4 ms·

Might the idea of "god must be good" emerge from the principle of balance? A balanced system certainly isn't cannibalizing itself. And the definition of "good"

Might the idea of "god must be good" emerge from the principle of balance? A balanced system certainly isn't cannibalizing itself. And the definition of "good" is a bit circular.

simonh 8y ago
When so look at how ecosystems and food chains work, and how microbes and necrophages recycle resources, ‘cannibalizing itself’ seems to be exactly how the world works. It seems to me that a ‘good’ world implies an over balancing tendency towards harmony, plenty and comfort for all, whereas ‘evil’ implies a tendency towards horror, suffering and deprivation. We see both these things in the world all the time. A time of plenty for flesh eating parasites and brain fungi is a time of horror for their victims.
- dustingetz 8y ago
  If a system is cannibalizing itself it is by definition not in balance. Iterate the process and then it ends.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
I think people believe god is good because hope is adaptive and despair is maladaptive. Our evolution has conditioned us to see the good possibilities, because organisms that didn't were less fit.
- simonh 8y ago
  Or in other words, survivorship bias. Of course god is good, otherwise we’d have been killed along with all those other people (who also believed in god).
ggggtez 8y ago
Not following what a "principal of balance" is. There is no physical law of nature that is defined like that. Maybe you mean "conservation of mass/energy". Unfortunately, if you think of things like "good" and "evil" as if it was heat, then you've already made a leap of faith. There is no scientific evidence of Karma, or any such effect for the abstract concept of "morality". For example, you could just as easily imagine a world where, for every "evil" thing that happened, two good things happened in response. There is no evidence to support that either, but there is also no evidence to deny it. We can't observe the entire universe, so it's vacuously unprovable.
- dustingetz 8y ago
  I think the arrow of good is like the arrow of time. It points in one direction because it has to. The fundamental constants encode a precise and balanced harmony of physics. The article is saying the choosing of the constants is a balanced process. "Good" is anything that contributes to the harmony. If the arrow of good pointed in the other direction, there is no harmony of forces, the constants would be different, and there would be nothing.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > fundamental constants encode a precise and balanced harmony of physics We don't know where the constants come from. As such, we can't say if they independently and randomly arose or came forth from a system in which they balance. More boldly, any assortment of constants can produce a universe. Each of those universes will be different. Calling some of them "good" and some of them "bad" is an inherently subjective exercise. Even delineating "good" and "evil" on a single dimension is a choice.
  - jamiek88 8y ago
    That is essentially saying that human actions can effect the fundamental constants of the universe. That is a bold claim. For what is not evil if not perpratated by a conscious mind? An avalanche that kills 20is not evil. Someone triggering that avalanche is. That person changes the ‘balance’ of good v evil. Does that affect the universal constants?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

Might the idea of "god must be good" emerge from the principle of balance? A balanced system certainly isn't cannibalizing itself. And the definition of "good" is a bit circular.

simonh 8y ago

When so look at how ecosystems and food chains work, and how microbes and necrophages recycle resources, ‘cannibalizing itself’ seems to be exactly how the world works. It seems to me that a ‘good’ world implies an over balancing tendency towards harmony, plenty and comfort for all, whereas ‘evil’ implies a tendency towards horror, suffering and deprivation. We see both these things in the world all the time. A time of plenty for flesh eating parasites and brain fungi is a time of horror for their victims.

dustingetz 8y ago
If a system is cannibalizing itself it is by definition not in balance. Iterate the process and then it ends.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

I think people believe god is good because hope is adaptive and despair is maladaptive. Our evolution has conditioned us to see the good possibilities, because organisms that didn't were less fit.

simonh 8y ago
Or in other words, survivorship bias. Of course god is good, otherwise we’d have been killed along with all those other people (who also believed in god).

ggggtez 8y ago

Not following what a "principal of balance" is. There is no physical law of nature that is defined like that. Maybe you mean "conservation of mass/energy". Unfortunately, if you think of things like "good" and "evil" as if it was heat, then you've already made a leap of faith. There is no scientific evidence of Karma, or any such effect for the abstract concept of "morality". For example, you could just as easily imagine a world where, for every "evil" thing that happened, two good things happened in response. There is no evidence to support that either, but there is also no evidence to deny it. We can't observe the entire universe, so it's vacuously unprovable.

dustingetz 8y ago
I think the arrow of good is like the arrow of time. It points in one direction because it has to. The fundamental constants encode a precise and balanced harmony of physics. The article is saying the choosing of the constants is a balanced process. "Good" is anything that contributes to the harmony. If the arrow of good pointed in the other direction, there is no harmony of forces, the constants would be different, and there would be nothing.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > fundamental constants encode a precise and balanced harmony of physics We don't know where the constants come from. As such, we can't say if they independently and randomly arose or came forth from a system in which they balance. More boldly, any assortment of constants can produce a universe. Each of those universes will be different. Calling some of them "good" and some of them "bad" is an inherently subjective exercise. Even delineating "good" and "evil" on a single dimension is a choice.
- jamiek88 8y ago
  That is essentially saying that human actions can effect the fundamental constants of the universe. That is a bold claim. For what is not evil if not perpratated by a conscious mind? An avalanche that kills 20is not evil. Someone triggering that avalanche is. That person changes the ‘balance’ of good v evil. Does that affect the universal constants?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]