That's one of the things God does. If I can watch all 3.28 x 10^80 quarks in the universe all day every day since the big bang with one hand tied behind my back, it will be no problem to figure out who's been naughty and who's been nice. — T Clark

That would mean from the point of view of a God everything is deterministic (fully predicted from onset to end) and there is no free will. The naughty were and always will be naughty then perhaps and the nice always were and always will be nice. Moral absolutism which removes all the abstraction leaving just a binary system (+ and -). Equal and opposite reactions.

However, from the point of a human there would be free will because of the lack of our computer power to predict everything at all times. And thus leaving us to go on intuition, best guesses and discourse to elucidate what's more moral and what's less.
Moral relativism.

I think absolutes and relatives are mutually required. Just as the poles/the extremes are neccesary to create the spectrum in between them.

You cannot have +1 and - 1 without all the numbers/fractions in-between the two opposites. In that way particles (absolutes) require a waveform (the spectrum of possible absolute states). They co-exist.

That would mean from the point of view of a God everything is deterministic (fully predicted from onset to end) and there is no free will. The naughty were and always will be naughty then perhaps and the nice always were and always will be nice. Moral absolutism which removes all the abstraction leaving just a binary system (+ and -). Equal and opposite reactions. — Benj96

So? What's your point?

What would I do if I were God?

@180 Proof's answer is the best!

So you would remove all the impurities, flaws and let downs in the system? For all time? According to 180proof

I would ... according to 180 Proof.

what then would you say about "Good"? If it has no opposite. What does it mean?

You should ask @180 Proof.

I'm aware that some people think light doesn't make any sense without dark.

I'm aware that some people think light doesn't make any sense without dark. — Agent Smith

And what do you think Agent Smith. What's your personal point of view or do you wish for 180 proof to speak entirely on your behalf. Either way is fine. Just curious.

I haven't given the matter enough thought mon ami. All I can say is, it's not at all clear to me why opposites would be needed to prop each other to exist simpliciter.

A reasonable line of thought. What for example is the opposite to a gear box, or a 4x3 inch 8 foot plank of wood, or Sarah from Chicago or the number 7.

In other cases finding opposites is easier: up, down, rich, poor, light, dark, on, off, big, small etc.

The things we find opposites for seem to be more basic/strictly defined with less variables.

If we are truly to believe that things can be unique - people, works of art, music literature pieces etc it doesn't seem clear that they have an opposite.

But at the same time, if these things have simple, clearly defined characteristics that make them up, the very fact that they're defined/determined means they ought to have a an opposite - equally defined and determined.

For example, if person A has 1000 characteristics, then person B with 1000 of the opposing characteristics would be there opposite. Protagonist and antagonist alike.
If music played forward is one thing, music played in reverse could be said to be its temporal opposite no?

I think the difficulty in establishing opposites is in defining something in the first place, its function, its form, its components etc.

But if physics has any underlying consistencies in its laws, complex systems are no less capable of having opposites as basic ones, as everything would have to be based off fundamental laws/rules which are easily identified to have opposites.

I don't know what "good" (value) means but minimally bad (reducing disvalue) makes pragmatic sense to me. Ambiguities, complementarities & degrees of difference grounded in human facticity (i.e. needs, defects ... of our species) seem more concrete and consistent (à la fuzzy logic) with lived experience than formalist / structuralist 'binary oppositions'.

Btw, I didn't say anything like that.

Btw, I didn't say anything like that. — 180 Proof

Sorry if I misinterpreted. My bad.

Np.

I don't know what "good" (value) means but minimally bad (reducing disvalue) makes pragmatic sense to me. Ambiguities, complementarities & degrees of difference grounded in human facticity (i.e. needs, defects ... of our species) seem more concrete and consistent (à la fuzzy logic) with lived experience than formalist / structuralist 'binary oppositions'. — 180 Proof

As usual, a superb post. You never disappoint do you?

@Benj96 seems to be suggesting, not quite the opposite, but nearly so (of what you, so wisely, proposed - the trimming down of, sensu latissimo, negatives). I'm not averse to the idea of course; as you said, the binary paradigm we experience day in and day out is impossible to either ignore or deny. Before I forget, the fuzziness you mention is also a fact in our faces.

Nevertheless, what's the MO of evil? See anything worth talking about?

"Evil" ~ maximally bad (irreparable disvalue)? :chin:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/570228

Good definition of evil and the linked post, another well-considered position. Is it advisable to explain evil?

Is it advisable to explain evil? — Agent Smith

I don't think evil can be explained.

In essence, what sort of god would you define yourself as? — Benj96

I would spin up a trillion multiverses, each containing a trillion trillion universes within. And I would play all of the roles in each of those universes, ultimately forgetting that I am the same as all that each "I" perceives. And when I finally get bored of it, I'll wake up at the keyboard, answering this question.

:chin: Eureka!

If i were God i would make all people stop believing on me.

If i were God i would make all people stop believing on me. — dimosthenis9

Why so?

I would be curious to see what they could or couldn't achieve with having faith only to themselves.

a fair perspective. So as I understand you would be a passive God, only observing but not intervening. Would you fancy yourself as totally inaccesible I that case? A pure mystery never to be unveiled?

Yeah I would be a really curious God.So i wouldn't intervene at all.Plus i wouldn't be a mystery for them.Since none would believe i exist.

Plus i wouldn't be a mystery for them.Since none would believe i exist. — dimosthenis9

Very true, I accidentally overlooked to implications of what you set out. They would have no concept of God. I wonder what they would substitute it with. What would be their grandest thought regarding existence if "God" was a concept unavailable to them?

What would be their grandest thought regarding existence if "God" was a concept unavailable to them? — Benj96

In fact that question is mostly the reason that I would have made such a decision.

In fact that question is mostly the reason that I would have made such a decision. — dimosthenis9

So, you would choose to create beings which were inferior to yourself and then you would leave them ignorant of your existence and then you would watch as they floundered around hopelessly trying to discover why they exist. You would not help your own creation in any way. An absent creator deity who takes no responsibility for the suffering of its own creations. You would be a god that gets it's jollies in nasty ways.
Based on the behaviour you suggest, your creations would be well rid of you in my opinion.

Except for those creations, of course, who "devoutly" strap-on dynamite vests or carry out crusades & stake-burnings "In His Name" in order to settle disputes. :mask:

Yeah, you would think if it existed it would at least tell such morons, to stop doing that.
I assumed dimosthenis9 was suggesting that such reasons for killing people, would no longer happen as he/she in their god role play mode typed:

Yeah I would be a really curious God.So i wouldn't intervene at all.Plus i wouldn't be a mystery for them.Since none would believe i exist. — dimosthenis9

If all knowledge/perception/conception of god was removed from human thought and god did in fact exist then humans could NEVER know their origin story, no matter what scientific efforts they made.
That to me, is like rejecting your own children from birth and then being entertained as they fail to try to understand the truth of how and why they are. No doubt, humans would still find nasty ways to settle disputes without using the 'in gods name' excuse or the 'god made me/wanted me to do it,' excuse.
I think it would be progressive if no humans believed in god, BUT not if it's not true! Not if it actually does exist! Not if it's just because role playing omnigod dimosthenis9 kept its existence as our creator from us as an act of omnipotent will, for it's own entertainment. Omnigod dimosthenis9 would be an evil god imo.

So, you would choose to create beings which were inferior to yourself and then you would leave them ignorant of your existence and then you would watch as they floundered around hopelessly trying to discover why they exist. You would not help your own creation in any way. An absent creator deity who takes no responsibility for the suffering of its own creations. You would be a god that gets it's jollies in nasty ways. — universeness

Yeah more or less what is going on already with the current God.But he wishes to be worshipped also.I wouldn't.
Plus it would be better people to stop wondering why they exist and focus all of their energy on how they can exist in the best way they could.Doesnt sound that bad to me.