garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/21/85)
> I have been rather puzzled lately by the messages concerning destructiveness > and constructiveness and suggesting that the former is evil while the > latter is good... > Virtually all constructive activity requires a previous destructive act to > clear the way... > Take slum renovation, another constructive act. > First the old slum buildings have to be knocked down, destruction... > The universe is a continual dance of construction and destruction, and it > was made thus by the Lord. Destruction is no less good than creation, and > neither could exist without the other. > Tim Maroney. Now I am puzzled. Is this the same Tim Maroney who wrote "Even if I DID believe...", in which said Tim objected to the God of the Bible because of said God's destructive activities? And this same person is now saying that destruction is good? There appears to be an inconsistency here. Opinion time: whether destruction is good or not depends on whether destruction is for its own sake, or for the sake of the anticpated construction. In each of Tim's examples in which destruction is held to be good, the destruction is good because it allows the construction to proceed. Therefore, destruction is "less good" than creation, in that while creation may be viewed as good in and of itself, destruction's goodness is contingent. Also, destruction cannot occur prior to creation, but creation can occur prior to destruction. Before anything was created (if you accept the possibility of such a concept), it was possible only to create, not to destroy, since there was nothing to destroy. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/24/85)
From garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Thu Feb 21 09:36:40 1985 > > I have been rather puzzled lately by the messages concerning > > destructiveness and constructiveness and suggesting that the former > > is evil while the latter is good... > > > > Virtually all constructive activity requires a previous destructive act to > > clear the way... > > Take slum renovation, another constructive act. > > First the old slum buildings have to be knocked down, destruction... > > > > The universe is a continual dance of construction and destruction, and it > > was made thus by the Lord. Destruction is no less good than creation, and > > neither could exist without the other. > > > > Tim Maroney. > > Now I am puzzled. Is this the same Tim Maroney who wrote "Even if I DID > believe...", in which said Tim objected to the God of the Bible > because of said God's destructive activities? And this same person > is now saying that destruction is good? There appears to be an > inconsistency here. Perhaps there does if your major concern is contradicting rather than comprehending. Your twisting of my position is absurd. I claimed that neither creation nor destruction is good or evil in itself; you are saying I claimed that all destructive acts are good. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.... > Opinion time: whether destruction is good or not depends on whether > destruction is for its own sake, or for the sake of the anticpated > construction. That criterion fails. When David Letterman smashes things in a hydraulic press, he is doing it for its own sake, but it could hardly be claimed that this is evil. In fact, it's a lot of fun. Destroying smallpox was good in itself depite the fact that nothing was constructed to take its place. > In each of Tim's examples in which destruction is held > to be good, the destruction is good because it allows the construction > to proceed. Therefore, destruction is "less good" than creation, in > that while creation may be viewed as good in and of itself, destruction's > goodness is contingent. No. It is possible to create and have that be an evil. For instance, if I were to build an antimatter bomb capable of trashing the planet, that would be evil. If you were to destroy the antimatter bomb, that would be good, despite the fact that you have no intention of creating anything. Destruction's good is not necessarily contingent on a later creation; I just used that as the most clear-cut example, and to show the interdependency of the processes. > Also, destruction cannot occur prior to creation, but creation can > occur prior to destruction. Before anything was created (if you > accept the possibility of such a concept), it was possible only > to create, not to destroy, since there was nothing to destroy. Meaningless. If there was nothing, then there was no one to perform any creation. If there was someone to perform creation, then there was something that could be destroyed. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/26/85)
