Glenn Lyvers

A special thank you.

09 Oct 2009 04:27:47 pm GMT +

[img]http://static.lulu.com/items/volume_66/7715000/7715267/3/preview/320_7715267.jpg[/img] I would like to thank Midwest Literary Magazine for their generous award (Best Poet 2009) and assistance in publishing my new book: Glenn Lyvers - Midwest Collection. My book can be purchased here: [url]http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Lyvers-Midwest-Collection/dp/0557133181/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260569509&sr=8-1[/url]) Midwest Literary Magazine is online here: [url]http://midwestliterarymagazine.com[/url] NOTE: The poetry on this website has been moved here.... [url]http://GlennLyvers.com[/url]...

On Track

03 Aug 2009 02:55:09 pm GMT +

On Track There are times when parents realize they are on track. A moment like this slipped into my life like an old friend returning home. I was dating a woman, and spending time with her and her children. I offered to treat them to dinner, but the woman and her children all wanted to go to different places. They argued and complained and then one of the children turned on me, proclaiming that I was the cause of all the turmoil. For no other reason than to bring peace back to their home, I took both kids to separate take-out restaurants. They chose to eat alone in their rooms � and why not, they had everything they wanted in their rooms. The best quality things and they were only mildly satisfied with them. Often they would ask and beg for new things, until they made their mother miserable enough to get whatever they wanted. I wanted companionship, and for reasons I cannot understand today, I kept visiting � and each visit was a chore and each pleasant moment was underscored by a little misery. One day, in my own home, my older son came to me, making small talk � the way he does when something is on his mind. I addressed him plainly, �I know you want to ask me something� I�m listening.� He told me that he had found an old radio in the garage and asked if I would let him use it. �You mean that broken radio with only one speaker?� � �Ohh dad, you�re mistaken, it works I plugged it in and it works!� The radio had a broken cassette opening; it was splattered with paint and was missing a speaker. I told him he could have it after lunch. I made him a ham sandwich and he ate it quickly, smiling. That whole afternoon he spent listening to that radio. I caught glimpses of him dancing and singing softly to himself. He was the happiest little kid in the world � for that radio � and I was the happiest father.

