Dr. Retard

Rainbow walking:

As for the difference between logical possibility and other possibilities, may I recommend Google? Try here and here. Heck, here's some answers to Philosophy 110 homework on the matter.

Apart from your continued confusion on this matter, all I can glean from your reply is so much gleep glorp glop.

Edited to add: I can't get those furshlugginer Google links to work. What gives?

rainbow walking

Hello again Theli, Let me just say that I appreciate your continued participation and have been enjoying our discussion immensely. Your challenging questions inspire me to meditate and hone my responses and hope the same is true from your perspective. The fact that you argue your own points so persuasively would indicate that this is the case. The amiable meeting of minds with different perspectives is a good thing.



theli: There's that binary thinking again, do we really need an extreme evil to see the different shades of good?


rw: Is the paragraph above, that inspired this question, true or false? You seem to be agreeing, but taking exceptions, so let’s examine your exceptions to see if they obtain.


theli: It would seem that in a world without suffering, actions would still be either more or less beneficial.


rw: At first glance it would seem intuitively so. But the truth, in relation to this discussion, resides in how we came to be in such a state of affairs where suffering was no longer a consequence.

If we came here by our own efforts and had eliminated the potential for our choices or nature itself to inflict upon us any degree of suffering then you are correct; different degrees of benefit would be an apt description, but only because we still retained the concept of suffering, and its many causes.

If, however, we came to be here by the will and act of a supreme being, no such reference to suffering would exist in our vocabulary or thought processes. Without a frame of reference in the concept of suffering, we’d have no basis of determining if any contemplated act would incur any type or degree of benefit to us, thus we’d have no reason to prefer one act over another or to contemplate any act whatsoever…all would be equally amoral. There would be no “more or less”.


theli: And most suffering is forced upon the individual regardless of his own actions, so how could that suffering guide his own actions toward personal benefit? Your argument (although true) only refers to a limited number of situations. I would agree with you, if all suffering was avoidable by will alone.

rw: Then this is the exception you are taking.

It matters not, theli, whether suffering is a consequence of our own choices, or the choices of others, or the indifferent forces of nature. Suffering is suffering. It is logically possible that we can create for ourselves a world where all suffering is greatly reduced by our own determined will to make the effort to address each and every possible cause. In fact, we have done so in a number of specific cases. The elimination, and or avoidance, of suffering, whether gratuitous or self inflicted, keeps us actively involved in the affairs of our daily lives, thus when we are successful we personally benefit, when we are not so successful we, hopefully, learn how to avoid it in the future and, again, derive future personal benefit.

Now remove the concept and potential of suffering of any kind from any choice or cause and ask yourself how that would impact our daily lives. Our first natural gut reaction would be to say, “Hey, that would be great!”. But this response is only enabled by the fact that we have a conceptual understanding of what suffering is and how it affects us personally. Remove that conceptual understanding and your initial reaction would be…?






theli: Obviously people don't act on pain-motivation alone, the motive of personal benefit can still exist with the exclusion of suffering. It depends of course on where you draw the line between evil and neutral.

rw: While it is true that it is not immediately apparent or consciously perceived that every choice we entertain is motivated by our self interest, which is based on the avoidance of pain and suffering, it is a fact nonetheless. All mundane choices can be traced back to an underlying base desire to avoid suffering/anticipate benefit paradigm. What I call “moral plurality”. Major choices, where ethics and morality are consciously evident… even more so. When you include our relationships with others, the layers of moral perception are further obscured from our conscious awareness, but are never far from our consciousness. The more adept we become at making the right choices the more we focus in on anticipated benefit to the exclusion of suffering avoided. That is why avoidance of pain does not seem intuitively meaningful as a chief motivator in our daily lives.


theli: But we are formed from nature, and according to christianity nature is formed from god's design. A world without suffering would have a different design -> nature -> human race. You don't just change humans and then base your argument on the conclution that he wouldn't fit in. We are not talking about an adaption to current state off affairs, we are talking about a completely different state of affairs, what we see now would never have existed.

