Philosophy Paper

[turambar85]

I'm having trouble with your claim that "Throughout each of the hypothetical universes that we have analyzed, death has arguably been the greatest evil that has plagued mankind." I would argue that death in and of itself isn't evil.

Certainly, taking the life of another person can be considered an evil act, and the pain one feels before dying may be attributed to evil, and perhaps even the suffering of one in mourning may be considered a type of evil, but not death at the level of the individual (i.e. death in the ontological sense). In fact, it's beyond the scope of moral concerns in that it's natural and inevitable.

What's more, I would argue that mortality (death) is necessary to give meaning to life. In short, we value life b/c we know it will end at some point.

This is more of an existential position than traditional Christian ideology, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Well, it seems that you believe I was claiming death to be an evil from God, but that is not the case.

When I say death is an evil, I mean that it is perceived to be by the individual, both his/her own, and that of a loved one.

[turambar85]

I think your paper is good. Your case for evil as a relative concept was supported well with your Universe A-E example. But I have a couple of things about the 6 step logical chain in your conclusion:



I'm not sure that those 2 premises would be accepted by everyone.
God could then only create that which is also perfect- I'm not saying that I disagree with that myself, but I think someone could argue that God could create something that is imperfect and not lose his own "perfect" status. I'm not sure how I would counter that if I was arguing that God can only create perfection. God created the Earth, and one could certainly argue that it isn't perfect. If you have something in mind for that then I'd recommend throwing in a line or 2 to defend that premise.(EDIT: If your using that only to bridge to premise 3 then you might not need #2. You could just say in #3 that God, who is perfect, created logic and the governing laws of the universe, so they are perfect. That way you don't open up premise #2 for debate. Instead of saying that everything God creates is perfect you will only be saying that true logic and the laws that govern the universe are perfect, which is a much easier pill to swallow, I think.)
An all-loving being cannot act in any way that is self-serving - I think there could be some arguments against that as well. In the Bible God orders humanity to serve him many times. It could be possible that these self-serving actions by God are actually good for us and he tells us to do this because he is all loving. I'd recommend removing part of that line, leaving premise #5 as "An all-loving being cannot lie or mislead others". I don't think the self-serving aspect of the premise is neccessary for your argument.



I'd agree with TG on that statement; I think that argument can be made.

Again, I think it's all very good.

I would say that the Earth, for the purpose it serves, must be perfect from a Christian viewpoint. While it may not be perftect in and of itself, it must be in the scope of the universal, and, in the spirit of Christianity, God's eternal plan.

Otherwise God would not be all-powerful or all-loving because, being perfectly powerful, God must be capable of creating that which is best, and, beingp perfectly loving "he" would not choose not to.