence of good or evil.

 

Then again, i may be fully aware of the weapon-research personnel rescued/kidnapped/captured/salvaged/escaped from post WWII Germany. And so, insane warmongers keep secret their destructive inventions and a whole new insane spy industry is built on that secrecy. I don't think we missed much, being excluded from that arcana; nor did the German people become ignorant. Knowledge can be taken away only by the destruction of its repositories: books and brains. War and religion destroy both.

 

Yes. If a God cared, he would show it one way or the other. He does not from what I can see.

For all we can see, God has never declared absolute good and evil.
In fact, all that God is said to have said has always come from the mouth of men. Perhaps that is why any message God wants to convey is so hard to dither out. It is not from him it is from men.

Immoral men at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

I would say more delays than destroys but other than that, no argument.

Regards
DL

 

It's true of social species in general. "Higher orders" like primates have more complex and less rigid social structures but the purpose of social structures to still to promote survival of the species, not the individual. And evil is usually defined in terms of an individual putting himself before other individuals or the group. Evil is inherently social, not individual.

 

Did you accidentally reverse your last?
Or is it the way I read?

While I have your ear, have a quick look at these.
There is a good chance that you know the information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6dTU7KVpsg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfZd1lVZvo&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

No. It's what I intended to say.

The "cause" of altruism isn't really relevant. Whether the individual benefits from its altruism or not, the overall effect of altruism is a social one. The group benefits, regardless of the "motivation" of the individual. The converse, "evil" behaviour, has a detrimental effect on the group. In species that are not social, how could an individual commit an evil act against itself?

As for outside entities, such as predators or gods: Is a lion "evil" because it eats? Your OP question is the equivalent of asking a zebra, "If you were a lion, what would you do?"

 

I see how you are using the language now.
Thanks.

Regards
DL