rw: Exactly. And since our nature as humans is derived from our ecosystem, to eradicate some sources of gratuitous suffering, you’d necessarily have to change our ecosystem, and thus, our natures as humans. We’d no longer be human, as we understand that term from this state of affairs. But remember, I’m not arguing against PoE from a Christian perspective. Nor am I arguing that PoE is advocating an adaptation to this state of affairs. My argument FOR this state of affairs is that everything remain just as it is sans divine intervention to make it otherwise. PoE looks at the evil and suffering in this state of affairs to argue for a different state of affairs where evil and suffering do not obtain. I look at this alternate state of affairs argued from PoE, compare it to our current state, and conclude that PoE has not supported its assumption because whatever being that alternate state contains, it is not human. If PoE destroys humanity to prove its point, what has been gained? Where’s the benevolence in that?


theli: I don't understand why benefit of impression would not exist in a world without suffering.

rw: If such a world had been obtained by divine fiat, how would you understand anything about benefit whatsoever? Why do we care about the impression we make on others unless we are seeking some advantage in our relationship to them. Why would we be seeking an advantage unless we are avoiding a disadvantage that could incur pain or suffering? Even if the only advantage we seek is to be noticed, the unstated premise is that not being noticed is painful and leads to loneliness.


theli: I don't really see that as a problem, if we do not feel embarrassment then what is the problem with not wearing clothes?


rw: In a world sans suffering it wouldn’t be a problem. You’d have no motivation to wear clothing anyway. But then this alternate world would have to maintain a constant comfortable temperature, else you’d suffer other discomforts, thus it would have to be weatherless; it would have to preclude the expression of individuality through the choice of clothing…and then we’re right back to something other than a human being.

theli: It's not as if the current behaviour of mankind is the peak of perfection.


rw: Of course it isn’t. If it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But it isn’t in the valley of despair, as it has been in the past, either.

theli: And I must remind you again that the majority of suffering is not self-inflicted and cannot improve our behaviour.


rw: Whether suffering is self inflicted or not has no bearing on its potential to improve our behavior and motivate us to make better choices. I don’t know why you think this is the case.

theli: Poverty turns people into thieves, war turns people into killers and deseases turn people into corpses. If there's something good coming out of all of this, it's greatly overshadowed by the suffering it cost us.

rw: Poverty turns people into compassionate givers, consummate producers, scrupulous investors, passionate leaders, magnificent artisans and articulate teachers.

War turns dictators and slave traders into criminals, people into peacekeepers, dedicated ambassadors, attentive politicians, and inspiring statesmen.

Disease turns people into meticulous doctors, compassionate nurses, unstoppable scientists, and empathetic human beings.

And your point being…?



theli: When I say "doesn't mean that the sun isn't shining" I mean that the sun is shining. It would still shine even though it never was a night, and the concept of day was meaningless.
Just because we stop calling it "day" doesn't change it.

rw: Correct…it changes us.


theli: Binary thinking again, nuances and differencies would still exist if they were desired by god. Elimination of evil does not necessarilly mean "current state of affairs minus evil", if god found a world lacking evil dull and boring, he could very well spice it up, but if he in doing so does not match our definition of omnibenevolence then we shouldn't call him that.

rw: And if they are contingent on our conceptual understanding of good and evil, any attempt to “spice it up” would necessitate their re-introduction as possible choices and we’re right back where we started. So why bother un-doing the progress already made?


theli: If god would not be omnibenevolent with the elimination of evil, then perhaps it is impossible for him to be so. But that is not PoE's problem as PoE doesn't argue for the existence of such a being.

rw: PoE assumes the existence of this being in order to prove such a being doesn’t exist. Perhaps it is not necessary for evil and omni-benevolence to be contra-distinctive concepts. Perhaps it is a false dichotomy created by PoE.


theli: If you are the direct cause of their future suffering, yes. But no one argues that you designed and created their entire world. I don't see the point in this analogy. I mean, did god only create us humans?

rw: Then it is your opinion that this being is the “direct cause” of all the evil and suffering that occurs in our world?


theli: Being a "normal adult" may be desired or glorified in this world, as our society demands maturity of us. But why would you have to create a world for them with those particular demands? Aren't you just taking your own ideals and treating them as axioms?

rw: What is the alternative? Abnormal children?


theli: No it doesn't.
Take this example...
In the morning while puting on my socks I was faced with a normal everyday choice. Should I put on the right sock first, or the left sock. Now, my question for you (as all actions are either good or evil) wich choice was the evil one? And would I (in a world with no evil) chose the same sock every time?
Simple question: Is it evil to put on the right sock first, or is it evil to put on the left sock first?
In my experience we very seldom make choices based on evil and good. I can't remember ever doing such a choice.

rw: And what drives these mundane choices? Why are you concerned to get up and dress yourself at all? Are you gainfully employed on a job that requires a specific dress code, or do you wear socks because you wear shoes and need to protect your feet from blisters? The answer to each of these questions, as applied to your wearing socks, (irrespective of which sock you put on first), will lead you back to the avoidance of pain/anticipation of benefit paradigm. There is no direct moral or ethical significance to which sock you put on first but is implied and driven by the fact that you are compelled to wear socks.




theli:AIDS

rw: How is AIDS inconsistent with an omni-benevolent being? Did he give you AIDS? Or is AIDS another evidence of the evolutionary forces of nature in action?


theli: PoE never suggests an alternative world, nor a way for god to actually be omnibenevolent.


rw: Then you do not understand the argument. And this response is unresponsive to my complaint above. When PoE argues that such a being “could have” it is arguing for an alternative state of affairs than this one. Even if they don’t specifically describe such a state, (which they almost never do…and have never done successfully), it’s implied in the “could have”.

theli: If omnibenevolence is impossible, that supports PoE. There is no omni-benevolent/potent god.

rw: And that is a burden which the proponents of PoE fail to carry in their argument.


theli: You're mixing ice cream with mustard here, what is PoE's explaination for current state of affairs, and what is yours? For the razor to apply, both theories must attempt to answer the same question, so what is the question? PoE does not have an alternative world.

rw: A world sans evil and suffering is an alternative world to this one. If PoE does not postulate an alternative to this state of affairs it does not have an argument. PoE’s assumption, inherent in it’s world sans evil and suffering, is that such a world could have been obtained and would be a better world than this one, based on their understanding of omnibenevolence. Thus I deconstruct their alternative worlds for evidence of benevolence…and find none.


theli: Truly the work of an omnibenevolent god, millions and millions of people live (and die) in poverty and disease, and but I just won the lottery, so I guess their suffering doesn't matter anymore.


rw: And if you do nothing with your winnings to alleviate some of this poverty then, naturally, that’s the fault of this omnibenevolent being? What is the extent of this omni-benevolent being’s obligation, if any, to humanity? This world is a limited resource. If people indiscriminately procreate and over-tax its resources, how is that the fault of this being? And if such a being possibly communicated specific rules of procreation and they are ignored, how is that the fault of this being?





theli: Take Malaria for instance, for if an omnibenevolent god to exist, there must be something good that disease brings to make it worth the suffering and death it brings. What is it? It must be something quite spectacular if creating it and setting it loose on people is to be considered an act of kindness.

rw: Then your position is that this being intentionally created all disease and set it loose on humanity? I thought you were an atheist and held the view that evolution is a valid explanation for life on this planet? Why is an omni-benevolent being obligated to un-do that which it has not done? Is it not possible that such a being simply created matter with its inherent properties and allowed it to follow its own natural path? If this is the case, what is our obligation?

Just_An_Atheist

Just curious, but does our inability to eliminate evil completely, and since you say that good always comes from evil, does that liscense God to create just any world? Similarly, does our inability to specify a perfect government mean that we have no moral obligation to choose democracy over nazism?

Theli

Hello, rainbow. I read through your entire post and decided to start anew as the points were being lost in endless quoting. If you feel that I've missed some vital point of yours, please remind me.
I can see there's a difference between the ways we "grade" good and evil. I consider it like a spectrum, going from evil-neutral-good. Evil consisting of discomfort and suffering, neutral consisting of everyday things we don't respond emotionally to (seeing a car driving by, or opening a door). While good is the complete opposite of evil.
But from what I understand by your reply, you don't believe there are neutral events or actions. Things that we don't really care one way or the other for. What would happen if we remove or atleast reduce the "evil" part of the spectrum, you said earlier that we would loose our reference for good if that happened. But isn't the reference neutral?
I mean, elimination of evil doesn't imply that there will be nothing but good (the best outcome of any action) and thus rendering good meaningless. It just means that we won't have to die after getting run over by a car, or become handicaped. Cars will still be driving by and I will still put on my socks every morning just as indifferent to it as I am now.
And ofcourse a good god would not have created a world where we get anything we point at, as that would not really make us happy just grow indifferent to it. So, neutral is important for the spectrum.
You also mentioned pain as one of the driving forces behind our decisionmaking, but does this still have to exist? I mean, if the world was created with no danger pain-motivation would not exist and we would be motivated by other things. Driven by the fear of death or suffering hasn't really brought out the best in us, and has worked more as a weight tied to our feets.
Ok, a few quotes...
Ok, I understand where you are coming from. But, humanrace as we know it neither has nor will exist for very long time. If changing the humanrace cannot be concieved as a benevolent act or has any other problems in a universe created by god, why do we keep evolving?
If that is your counterargument, I'm not sure.
Why does humanrace have to be the same as today, and if we actually were designed why couldn't god have created us the way we are now but in a enviroment more suitable for us?
You said that we would not "fit in" if we were to live in a world with no suffering, but how well do we really fit in right now? The fact that we do get hurt, sick and die before old age would suggest that we do not fit in too much.
You also said that humanrace would be destroyed in the process of creating this perfect existence, but where do we draw the line between destruction or change? It seems to be just a question of semantics. Science has destroyed humanity in a sense also, the humanity that lived before elecricity was invented is all but extinct, yet noone cries over that.
I surelly hope god has alot more imagination than that. I mean, the way you look at the problem is that god only has these few LEGO peices (good) (evil) to create his world with and if something gets missing once he took away an undesirable peice the only thing he can do to fill the void is to put the undesirable peice back. But didn't god also create and design those peices? Why does he have to settle with (evil) to fill the gap? We may desire excitement and danger, but really don't like death and suffering. So, why does it have to be a package-deal?
If every child was born with 3 arms then no 3 armed child would be called abnormal.
If life did not require us to watch our steps and be quiet even though we wish to speak, then how would a person not living by those norms be abnormal? I would call him adapt.
Rw:
And what drives these mundane choices? Why are you concerned to get up and dress yourself at all?[/QUOTE]
You forgot to differentiate between them, wearing socks may be based on earlier experiences, by upbringing (not so much fear, I might add), but what makes me choose one first over the other?
Enough about socks, and over to AIDS.
AIDS is a perfect evidence against the existence of a god worthy of being called good by us. Does the good AIDS bring us somehow outweight the bad? Why did a omnibenevolent god create it? It does nothing but cause fear and suffering. And no, AIDS hasn't inflicted me personally but it hasn't helped me either. And given a choice, I (and most of humanity) would have it eliminated.
We can put that on the "should be" list.

"#1. NO AIDS"

Even we non-omnipotent humans could identify it, give it a name and then decide we don't want it, yet god somehow couldn't. Or he isn't good.

And the last few quotes...
He designed the universe, didn't he, how is that other than intentional? He also has the power to eliminate it at any time.
If I were to constantly argue for my own convictions and not leave anything to the argument, then there would be no argument, and I don't want that. Every statement I make that assumes the existence of god is purelly hypothetical, and should not be confused with my beliefs. To state it as a proper hypothesis "If god existed and was omnimax, he [b]would[/i] either change the nature of evolution to eliminate the existence of Malaria, or he would weed it out once he noticed it was harming his humans".
God is not obligated by any factual restraints, but as we did refer to him as omnibenevolent, for that definition to remain valid he will have to earn it. And if god existed, he has not.
If god just created the world rather randomly and do not want to change it, I would call him indifferent to humanity, but not omnibenevolent by any stretch.

Another scroller on the way!

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,
If it is amenable to you, rather than carry on two separate arguments in the same thread, I've elected to submit my response to your contemporary version of PoE and await your rebuttal. If you wish to re-submit your initial example, at least we'll have some basis of understanding as to where we are each "coming from" so to speak. In addition I wish it to be noted that I am not a theist, nor am I arguing from that perspective.





Thomas: Either one would be fine. I don't care.
rw: Very well then, let’s approach this from the POV that both are equally applicable.

1. We are going to assume that contemporary PoE’s use of the term God is consistent with this same term as used by its predecessor, the traditional PoE. Thus referring to a being with the basic attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence.

2. Let us begin by noting that this “contemporary” PoE (hereinafter referred to as CP) immediately implies a concession that some suffering is necessary by arguing for a reduction of what its proponent calls unnecessary suffering and defines it as that which appears to serve no greater good.

3. Let us also note then that the proponent of CP acknowledges that some unspecified “greater good” is derived from an unspecified degree of necessary suffering and that unnecessary suffering is that from which he believes no greater good has been derived or intuited.

4. Thus we begin our deconstruction on the basis that the proponent of CP has provided no standard by which we can determine the actual “necessity or unnecessity” of any particular case of suffering other than this ill-defined greater good. Good for whom? We can only assume he means man.

5. Absent a standard for determining the relative value of any particular instance of suffering to this greater good, again we can only assume that unnecessary suffering would be that for which there appears to be no immediate derivable value now.

6. So we will concede the implication in his argument that some suffering is necessary and serves the greater good of man.

7. To support our concession, and his implication, we need only point out the suffering incurred by childbirth. Clearly mankind derives a greater good from this suffering.

8. But we should probably take this further and establish a historical precedent to demonstrate how the “greater good” is not always immediately apparent in the presence of human suffering and misery.

9. Case in point. Were the proponent of CP launching his argument during a period in man’s history prior to the advent of the microscope his argument would probably carry, in his mind, more force as the “greater good” of people dying of smallpox would tend to limit his view of the greater good to be derived from such suffering. Of course, we now know that smallpox is no longer a viable threat.

10. However, the greater good is not always limited to the benefits derived from the necessary suffering associated with it, but can also be seen to have an impact in many other areas of man’s existence independent of the immediate cause of the suffering from which the initial greater good was derived. The microscope is one such case in point and has been used extensively to minimize suffering in many other areas of man’s existence as in Forensics and Genetics.

11. We argue this point to show how difficult it is to nail down this “greater good” to any specific instance of suffering when the benefits derived can be transferred to other instances of suffering. Quite frankly, we’d need a crystal ball to predict what good can come of any specific suffering.

12. Thus we postulate that the proponent of CP has made an erroneous and premature value assessment of “unnecessary” suffering in every case where it is applied now. Any assignment of “unnecessary” to any specific cause of suffering is a stab in the dark in relation to determining any probable good to be derived from it in the future or in other areas of man’s existence.

13. Next we turn to this “God” and his attribute of omniscience. Obviously, to such a being with this attribute, determining “greater good” for man is not a stab in the dark. He probably knows more about man’s “greater good” than we ever could.

14. Then we follow up with a focus on this God’s attribute of omni-benevolence and ask ourselves what obligation this attribute confers upon this God towards man and man’s “greater good”. Obviously a being supposedly reflecting the greatest possible good would be more attuned and in harmony with man’s “greater good” than probably man himself would.

15. So we now have a “greatest possible good” being who is probably more concerned with man’s “greater good” than man himself and probably knows more about what it would take to achieve that “greater good” than man does.

16. And we have the proponent of CP, who probably knows less than this God, positing that some specific instances of suffering appear to him now to be “unnecessary” and serving no “greater good”, along side historical precedent demonstrating some amazingly good things coming out of, what must have appeared equally unnecessary instances of suffering to other men at the time.

17. So what are we to make of this? Is it therefore logically inconsistent or a contradiction that such a God could exist along side these current instances of, what the proponent of CP has subjectively designated, “unnecessary” sufferings? Is such a being therefore obligated to reduce such sufferings at the bequest of the proponent of CP to avoid the claim of non-existence?

18. Now the proponent of CP also alleges that even a minimal reduction in what he considers “unnecessary” suffering would suffice to demonstrate God’s omni-benevolence. He cites this is possible without any harm to man’s realization of any possible future “greater good”.

19. But, again historical precedence would belie his claims. History has borne out the fact that man always focuses his greatest efforts and resources on those things that he perceives to be the most immediate threat to his existence. If I know this and you know this, certainly an omniscient being would know this.

20. And so I conclude the first stage of deconstruction of the CP.

Just_An_Atheist

Wouldn't this make the "God-hypothesis" like the evil demon who is suppossedly fooling us about all of our beliefs? And if that's true, shouldn't we reject this purported refutation for the same reasons that one would reject universal skepticism?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Okay.

Yes. It took a long time to get here, didn't it?

No, this is not at all the same. You're confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. Pain in childbirth is a sufficient condition for childbirth, but not a necessary condition. God could have made childbirth less painful. Ergo, pain suffered because of childbirth is probably unnecessary.

It's pretty easy to decide something is probably unnecessary. If there's no apparent necessity, no plausibly imaginable necessity, and no apparent reason for God to hide the necessity from us, then we can say it's probably unnecessary. Otherwise, you have to descend into skepticism. You're suggesting that "maybe God exists and has a good reason for suffering S" is a defeater for the inference from "apparently gratuitous" to "probably gratuitous." If it is such a defeater, then "maybe a deceiver exists" is a defeater for any inference. To refute the evidential argument from evil, you have to take the patently false position that nothing is evidence for anything else.

I challenge you to find one instance of suffering that was necessary for a greater good rather than simply sufficient.

Why are you calling this a deconstruction? It just seems like a simple response to me.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist :
Yes. That's a very concise summary of the problem with skeptical theism. If evil isn't evidence against God's existence, then nothing is evidence for or against anything else.

rainbow walking

Gee wyz, are we collaborating on a best seller here?




you: I think I did address this, but what I am saying is that you are not merely asking this question – you are asking for specifics that are not necessarily relevant to the question.

Instead of asking “what would this world look like?” you are asking me to describe this world with hope, etc. In other words, you are implying that these things should remain (although it is unnecessary that they do), and that should I be unable to account for them, you would assume the scenario fails.
me: O’kay, what kind of creatures inhabit this world? So far you’ve left me guessing, which is why I’ve asked these suggestive questions. Telling me what they are not, isn’t helpful.



you: Why assume it has a bigger set of problems? If there is no evil, there is certainly no suffering. Perhaps it depends on how far you extend the definition of “evil” (is boredom evil? Is sloth evil?) But if it’s my world, well, I could just eliminate those as well (just to be on the safe side). Simply put, I could eliminate all problems – death, even.

You seem to start with the idea that hope, charity, forgiveness must exist, and then use evil to emphasize their necessity. I’m starting tabula rasa.

me: If you were really starting tabula rasa your world, sans evil and suffering, would have to invent a new language. These virtues I’ve used to determine the composition of your world are all consistent to humans. I’m looking for ways to determine the humanity of your creatures. You seem only interested in telling me what they aren’t. I want to know what they are.



you: Speaking of poor reasoning…

No, turning our world into a world such as these would not be a good thing, because it would mean making changes that we are not well suited for. Of course, god could do as he pleases, make us perfectly content to live in a Jovian atmosphere (somehow), and then sure, that would be quite fine.

Unless you reason that you could not be happy despite being perfectly suited for, created for, and adapted to the environment? (In which case you would have some explaining to do).

me: What’s wrong with the environment we live in now? You’ve been asking for a world sans evil and suffering. I gave you your choice of a multitude of such worlds. You don’t like the choices?



you: No, whether these hypothetical people need hope or not depends on whether god gives them the capacity to have said hope, or whether he can sufficiently anticipate their needs to eliminate the need for hope.

me: Ah, you’re going for the robot image…whatever your creature needs, the lawd provides…or should I say, programs. Sounds like we’re moving away from anything logically recognizable as human.



you: No, I don’t see the problem. What’s the problem? If there is no death (this is optional, but let’s say there isn’t), then the concept of “life” is not meaningful (as something to cling to or preserve). What need is there for liberty or peace if there is no captivity/oppression or strife?

me: O’kay, in this world there’s no captivity/oppression or strife. What IS in this world? No meaning to life…another negative.

you: Again, you are assuming that certain things must exist. You seem to imply that having no liberty is a bad thing. If it is not a necessary or useful concept, then what would we miss from not having it?

me: How about autonomy of will.

you: RW, it appears that you are making these statements based on the fact that you believe evil exists in “my” world. It doesn’t. You cannot challenge me to create a world with no evil, and when I do, continue to reason based on the assumption that there is evil there anyway.

me: Yes, we’ve already determined that this world must be free of evil. But this still fails to respond to my query as to what it is not free of. I want some concrete positives. Not denials and negatives.



you: No, there is nothing inconsistent here. There are no problems. There are no gaps in reasoning. You make a load of assumptions, but that is not my doing.

There is no need to supply these desires with an endless well of anything, because these desires do not exist. The next time you are sitting in 30 degree (Celsius) weather, sweating under a hot sun, dry and parched, tell me how desirous you are for a powerful space heater. Tell me how much you need a wool toque and mittens.

Simpler yet, how desirous are you for a pair of pants with four legs? What about a pair of quadrafocal glasses??

me:Then these creatures are without desire? Is there anything they have in a positive sense or are we to infer something based on what you claim they are without? You really have told us nothing of any value yet. Do these creatures want for naught because they simply are incapable of wanting anything, or because everything they want is magically supplied on demand? Or is there another way to interpret this statement that I’ve missed?



you: Whereas I think you need to stop introducing things that would have no bearing in a world without evil.

me: You mean stop deconstructing your world in my quest for something resembling human beings? Sorry, no can do.



you: How do you know when you’re feeling pleasant? When you awaken, do you feel neutral until you can call friends, watch the news, take a poll to see how other people are feeling? If you lived on an island by yourself, would you not still know how you feel?

me: In this world…yes. But we’re not in this world, remember? We’re in Oz where things are a bit different. It’s a world I’m not familiar with, so you’ll pardon me if I ask questions. I wouldn’t want to offend the natives, you know. How do the natives know and understand the concept of pleasant? Do they just feel good all over but have no way of saying so? How do you say, “I feel good” in a world where good is meaningless?



you: Correct.



you: See above. Why do you need a reference? Let me ask you this (seriously) – what’s the opposite of orgasm? Love references hate, joy references pain (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by the above). So what does orgasm reference? (And we probably can agree that it feels quite good)

me: Sexual frustration…were you expecting something else? You always need a reference for a normative value assignment…always. When do we get to the part where you tell me what these creatures are? I’m sensing some evasion here.



you: This leaves you scratching your head, but I’m not sure why. Maybe people work because they see reason to. Maybe they just feel compelled to. Maybe they want to learn new things. Maybe it gives them orgasms. (unlike my job) Maybe they don’t work at all. Or maybe they do simple work like foraging and construction, as necessary.