Medical refusal on ethical grounds

03 Jun 2009 10:18:30 pm GMT +

Medical refusal on ethical grounds When is a Doctor allowed to say no? Medical care, as a profession, rightly possesses responsibilities which must be upheld. This idea is universally fostered in the medical profession, most notably because medical care is considered to be a special state of affairs. These professional expectations, such as ethical responsibilities to �do no harm� and to �work within one�s medical competence� serve to support a universal trust in the medical industry. These �medical ethics� have been self imposed by the industry. The primary goal of medical ethics is to serve the interests of the patient. In this essay I will champion the position that doctors are entitled to subjectively object to non-lifesaving treatments on moral grounds, and that possessing this right serves the interests of the patient and society. In June 2007, SELF Magazine printed a dramatically written article, �Doctors� beliefs can hinder patient care� by author Plamen Petkov. In the article, a woman who reported she had been raped was refused �Emergency Contraception� by the E.R. doctor who examined her. The patient, Lori Boyer, specifically told the doctor she �needed the morning-after pill� but her physician refused, citing moral objections. Boyer stated that she felt further �victimized� by the doctor and proclaimed that her trust in gynecologists was undermined for 2.5 years. She cited fears that she would be �judged again.� In some important ways, Boyer is not unlike many patients who feel disgruntled because they are unable to obtain a procedure or other remedy which they perceive a need for. With the advent of modern media, medical care has been somewhat demystified. Many procedures and remedies are commonly known by society as a whole � and it is not unusual for patients to request a specific action from their doctor. Boyer was obviously aware of the morning after pill, and in her opinion she was entitled to it. Later that day, Boyer consulted another physician and obtained the pill. It seems somewhat absurd to imagine that Boyer knew enough to ask for a �rape kit� and a specific pill which was available by prescription but did not know enough to understand that patients cannot simply demand medications and expect the doctor will always supply them. Boyer was clearly able to exercise her decision making agency, but failed to fully appreciate that the doctor possessed autonomous judgment in cases of moral conflict. Moreover, her assertion that she felt victimized and lost faith in all gynecologists, for years, seems disingenuous. She did in fact obtain what she wanted from another physician hours later. One would think she could credibly say that she lost trust in the ER doctor and others like him. However, she did put her trust in a second doctor who fulfilled her wishes. It might be fair to suspect that the Boyer story is one which became dramatized for the purpose of �good media� or some other agenda � but even if this were the case, the issue remains real and important. Do the rights of a patient require that a doctor must comply with a medical request? Do doctors possess the right to refuse a medical treatment to a patient purely on ethical grounds? This issue is not confined to abortion or contraception. In fact, doctors make decisions based on moral grounds regularly. Consider the case of a pair of Siamese twins. If separating them would place them both at some serious risk, is a doctor culpable of some type of ethical shortcoming by refusing to perform such a procedure if both twins want it? What if the next doctor is happy to try? Does the fact that both doctors do not share the same moral objection imply that either of them is more or less moral? I would argue that it does not � from the standpoint of medical ethics. According to the principles of medical ethics, as explained by the American Medical Association, �As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost, as well as to society, to other health professionals, and to self.� These standards require that physicians approach ethics from a similar method, but it does not presuppose that all physicians will draw the same conclusion � and it does not suggest that a physician is not empowered to consider him/herself. To some, medical ethics might seem to imply that all professional ethical people would reach the same conclusion when presented with the same patient. This is because �ethics� is often considered to exist only from reason, in an objective realm, above the subjectivity of human bias � but this is not the case. Philosopher David Hume points out, moral assessments are influenced by emotion (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This is a principle supported by Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, who cite that compassion is a focal virtue of medical care (34). What is compassion if not a state of affairs which is accompanied by emotion? Even if we find it difficult to separate Aristotelian ideas about compassion, prior to the Enlightenment period, from the more modern ideas about what compassion is, ethicists like Nussbaum, Hume and Aristotle agree that compassion is tied to matters of a serious nature. Whether we approach the principles of compassion from ideologies about suffering and telos, simple passions, or rational perspectives such as acknowledgements of seriousness and vulnerability, it is impossible to separate �compassion� from �passion.� I assert that it is fruitless to attempt to delineate compassion, as a matter of medical ethics, as that which is derived solely from rational thinking. I accept that is an attractive idea and I hold that compassion should include rational thinking, but it remains essential to concede that compassion, regardless of its� primary origin, is inexorably linked to emotion, and consequently possesses the tenants of subjectivism. Therefore, if doctors are demanded to be compassionate, they are equally demanded to be subjective. Compassion can be uniformly present in physicians who share differing viewpoints. Consider the case of a vegetative patient on life support. In a case where the family strongly desires the life of the patient, it might be the case that two physicians have opposing views about ending life support. This is due to compassion derived from separate issues. One may have compassion for the family while the other has compassion for the patient � relying on the intuition of what one might personally desire if he/she were the patient. Because �intuition� is relative to personal standards, empowering individuals to make these decisions is risky. However, if we start by ensuring that such decisions are rooted in compassion, which is derived from both ration and emotion, then the risk is significantly diminished � and thereby becomes a generally acceptable state of affairs. Ethics inherently possess subjectivity. It would be desirable if this were not the case. Indeed, it is easier to follow guidelines and rules whenever possible; however, the medical establishment itself fosters a state of ethical mandates. It is inherent in such a state that subjective disagreements will exist. Rules and guidelines help to establish universal standards of ethical principles such as justice and autonomy. In the case of compassion, it is safe to conclude that Boyer was entitled to more medical compassion than she received. It is the case that she underwent a traumatic experience � and she perceived herself to be in some type of danger. The doctor failed to adhere to some of the basic tenants of ethical nonmaleficence. He should have taken the time to express his compassion and fully explain the reasons for his decision not to prescribe the drug. He should have taken a few minutes to reassure her that despite her differing moral viewpoint, she was valuable and worthy of compassion. In her traumatized state it would seem to be ethically impermissible not to show her extra care in this manner. It is important that patients be protected from feeling insulted or morally diminished by the care provider. The doctor seems to have failed to make a clear disclosure that she could obtain a second opinion. Surely she already knew this; however, this disclosure is morally demanded. While I admonish some of the actions of the physician, despite his mistakes I fully support his right to withhold a non-lifesaving treatment based on moral grounds. I hold that he also has no obligation to refer. Boyer�s heightened emotional state and the doctor�s misgivings may have understandably caused her to have a more profound reaction to the doctor�s refusal to provide the drug � but was it entirely justified? Patients look to their doctor to decide what is �the right thing to do� in the case of medical decision making. However, when they do so, what they are seeking is an opinion. The medical opinion is not an absolute � by its very definition it is subjective. It is universally realized that patients can and often should seek a second opinion to be certain their best interests are provided for. The interests of the patient are always subjugated to who is doing the consideration. Often surgeons think surgery is the answer � much the same way that a barber always thinks one needs a haircut. Experts are predisposed (biased) to use their �expertise� to address a medical condition, hence the added benefits of seeking a second opinion. Separate physicians can derive different ideas about proper procedure in cases which don�t appear to have ethical dilemmas at all. What remains important is that each does so with a moral and ethical approach. Part of a moral approach is humility � recognizing the fallibility of subjectivism and leaving room for a second opinion. It is morally demanded that patients be made aware that they can obtain a second opinion, but it is not demanded that the doctor refer the patient for it. This referral might serve, even subconsciously, to prevent the patient from a fair second opinion because the second opinion would be from a physician who was hand selected by the first doctor. Patients who seek a doctor to give them something they think they need are seeking a morally subjective opinion, which they hope will agree with their own. Doctors are not infallible Gods, or otherwise universally morally programmed. It is no secret that moral dilemmas concerning abortion exist. Some doctors perform abortions, others do not. This is the nature of subjectivism. One might believe a doctor is immoral if he/she performs abortions, but to be fair, these types of judgment are subjective. One might also believe a doctor is lacking in an important medical virtue if the doctor chooses not to perform an abortion, or even to refer someone to have it done. Again, this is subjective thinking. What remains important is the goodwill of all doctors - that they earnestly seek a good and virtuous life, and apply those values to medicine. Values will differ individually but this does not undermine the telos of medical ethics as a whole. The demystification of medicine seems to be selectively applied by lay people. Many take a proactive role in their health care by requesting specific treatments or diagnosis. Those same people often fail to accept the subjectivity of the doctor. When posed the question, �Do you think two separate doctors can disagree on medical treatments?� it seems intuitive that most people today would conclude that doctors can disagree with each other. However, those same individuals might also claim it is offensive that a doctor might disagree with them on a matter of ethics. Stripping away a doctor�s right to moral judgment seems to intuitively undermine the very principles which medical ethics are founded upon. This is due in part to the subjectivity inherent in the emotions of care. If a Doctor is not capable of making subjective decisions, then how can he/she fully realize compassion for the patient? Rules which force doctors to proceed in ways they object to would also seem to limit the choices a patient might have. Consider the idea that a patient would want to end his/her life. If a rule exists which precludes the option before the patient�s wishes are even considered, have not that patient�s options been limited? What about a rule which says it is always allowed? Can a patient be assured to have a competent surrogate decision maker in such a case? A patient, who is unable to obtain care which falls in line with his/her moral beliefs from one physician, has the opportunity to seek out a physician who possesses similar moral principles. Thus, more options for all patients are provided. It is the case that safeguards against shortcomings and abuse, such as procedural checks and balances must exist. It cannot be said there should be no absolute rules to patient care because rules and procedures are often the guiding force for ethical dilemmas. Such rules are, however, founded in the principles of medical ethics, and should not be considered infallible. Oversight should continue to exist. Doctors should be provided with supportive ethical guidance for problems. While having the option to seek other doctors and opinions remains a valuable good for the patient, it cannot be said that all actions are permissible if they are discoverable. Some acts are wrong, despite a doctor�s opinion; therefore it remains important that oversight by medical institutions and governmental authorities determine what is universally unacceptable. Doctors should be able to deny non-lifesaving care or even referrals for such care when it is known that a patient is seeking a remedy which the doctor considers immoral or unethical. However, it remains morally demanded that patients must be informed they are empowered to seek a second opinion. Ethical subjectivism, based on both ration and emotion is a valuable good which serves patients and doctors alike, and it should not be undermined. The demystification of the medical arts has lead to more moral clashes between doctors and patients, but this state of affairs also offers the patient new assurances which are also valuable. Patients can more readily perceive medical conclusions as �professional opinions� and seek second opinions to raise their level of care. Patients benefit by having more choices for care by possessing the ability to seek out health professionals who share their values. Doctors can foster true compassion (which need not be devoid of emotion) for their patients because they remain able to apply their personal ethical principles to their care. In order to provide the pinnacle of medical ethics and standards to medical care, a limited amount of ethical subjectivism must be fostered. Works Cited AMA House of Delegates (2001). �Principles of Medical Ethics.� Retrieved Wednesday, June 03, 2009, from American Medical Association website. <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.shtml>. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Petkov, Plamen. "Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care." Self Magazine 22 June 2007. MSNBC. 26 May 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916>. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006). �Ethics.� Retrieved Wednesday, June 03, 2009, from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. <http://iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm>.

To be a worker...

12 May 2009 08:08:07 pm GMT +

To be a worker... A job is a contract. It is sometimes the case that someone is over your shoulder checking to be sure you are honoring your side of the deal - sometimes you are expected to be the person checking on others. The fact is though, certain ethical responsibilities exist - even when nobody is watching. One of those ethical responsibilities is that, if one is the face of the employer, then that face must be washed. Every effort should be made to be perfectly presentable. Serious and diligent effort must be made to look one's best at all times, and to maintain a work place that is always, in every way possible, pristine. From the desk to the floor, and even places unseen, the employer should be represented in the best light possible. Every possible advantage that an employee can provide to an employer should be utilized to assure the success of the employer. The agreement of work is one in which a job seeker accepts the promise of payment from an employer, who in turn, accepts the promise of your labor. Therefore, a job, in its' simplest sense, is the selling of one man's labor to another. This is true no matter what the job, no matter how unskilled or skilled it may be. This contract comes with ethical responsibilities. If, for example, an employer should see his employee writing personal letters to his family or chatting on the phone to his spouse etc, the employer would immediately see that the employee has violated his/her contract. Indeed, the employer is within his rights to immediately fire the thief (employee), or dock his/her pay. But it is more often the case that such an employer will generally begin to work behind the scenes, to slowly train a replacement, which when ready, will replace the poor worker. Indeed, a man may not even know the true character of those around him. It might be that other men, of good character, stumble and sin by following the example of the thief. Maybe because of their youth, inexperience or simply by the evils of temptation. Such an environment puts the thief at ease, for it appears in every way that his actions will be accepted by his peers, and that he will not be punished. However, good character is not something which happens overnight, it takes time to be instilled by other men, and becomes an enduring quality, which will eventually return. Such men will see the evils of their ways and take pains, both great and small, to improve and ensure that their employer is aware of the thiefdom in which they work. For each man has a responsibility to the next. Does not a brother have the responsibility to tell another brother when he is blindly approaching a precipice? A wise employer, knowing that thieves exist, will devise a way, unknown to the workers, to determine if they are stealing from him. When a thief is replaced with a new worker, it should come as a shock to him that he has been found out, and other employees should not be told the method or the manner in which such events unfolded. Indeed, a wise employer may not even tell the thief the true reason he/she was replaced, so that remaining workers can be measured by their character, and not on the actions he/she performs while being spied upon by others, or remotely. For it is this character that must be relied upon when the employer cannot witness the actions of his laborers. Why did I use the word "thief"?? Consider this. You own a convenience store, and you are looking at the surveillance footage of your employee at the cash register. You notice that every 20 sales or so, an employee takes the profit from the sale, slipping it into his/her pocket. What would you call such a person? A laborer is exactly the same. If someone agrees to work for a set amount of money, with a set number of breaks etc, and then simply does not work for a minute out of 20 (5% of the time), such a person is no different than a thief. Indeed such a person would be unjust to accept payment for their labor. Even the confession of this crime and return of the monies would not be enough to set this state of affairs in order. For another man may have greatly benefited the employer during the same time that a thief has stolen - for such a thief steals not only from his employers pockets, but also from the bank of opportunity for the employer, which can never be replaced. Such is justice, that it is difficult to say how penance and restitution is fairly devised. Injustice, though, is easy to see and as plain as the sun to all who look. Only other corrupt men, of which there are many, would sit by and allow such events to exist. The act of failing to provide labor one has sold, is literally stealing and if the law would allow it, such a person deserves to be in jail, punished as a common criminal. "To work hard or not" is never a dilemma. For a man to be honorable, worthy of God's love and the love and respect of other men, he must work every minute agreed upon. If he is unsure of what immediate task should be performed, he must diligently seek out that information. No job is beneath him, and he should never sit idle or profess that some tasks are not his domain. A man is hired to perform a type of labor, but it is not written that he must only perform one type of labor and not another which he is qualified to do. Does not a Doctor sometimes perform the duties of a nurse, for the benefit of his patient? So it is with all men. If one has an idle moment at his primary responsibility, then he immediately takes up another responsibility and no job is beneath him. Each and every minute of every workday, he must ask himself, "what is good for my employer and in what way can I offer the most value for the labor he has purchased from me." A just man understands that his employer buys his best efforts along with his labor - and that returning less is theft, both from the coffers of the employer, and from the morality of his own soul. I have written of men who do less than they could, and justly professed such men to be thieves - undeserving the love of God or the respect of other men. There are other men too. Men who do only as much as they have to do, and I say to you that such men are also thieves. This is because employees do not expect an employer to do only what it is that they must do. They expect employers to be be understanding of occasional mistakes, to offer some benefits and to provide the promise of advancement and/or more compensation in the future. Therefore, these "other men" have the responsibility to do more than what they "have to do". In this way, having provided more service than was agreed upon, such men are justified in possessing such desires, regardless of the realization of future rewards. This might mean staying late to accomplish a goal desirable to the employer or arriving early. Such jobs are "extra" and cannot be accomplished in a work day, because all of the time in a work day is already spoken for. Some laborers seek recognition from their employer by professing to work "extra hard" but I therefore submit, it must be the case, that for such a statement to be true, the "extra hard work" must have been performed during times when the employer was not paying for the labor. Either this or the laborer is making an admission of guilt. For it is the case that an employee should put forth his/her best effort in everything they do. To say that a greater effort was made in one task over another, is to say that the employee has stolen in the latter task. There are no greater or lesser efforts, only maximum efforts for an agreed upon price. Therefore, do not speak of extra efforts or make other claims seeking recognition during a work day. One's diligent work, being the best that it can be at all times will speak for itself.

God exists from reason.

08 May 2009 06:54:36 pm GMT +

God exists from reason, and is the source of all goodness and evil. The idea of a creator God, in and of itself, is the belief that there is a source of all creation. God exists from reason. If we accept that God exists from Ontological reason, then we must also accept that God is the source of all evil. It is the essence of God that he possesses all attributes of good and evil. We are faced with the question of how science and religion should be employed to seek answers about God�s existence and essence. Ted Peters addresses this concern in his article, Techno-Secularism, Religion, and the Created Co-Creator. He writes that it is not our place as religious men to push away science or try to otherwise undermine it. He states, �Christian ethics is born out of the Bible�s promise of the new that is to come, not out of protecting or preserving the old in its inherited and unredeemed state� (484). This state is one in which he argues, science can serve to redeem, or rather, shed light upon. Men should not attempt to prevent science from investigating the truths of the Bible, in some effort to protect it from scrutiny, or preserve its� historical interpretation for the faithful. As we face down the challenge of techno-secular society, we dare not shrink back and abandon all science and all technology to the secular sector or run like frightened dogs with our religious tails between our legs. Rather, we need to lift up the fact that scientific study and technological innovation belong to our human nature, a human nature created and inspired by God (848). To this end, I champion the idea of God�s existence from the science of reason. There are several arguments for God�s existence from reason. I will address only one, an Ontological Argument of sorts. The Ontological argument itself, as presented by Anselm, is based simply upon the fool�s declaration. Anselm demonstrates instability between the two statements; that one understands the claim that God exists, and that one does not believe in God. Descartes explores this issue, and its� primary criticisms in his meditations. Taking these ideas, I assert that the logic below, being my twist on the work of greater philosophers than myself, serves as an argument from reason for the existence of God today. Consider this, someone asks you to imagine something that does not exist. You might first imagine a glass of water on a shelf, or a slug surfing in the bay on an Oreo cookie. I now assert that it is the case that you cannot imagine anything that exists without using some notion of things you already know about. I have asked you to imagine �something� that does not exist, and challenged you to do so without using your pre-existing knowledge as a reference point. So, start to imagine, but keep in mind that whatever you imagine cannot have a shape, because you already know about shapes. Indeed it cannot have a size or a color, or exist in time or take up space. It cannot have a name, and it cannot even be true that it exists because "truth" is a pre-existing condition, a reference to logic, which is indeed something you already know. What is it that you have imagined? How can you relate it to me or explain what it is, for it has no name and it is not even true that it exists? It is inconceivable. Now meditate with me a little further and I will add some simple supportive logic for your consideration. The concept of God is that of a �Supreme Being.� It must be true that if he is indeed �supreme,� then he must exist. A "supreme" being must have to exist everywhere. This principle might be easier to understand this way; something which is supreme cannot be limited � and to say that it does not exist is a limit to its existence. Put even more simply, something that exists is more perfect than something which does not exist. Therefore, if something does not exist, it is imperfect and as such, it cannot be the Supreme Being. This is not in question. If it is true that one�s mind can only conceive of things related to what already exists, then because we can conceive of God, it must be true that God possesses the property of being relative to what already exists. To possess something, he needs to exist somewhere. Moreover, since we can conceive of God as a being, of which no greater being can be conceived, then as a �Supreme Being� he must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, it can only follow from absolute logic, God exists in our world. Anselm�s actual argument reads, �Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is (Proslogium). The more modern argument above is Anselm�s, I have just reworked it. A perfect creator would create perfect creations. Remember, a perfect God, is a being of which no greater being can be conceived. Consider this, you know two carpenters, and both seemed to be perfect, but one of the two made a single mistake years ago. If you were asked, which of these two carpenters is the best, then that single mistake would make all the difference. How does this relate to God? Well, if you only knew the carpenter that made a mistake, then you could conceive of a carpenter that did not make any mistakes, and therefore, the former would be imperfect. If God, like the carpenter, were to create something less than perfect, then he could not be �God� because a greater conceivable being could exist � that of a God which created everything perfectly. The obvious reply to this argument is that God could create something flawed on purpose, but then it would still be the case that an absolutely perfect creator, who never created anything imperfectly (even on purpose), would be intuitively greater. Putting aside, that creating anything would show wantonness, and therefore imperfection, creating anything imperfect would also be a flaw. It would seem then, that if God created the world, then it follows that this world is the best of all possible worlds. This idea has plagued theologians for centuries, because it seems so absolutely simple, and yet, most of us can imagine a world which is more perfect than the one in which we live. The idea of what is and is not �perfect� is often mistaken by mankind for what is and is not more �desirable.