From: fxpcd@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Peter Dolan)
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.002052.5691@news.cs.brandeis.edu>  
st911306@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Tox) writes:
> the one problem i see with the way this argument is running is that we  
have
> defined God as being entirely good, thus necessitating (spelling) the  
existance of a devil.  but what if, as some believe, God is both good and  
evil, and
> the devil only serves as a sort of prosecutor to show how weak we poor  
slobs
> truly are?
> 
> sorry if that complicates things (no i'm not). 
> 
> l'shana tova
> scott, st911306@pip.cc.brandeis.edu

Okay, the plot thickens... And here's the other message too

     Article <1992Sep30.002052.5691@news.cs.brandeis.edu> quotes Tox:

=the one problem i see with the way this argument is running is that we  
have
=defined God as being entirely good, thus necessitating (spelling) the
=existance of a devil.

     Why does God "being entirely good" imply the existence of a devil?

                                     ---Kevin Simonson


Okay.  I don't think the existance of an entirely good being presuposes  
the existance of a devil.  As a matter of fact, I was sort of implying the  
opposite in the second of my two possibilities.  As a short recap:  If the  
goodness or evilness of an act, depends upon the goodness or evilness of  
its antecedants, then the creation of the universe by an essentially good  
being should mean that there is no evil in the effects of the creation.   
This doesn't of course rule out the existance of a devil inside of  
creation, only an evil one... but... if there was an evil entity which  
existed BEFORE creation (obvious philosophical discussion point here) that  
has the ability to interfere with creation, then we start to have a little  
fun.  If the goodness and/or evilness of an act depend upon antecedants,  
and the source of evil interefered near the beginning, then we have almost  
all actions being tainted by this evil, a constant battle between good and  
evil within every act.  With this in mind I see several possiblities:   
One:  Only the antecedants determine the goodness, or evilness of an act.   
Two:  The antecedants plus the effects of an act determine the morality  
(I'm getting tired of writing goodness and evilness) of an act
Three:  I'm missing some other possibility.
	Possibility one is interesting.  In this case, most acts, are  
simultaneously good and evil, coming from both good and evil sources.   
There may be a few cases of pure good, and pure evil, but the very fact of  
observing them, probably corrupts them in some manner.  Can this goodness  
and evilness be measured?  Does this lead us back the the quantum idea of  
good and evil?  Have we moved from the objective source of good and evil  
to subjective?  I have a lot more I can say, but I'm going to refrain so  
this post doesn't get too long
	Possibility two is even more interesting.  If the goodness and  
evilness also depends upon the effects of an act then we won't know if an  
act was good or evil until the end of the universe.  In this manner, I can  
envision a cosmic struggle between two forces, who are attempting to bring  
the universe to such an end that the morality of all actions within that  
universe have been defined as either good or evil.  Sounds like one of  
those problems in quantum mechanics, where the state of a system isn't  
determined until it has been observed, and observation consists of ending  
the universe.  But, anyhow, with the existence of both good and evil in  
every act, how can one act, free itself of its taints to make a  
determinism?  Is there a constant reintroduction of good and evil from our  
hypothetical sources that can make an act pure, or unpure?  Are people  
supposed to act as conduits for these forces so they can dampen out the  
effects of an opposing force in the hopes that the final state of the  
universe will make their side win?  Of such things are religions made...
	Well, I've rambled enough.  I want to see what other people have  
to say.  Thanks for listening 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc