How does a nonphysical mind interact with a physical body? — Agent Smith

How does a number interact with a thing? (It doesn't.) Rather ... minding : body :: digesting : gut.

Ghost in the machine.

Radio.

I'm gonna havta agree with you (for the time being). :up:

Regardless of what "God" thinks, "evil" to us is allowed and so it's not "God" – worthy of worship – to us.

Well if He needed human validation to be worthy of worship, he wouldn't be much of a god anyways.
Edit: Also, isn't the Epicurean paradox based on what god thinks?

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

(b) Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

(c) Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

(d) Is he neither able nor willing? — 180 Proof

Well if He needed human validation to be proven to exist, he wouldn't be much of a god anyways. — john27

As I've already pointed out here , Epicurus' Riddle does not concern whether or not "God exists".

Also, isn't the Epicurean paradox based on what god thinks?

No, that's not my reading. The Riddle is "based on what god" does not do, and addressed to us and not god, prompts us to "think" about what god does not do.

As I've already pointed out here ↪180 Proof, Epicurus' Riddle does not concern whether or not "God exists". — 180 Proof

Yeah that was my bad. I caught it with an edit but alas I was too late.

No, that's not my reading. The Riddle is "based on what god" does not do, and addressed to us and not god, prompts us to "think" about what god does not do. — 180 Proof

Hm, well it seems a little complicated but i'll take your word for it, seeing as I have never read Epicurus before.

Not all 3 divine attributes are equal in significance with respect to how essential each is to divinity/godliness.

Power (potency) and knowledge (scientia) are clearly ambiguous with regard to godliness (tryant and evil genius respectively) but good (benevolence) is completely, unequivocally godly (no two ways about it). This fact, in my humble opinion, weakens Epicurus' argument.

That's why (vide/pace Nietzsche) God finds a place, paradoxical though it is, in the hearts of the weak (the poor & the sick) and not in the minds of geniuses, nor in the legions of despots.

:heart: :grin:

Describe H O W Epicurus' Riddle is "weakened" by omnibenevolence.

Describe H O W Epicurus' Riddle is "weakened" by omnibenevolence. — 180 Proof

It should be obvious to someone as smart as yourself. I'm serious, not kiddin' at all.

So obvious you can't point it out. :roll:

So obvious you can't pointed out. :roll: — 180 Proof

:smile: :heart:

The Golden Mean Solution to the Epicurean Riddle

Me: Wouldn't you agree that a world with 0 evil and $\infty$ good is an extreme?

Epicurus: Indeed it would be an extreme!

Me: As per the Golden Mean Rule (vide Buddha & Aristotle), an extreme is bad, no?

Epicurus: Yes.

Me: Then, surely, evil is a necessay part of a perfect/best world?

Epicurus: Yes.

Me: I rest my case, your honor!

:grin:

:clap: :sweat:
Nothing to do with the "Riddle" but your sockpuppet's got a memorable name, Mr. Smith.

Nothing to do with the "Riddle" but your sockpuppet's got a memorable name, Mr. Smith — 180 Proof

:grin:

Jokes aside, what's wrong with my argument?

Isn't $0$ evil and $\infty$ good, to put it mildly, a "little" too much?

Too much of a good thing (Google definitions)

Phrase of good

Used in reference to the fact that something that is generally desirable or beneficial can be detrimental or unpleasant if experienced excessively.

"An overabundance of any of the B vitamins can be too much of a good thing"


Ne quid nimis is Latin for "nothing in excess"

:chin:

Again, your "point" has nothing to do with, or is based on missing the point of, The Riddle of Epicurus.

Me: As per the Golden Mean Rule (vide Buddha & Aristotle), an extreme is bad, no? — Agent Smith

Your proposition here is that categorically all extremes are bad. I invite you to cite Aristotle as anywhere saying that.

Further, his the desirability of a mean between extremes mainly of deficiency and excess; that is, between states of affairs opposed and opposable on a continuum, the excess or deficiency at one end simply being the condition at the other. But good and evil do not oppose in quite that way - exactly how they do relate being a not-so-easy separate topic.

Again, your "point" has nothing to do with, or is based on missing the point of, The Riddle of Epicurus. — 180 Proof

C'mon!

Heaven: Too much happiness. (too cold)
Hell: Too much pain (too hot)
Earth: Just right! (pleasant)

Goldilocks zone?

Epicurus fails to notice this nugget of wisdom, no?

Your proposition here is that categorically all extremes are bad. I invite you to cite Aristotle as anywhere saying that. — tim wood

Aristotle's theory of the Golden Mean speaks for itself. If all extremes aren't necessarily undesirable, the Golden Mean collapses as a viable formula for life & living.

