[subversion]

How are we to know what random events hold significance in the eventual grand unfolding of time? How are we to know if the greatest plagues and worst atrocities of the past past did not actually give rise to the most positive achievements of human history? Obviously everything in the past gives rise to everything in the present, so all occurrences must be equally important. Let it be said this way, that any and every event which leads up to the present (and to the theory of everything inexorably) is important in a non-trivial way. For the magnificent evolution which has brought rise to human beings has not been without it's share of hardships and tragedy, of apparent setbacks, and yet should we really begrudge god of these occurrences, or simply accept them as they are, non-obvious progress. The road to life is rocky, but time is telling us every second that it could not have been any other way, for this is reality. So if everything is absolutely important when you really take a look at it, how can we even falsely believe that some things are bad? How can we possibly think that anything is bad if it takes everything to make up reality? For everything to be continuous it must be uniform, either good or bad. Time cannot take place unless every moment is connected to the next, and the theory of everything could not be described if it weren't for the whole of time. Thus it seems to me that everything must be a good thing if you look at it closely.

[Mr. Nobody]

Mr. Nobody, you hit on my point. Nothing in nature is immoral. If the Goddess is natural, wouldn't the imposition of notions of good/bad be socially utilitarian and not necessarily true?

Absolutely. As said above, notions of good and evil are strictly society driven. What is evil to one culture is god to another. Case and point: Religious wars.

Evolution on human terms has entered the next stage namely the struggle of cultures. To tag on to my past post, I would like to point out that I see society as an organism that struggles for survival. Wars, specifically cultural and religious sort out which organization of matter has better chances for survival and therefore better chances to continue the struggle against entropy that began with the big bang

[harmonygirl]

both of the last 2 posts have helped me realize that morality is a superimposition on the Goddess. She is not inextricably and necessarily linked to morality, much the way a tiger eating a zebra is not. Life does what it needs to in order to survive. When I look at the world and see good, I know that there must be bad, but neither affect the Goddess. Okay, got it.

[subversion]

so if it's a good thing that neither good nor bad effect the deity then overall things must be pretty good huh?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody No absolute Evil nor absolute Good exists.

But what about everything? I'm telling you if we don't believe that everything is absolutely a good thing then we are really selling everything short don't you think?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody T Nothing is imoral, moral, good or evel in nature.

Yes, because nothing is a bad thing and everything is a good thing. Thus morality does not apply.

In other words, it is equivalent to say that there is no morality and that everything is a good thing. Agree or disagree?

[harmonygirl]

Sub, I think that we are just recognizing that bad/good are societal concepts. That is not to say they don't exist. They are just not intrisically linked to the Goddess. So yes, evil exists, according to social definition, not divine determination. So the cruelty that masquerades as the war on terror or other senseless killing going on all over the globe is bad but I say that not because the Goddess says it's bad, I say that because it does not advance society.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Sub, I think that we are just recognizing that bad/good are societal concepts. That is not to say they don't exist. They are just not intrisically linked to the Goddess. So yes, evil exists, according to social definition, not divine determination. So the cruelty that masquerades as the war on terror or other senseless killing going on all over the globe is bad but I say that not because the Goddess says it's bad, I say that because it does not advance society.

Actually I think you're wrong because I think that everything advances society (i.e. carries it into the future), and I think the TOE will come to show us that good is not a social definition but an absolute physical one. Theoretically speaking, good is the word which describes the physical quality of everything, and bad is the word which describes the physical quality of nothing. THerefore the deity (please don't say goddess anymore because it sounds really hypocritical on your part) would actually say that anything that happens is a good thing, including killing or any other activity, provided that it happens to form part of time. This is because every moment in time is just as important as the next and it takes all moments of time in order for whatever universal destiny to come about. In other words, if the TOE was published tomorrow we could not say that it would have still been published if Hitler had never killed the jews. So am I saying that the holocaust was a good thing? No, I'm saying that we don't know because we don't know how important or what effect the holocaust had on the eventual outcome of everything. So in reality, we can not judge one moment over the next because every moment is crucial in the inevitable outcome of everything. Thus it is the only assumption to make that if anything is a good thing then everything must be a good thing as well because everything is directly connected in time. Do you see what I mean?

[harmonygirl]

Well Sub, I guess we're going to have to disagree. I do not subscribe to a determinist theory, whereby every action is ultimately good. This robs me of political expression which is extremely important to keep our governments and other corrupt powerbrokers in check. If you define good you must define bad. They have nothing to do with the Goddess, but exist in order for us to order society. Your determinist theory not only does not address the question of whether good or bad is attributable to the Goddess but also does not allow for evaluation of political reality. I do not accept that. How do you know that it is the moral objection that is necessary for the determinist way to succeed?

[subversion]

Allow me to put it this way. Let's say something happens in 2011 that we really like, but let's say lots of things happened before that that we didn't like. Well what we did like in 2011 could have never happened if it weren't for all of the stuff we didn't like that happened bvefore that. So basically we've got to choose, either we like what happened in 2011 and thus we have to appreciate everything that led up to that event, even the stuff we thought we didn't like, or we've got to choose that even though we liked what happened in 2011 we still don't like it because of what it was a result of. So it is totally hypocritical to say that one thing in reality is bad and another thing is good. Reality makes no exclusions of itself, so we have to decide what we consider it to be. If we consider one thing to be a good thing, we must consider everything to be a good thing. Otherwise it's hypocritical.