� This brings up the issue of evil in the world. This has been explained by viewing evil as a necessity. It is necessary to have evil, in order for the most perfect world to exist. This idea of God as a perfect creator, bound to create the best possible world, is an idea supported by philosopher Immanuel Kant, he writes, �That the world created by God is the best of all possible worlds, is clear for the following reason: If a better world than the one willed by God were possible, then a will better than the divine will would also have to be possible. For indisputably that will is better which chooses what is better. But if a better will is possible, then so is a being who could express this better will. And therefore, this being would be more perfect and better than God. But this is a contradiction; for God is omnitudo realitatis. ( Lectures on Philosophical Theology 137). Jesse Steinberg, author of Leibniz, Creation and the Best of All Possible Worlds, supports Kant in this conclusion but also goes further, to declare that God not only does not, but cannot create imperfectly. He writes, �Kant�s argument appears to show that if God were to choose to do less than His best (e.g., create a world that was not the best possible), He would thereby show Himself to be morally surpassable. Since it is not possible that God be morally deficient, God must do the best that He can. Thus God would, on pain of contradiction, choose to create the best possible world He could create� (125). So why does evil exist in the best possible world? We know that evil does exist, and as such, there is either a need for it to exist, or God intended that evil exist unnecessarily (we suffer needlessly). We must, therefore, accept that evil is a necessary element - or conclude that God would include evil in our world if it were not necessary to do so. However, to say that the best possible world is one in which evil must exist would seem to limit God, by stating that he cannot create a perfect world without evil. So, are we then left to conclude the latter? This type of argument recurs over and over when considering the nature of God from reason. If we put that argument aside, then we simply acknowledge that goodness and evil are attributes of our world. Because God is an infinite God, he would possess all attributes to an infinite degree - God is therefore infinitely evil, and infinitely good. Anything less would imply a limit to his power. To say that it was only possible for God to possess goodness would be a limit of his power, and vice verse, because we can conceive of a God which possesses all attributes without limits. It is unclear that goodness and evil are traits that we can attribute to God, at least in a human sense. We must accept that the emotions we feel, as finite beings, may not be a reflection of the attributes of God because if God possesses infinite goodness and infinite evil, it would seem that he might be neutrally bound. To say that God had attribute preferences would be to imply that some things which possess attributes (people, qualities, virtues or other attributes of the universe) are more perfect than others. Remember, if God possesses infinite attributes, then it cannot be said he possesses more goodness than evil etc. If God did have a preference, then that preference itself might create a state where one attribute has a greater value than another. This is because that attribute would also possess the added attribute, of being that which is more desirable to an infinite degree. If one thing in the universe exists as "more valuable or closer to perfection" than something else, then it follows that imperfection would exist, and this cannot be the case if God is indeed infinite and perfect. It might be the case that God can have a preference between contingent forms, but not to qualities, because he possesses all qualities to an infinite degree, and none is more or less perfect than any other. All of this is evident if we think of God as timeless and infinite, or "perfect". If the traditional beliefs about the nature of God are at odds with the fundamental facts which would accompany a perfect creator, then it must be the case that God exists very differently than most worshipers profess. A �perfect eternal God� would therefore be a God which exists outside of time because he is without limits. He would not have a need or desire to create because he would be sufficient to himself. He would not interact with men or any of his creations because to do so would be to change the world which is perfect to start with. He would possess all the attributes of creation to an infinite degree, including both infinite goodness and infinite evil - and he would have no preference among his creations. He would not be swayed or compelled to change his mind, or otherwise be lacking in knowledge. He would be all knowing and never changing - perfect unto himself for all eternity. The problem with �creation� remains though. We exist, and therefore, if we accept that God is the creator, then we must find a way to reconcile this with the obvious contradiction which occurs as soon as we conceive of God as both perfect and a creator. Theories exist, such as eternal will, but it remains an important anchor for skeptics to cling to. God does exist. He exists both from reason, and from intuition. However, the common ideas about God and his existence are filled with contradictions. This is due, in part, to the emphasis given to God�s virtues, and not to the other attributes which he must also possess. We must accept from both science and religion that God is the source of all goodness and all evil � and that as such, he possesses these attributes to an infinite degree. Works Cited Peters, Ted. "Techno-Secularism, Religion, and the Created Co-Creator." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 40.4 (01 Dec. 2005): 845-862. Philosopher's Index. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://library2.iusb.edu:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2080368&site=ehost-live>. Steinberg, Jesse R. "Leibniz, Creation and the Best of All Possible Worlds." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62.3 (01 Dec. 2007): 123-133. Philosopher's Index. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://library2.iusb.edu:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2122051&site=ehost-live>. Kant, I. (1978). Lectures on philosophical theology, tr. A.Wood & G. Clark. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1. �Anselm (1033-1109): Proslogium.� Medieval Sourcebook. 1998. Fordham University. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html>.