Further, his the desirability of a mean between extremes mainly of deficiency and excess; that is, between states of affairs opposed and opposable on a continuum, the excess or deficiency at one end simply being the condition at the other. But good and evil do not oppose in quite that way - exactly how they do relate being a not-so-easy separate topic. — tim wood

This is unnecessary obfuscation. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of it.

Aristotle's theory of the Golden Mean speaks for itself. — Agent Smith

It does. Too bad you do not know what it says.

This is unnecessary obfuscation. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of it. — Agent Smith

If you cannot make heads or tails of it, how do you know it's unnecessary obfuscation?

Bluff, ignorance, deflection. Not a good look. If you don't know, just say so. If you just thought so, admit you might be in error. It's your hole; you dug it. Can you get yourself out of it?

It does. Too bad you do not know what it says. — tim wood

It's one of the simplest ideas in circulation. Every culture/civilization has its own version of it. Why would you say I don't know what it says? How do you understand it?

If you cannot make heads or tails of it, how do you know it's unnecessary obfuscation? — tim wood

Because the two resemble each other, they're like identical twins as far as I'm concerned.

Assume I didn't understand it the way you want me to. Can you kindly expand & elaborate on it. Clarify & edify.

If creators do not bear responsibility for the harm caused by their creations then God's off the hook, granted,but so is all humanity. — Cuthbert

And all the more so due to humanity's lack of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence

The idea of the mean is balance between two extremes. Wikipedia; "The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. It appeared in Greek thought at least as early as the Delphic maxim "nothing in excess" and emphasized in later Aristotelian philosophy."

So we might ask what the the mean is between an artichoke and Thursday - and it's a nonsense question because they're incommensurable. And that implies that the mean has to be in terms of excess or deficiency of the same thing. Aristotle makes two points (a lot more than two, but these two anyway): first, that it is a mistake to look for greater precision than a subject matter can provide; second, that the idea of extreme is not completely simple. For, suppose something perfect: as a matter of degree, the perfection of a perfect thing would be at the extreme, but that would be correct and appropriate for the perfect thing, and not an excess.

Good and evil, then, not commensurable, although informally spoken of as such. Therefore it is a mistake in understanding to look for a mean between them. And this can be confused because of differing usages of "good." So you built a good argument, just on the bad ground that wouldn't hold it.

The idea of the mean is balance between two extremes. Wikipedia; "The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. It appeared in Greek thought at least as early as the Delphic maxim "nothing in excess" and emphasized in later Aristotelian philosophy." — tim wood

:ok:

So we might ask what the the mean is between an artichoke and Thursday - and it's a nonsense question because they're incommensurable. And that implies that the mean has to be in terms of excess or deficiency of the same thing. Aristotle makes two points (a lot more than two, but these two anyway): first, that it is a mistake to look for greater precision than a subject matter can provide; second, that the idea of extreme is not completely simple. For, suppose something perfect: as a matter of degree, the perfection of a perfect thing would be at the extreme, but that would be correct and appropriate for the perfect thing, and not an excess. — tim wood

I never said anything that would imply I was comparing apples to oranges.

The other, more pressing matter, is that you're under the impression that perfection and the golden mean are two different things for Aristotle. The Golden mean = Perfection! I think, you're getting mixed up with two very distinct ideas: perfection as is usually understood and The Golden Mean.

Good and evil, then, not commensurable, although informally spoken of as such. Therefore it is a mistake in understanding to look for a mean between them. And this can be confused because of differing usages of "good." So you built a good argument, just on the bad ground that wouldn't hold it. — tim wood

What do you mean "good and evil, not commensurable"? They're both ethical concepts, in fact they are fundamental and describe two opposite poles of a moral spectrum, just the right setting for the principle of The Golden Mean.

**sigh** So what is the mean between good and evil?

**sigh** So what is the mean between good and evil? — tim wood

You're conflating two distinct ideas: excess good and good. Understandable. I did too. I have more to say, if you're interested.

@tim wood

Please bear with me. I'm trying to figure something out.

Question:

1. Is the golden mean of morality (good & evil)

a) All good, no evil

or

b) Some good, some evil

?

If you read your Aristotle, you will have seen that he tells you that not everything can be "meaned." If you're going to talk about his Ethics, you have to read and cite. If we're actually talking about you're ideas, that's a different topic. Consider, for example, a perfect circle: is a less than perfect circle a more perfect circle than a perfect circle? And this seems to apply to the good as well. If something is perfectly good, is it made more perfect by being made less perfect?

I find the Aristotle I read to be a quintessentially practical fellow. He's not looking for a Procrustean rule to impose on everything willy-nilly, but a certain kind of sense to be made concerning things that can be better or worse as a matter of degree. E.g., courage good, cowardice or foolhardiness bad. Stinginess or profligacy bad, generosity good.

Here is a PDF of Nichomachean Ethics with a descriptive table of contents. Take a look.

https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/files/Nicomachean_Ethics_0.pdf

If you read your Aristotle, you will have seen that he tells you that not everything can be "meaned." — tim wood

Yes, I got to that part. For better or worse, from a secondary source.

If you're going to talk about his Ethics, you have to read and cite. If we're actually talking about you're ideas, that's a different topic. — tim wood

A little bit of both, I have to confess. Aristotle is the seed crystal in a manner of speaking and my own interpretation followed thereof.

Consider, for example, a perfect circle: is a less than perfect circle a more perfect circle than a perfect circle? And this seems to apply to the good as well. If something is perfectly good, is it made more perfect by being made less perfect? — tim wood

That's a nice way of putting it. I should've immediately realized the fact that, like all rules, Aristotle's Golden Mean too has exceptions. Nobody's perfect: that's another rule and one that weakens the Golden Rule's universality, in other words, it's perfection. I must've overlooked/neglected such niceties.

I find the Aristotle I read to be a quintessentially practical fellow. — tim wood

Did he/do we have a choice? What's the alternative to being practical? Bury our heads in the sand/cloulds? Practical wisdom is how philosophy began to my reckoning (the good life or something like that). In this regar my experience has been that it all looks good on paper but the world out there is orders of magnitudes greater in complexity than such rules as the Golden Mean were designed to handle. Perhaps it's just me, hard to say.

Here is a PDF of Nichomachean Ethics with a descriptive table of contents. Take a look. — tim wood

A gazillion thanks for your kind assistance.

Let's revisit The Golden Mean.

1. Yes, some things can't be, as you said, "meaned". One such thing is (probably) good. I can formulate the phrase excess good (in order to apply The Golden Mean Rule) but, if one really thinks about it, it's a meaningless expression. What is excess good? It's like Goldilocks complainging the baby bear's porridge was just right, yes, but that it was just too right.

The conclusion is obvious: The Golden Mean needs a whole lot of additional brainwork and one can't apply it blindly/unthinkingly like a mathematical formula. The question then is, how do we tell the difference between what can be "meaned" and what can't be? I don't think Aristotle left any clues in his writings on how to answer that question. This doesn't diminish the importance of The Golden Rule of course because Aristotle, if memory serves, does provide what to him is the full list of virtues (Golden Means) and makes it a point to clarify his rule has its limitations.

2. This may seem like I'm contradicting myself but that's part of philosophy. Here goes. You know that there's a place worse than earth (hell) and a place better (heaven). We're right smack in the middle. If thinking is a virtue, Aristotle seems to have said it is, earth is The Golden Mean. Hell is too painful and heaven is too pleasurable for any thinking to be possible. One is misery, one is ecstacy, two states of mind many have pointed out are not thinking-friendly so to speak.

:up:

(The argument of evil) has been defeated — Miller

No it has not. Just because you say so it does not make it true. Maybe you believe that, and kudos to you, I'm happy for you. But in logical grounds it has not been defeated, but, in fact, supported.
Stop saying it has been defeated when it has not.

The main reason people are atheists is that they don't want the premise of heaven to influence their positive actions. — john27

Some of us atheists are atheist in belief for different reasons. But the reason we so viciously attack religion is because both religion and atheism are tribal beliefs and tribal ideologies. A tribe will only fully assimilate a member (inborn or incoming) if he or she fully accepts the tribe's ideology.

Thus: RCs require the spouse to agree to raise the children in RC religion; in North America RC and Protestant did not mix, it was a shame; RC went against Muslims; the genocide in America was considered not murder by the conquistadors because the Indians, as they were then called, were considered wild animals, soulless, since they were not Christians. In communism the clergy and the religious were persecuted. In Galicia they organized pogroms. Let it suffice to say that religion or ideology is the biggest divider between tribe and non-tribe.

Therefore atheists are proselytizers much like every other ideology's representatives. They are angry, because their LOGICAL arguments, which they find infallible, fall on deaf ears by the religious. If god can't be good and all seeing and all powerful, why do the religious insist god is, is what angers atheists. It is clear that the faith is incompatible with reality and with clear logic. So why are the religious so doggonedly sticking with their faith that's clearly illogical?

I agree with John27 that ideology is a... not quite a choice, but a given. Atheists tend to be much more intelligent than the religious, and the religious tend to be happier and more contented. I don't have statistics to support this, so don't ask for one, please. The reason people leave the fold of a congregation usually gets instigated by two causes: 1. The member sees how stupid the religion is. 2. The member is abused under the guise of religion. The first is caused by high intelligence (everyone knows or has stories about the smart alec kid who is silenced in Sunday school for his unanswerable questions of the Word); and the second, by abusive people, who happen to be religious.

The opposite trend, atheism to religion, happens hardly ever. Agnosticism to relgion, happens quite a bit, as the agnost does not deny god, he wants to believe, he just can't find the right god to believe.