From me (Gary Samuelson): > > Now I am puzzled. Is this the same Tim Maroney who wrote "Even if I DID > > believe...", in which said Tim objected to the God of the Bible > > because of said God's destructive activities? And this same person > > is now saying that destruction is good? There appears to be an > > inconsistency here. From Tim Maroney: > Perhaps there does if your major concern is contradicting rather than > comprehending. Your twisting of my position is absurd. OK, if I replace the "destruction is good" with "destruction may be good," is that still twisting your position? Or if I add the phrase "in some cases" after "destruction" ? But in any case, I resent the implication that I (deliberately) twisted your position, when it is just as reasonable to suppose that I either misunderstood your position, or was unclear in stating my own (in this case, the latter holds). > I claimed that > neither creation nor destruction is good or evil in itself; you are saying I > claimed that all destructive acts are good. I apologize if that is what I appeared to be saying, do the modifications above make it clearer? I understand that you claimed that destruction is not evil in itself. But in claiming that God is evil because he destroys, you seemed to be implicitly taking the position that destruction is evil. But if destruction, per se, is not evil, why is God evil if he destroys? > Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.... Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously guilty of perjury. > > Opinion time: whether destruction is good or not depends on whether > > destruction is for its own sake, or for the sake of the anticpated > > construction. > That criterion fails. Perhaps, if you are more interested in contradiction than in comprehension. (Oh, you don't like it when others use the same rhetorical tricks you use?) I will admit, though, that the above opinion does not provide a complete analysis of the relationship between construction vs. destruction and good vs. evil. > When David Letterman smashes things in a hydraulic > press, he is doing it for its own sake, but it could hardly be claimed that > this is evil. In fact, it's a lot of fun. I must confess ignorance of David Letterman's use of a hydraulic press; I will therefore make no other comment. > Destroying smallpox was good in > itself depite the fact that nothing was constructed to take its place. Sure there was; smallpox itself was destructive. Many people were able to live because of the eradication of smallpox; they could be said to take its place. Or is there some other reason why the destruction of smallpox was good? > > In each of Tim's examples in which destruction is held > > to be good, the destruction is good because it allows the construction > > to proceed. Therefore, destruction is "less good" than creation, in > > that while creation may be viewed as good in and of itself, destruction's > > goodness is contingent. > > No. It is possible to create and have that be an evil. For instance, if I > were to build an antimatter bomb capable of trashing the planet, that would > be evil. If you were to destroy the antimatter bomb, that would be good, > despite the fact that you have no intention of creating anything. Suppose I destroy it by setting it off? :-) Seriously, the creation of such a bomb is only evil if its purpose is to trash the planet (or to threaten such trashing). Most people would consider the trashing of the planet a great evil; clearly, you are among those, or you would not be opposed to building such a device. But why is the destruction of the planet evil? If you destroy the bomb, ostensibly to prevent the destruction of the planet, then you are merely choosing the lesser of two destructions, which indicates a preference for non-destruction, which you say you do not have. Note that the purpose of the bomb is distinct from the capability of the bomb; suppose the bomb was created to destroy an asteroid on a collision course with the earth, and was in fact used for that purpose. In this case, the bomb has the capability of trashing the earth, but it would also have the capability of trashing the asteroid; again, choosing the lesser of two destructions. (Make the assumption that the asteroid is unhabited, and any others necessary to make it less valuable than the earth.) > Destruction's good is not necessarily contingent on a later creation; I just > used that as the most clear-cut example, and to show the interdependency of > the processes. And I am attempting to show that the interdependency is not symmetrical. Destruction's good may be contingent on facilitating a later creation, as in your first examples, or on preserving a present creation, as in your new examples. > > Also, destruction cannot occur prior to creation, but creation can > > occur prior to destruction. Before anything was created (if you > > accept the possibility of such a concept), it was possible only > > to create, not to destroy, since there was nothing to destroy. > > Meaningless. If there was nothing, then there was no one to perform any > creation. If there was someone to perform creation, then there was > something that could be destroyed. Ok, posit a situation in which a being capable of creating something ex nihilo exists, but nothing else exists. Now, creation can occur without prior destruction. Posit furthermore that said being cannot self-destruct. Then, destruction cannot take place prior to creation. > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/27/85)
What a silly argument!
I think everybody agrees that
1. Sometimes destruction is bad
2. Sometimes destruction is good
But the argument comes at the assumption
3. Sometimes the god of the OT destroyed out of vindictiveness
or rage, or downright nastyness.
So why don't you argue about that, instead of bringing up examples of good
and bad destruction.
p.s. Seems to me the god of the OT was sometimes a real mean being. S
Sure hope he/she/it has mellowed with age.