What..? Now work is something that is necessary, even though it’s not necessary? If you, yourself, say that it is not necessary, what possible reason do you have for wanting to create a need for it?

me: I was trying to understand why the concept of “leisure” would even come up in a world where your creatures don’t have to work, that’s all. I’m not creating anything here, and neither are you. I’m trying to deconstruct something that hasn’t yet been built, it seems. In my world people work because they covet a paycheck. Can you guess why they covet a paycheck? And why leisure would be important to them? It’s one of those things peculiar to us humans.



you: Why assume they have these desires? You are focusing on “want for naught”, but that does not automatically imply “want everything, all the time”. I don’t “want for pizza” right now. But I might later. I have never “wanted for murder”.

me: Well, again, you didn’t spell this out initially so I was just working with what I had. So these creatures do want things but not everything. How do they decide what they want and don’t want? If everything in Oz is equally good, what prompts their decision to want, say…ice cream over cyanide? Or apple juice instead of rattlesnake venom?

you: You are infusing your ideas into “my” world (get your own damn world). Would having desires constitute the presence of evil? Perhaps. Of course, as I can control desires, this is not an issue. They can have what they want, but they do not want everything.

me: What do they want? That’s what we’re after here. In my world I can describe a host of things people want and covet. Either you have bitten off more than you can chew in this undertaking and are beginning to realize it, thus this evasiveness, or you are intentionally trying to obfuscate my queries to make it appear you have an argument, but I am growing impatient with this.



you: Why assume they would desire to live for eternity? Even in “the real world” many people do not desire that. (I don’t) But if I choose to give eternal life, then sure, no procreating necessary. Either way it doesn’t change anything. Procreate and be satisfied with dying, or live eternally and no need for procreation. There is no problem logically with either of these.

me: More non-committing evasiveness. O’kay, they don’t want eternal life, in spite of implying earlier they might. What do they want…to just die?



you: Okay. What’s the problem?

me: Then they have no wants. They want for naught because there is nothing they want. Is there anything they need? Maybe I can take up a collection or something cause I’m really beginning to feel sorry for these poor chaps. But this is still not a description of anything. Positing a world of creatures that don’t want anything fails to convince me this world is better than the one I live in. Maybe we should start off simple. Is this world round, flat or just not definable by such dimensional concepts? Maybe we can create this world for you based on what you take away that it isn’t. If there’s anything left, that is.



you: Nice hand-waving, but there is nothing contradictory. The contradiction is created by you and projected on a world that contains none of those things. You are saying “but where’s the liberty?” when I have clearly stated that it is not needed, desired, or useful.

You say “but if people lived for ever, then why procreate?” This doesn’t matter either way. You can ask an unlimited amount of questions that will require an answer. I cannot anticipate every scenario in a ten-paragraph post. But you haven’t asked anything that cannot be addressed.

Let me explain again – from the top. A world can exist without suffering or malice, dependent upon your definition.

me: Now I’m all but convinced you’re playing games. That entire paragraph contains not one single description of what this world is. And your final sentence just confirms it.


you: I go home in the evening. I do paperwork for an hour and then watch a movie with my wife. Have I had pleasure? Yes. Have I had varying degrees of pleasure? Yes. I have still had wants? Yes. Does anything in that scenario constitute “evil”?

me: Why should it? How is that relevant to describing, in any positive way, this magnificent new world of yours? These little trips down memory lane are nice and all but could you get around to saying something about the creatures that inhabit this world…something definitive in a positive sense?

you: Well, here’s the rub – if you tell me, yes, varying degrees of pleasure imply evil, or having desires demonstrate evil, then you have plenty of explaining to do explain a J/C god who wants things for his followers, desires behaviours of them, and can exhibit varying degrees of pleasure.

That, after all, is what the PoE addresses. The PoE does not address simply the concept of “a perfect world”, but rather it addresses the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent J/C god-created world where there is suffering, good things, bad things, expectations for salvation, etc. If you were to ask me whether evil is a problem, period – I would say ‘no’.

But that is not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is the concept of a benevolent creator, from whom the laws derive, fabricating a world in which 10-year old girls are abducted, sexually assaulted and dismembered, and trying to somehow insist that this is a “logical necessity”. We haven’t even touched on the concepts that such “necessities” should make heroes out of evil-doers, and ensure them a place in heaven due to all the “referential good” they do. We are not going there because that is not the focus of our discussion.

The focus is – can a world exist that does not contain these sufferings and evils. Yes – there is NO logical reason it cannot. No liberty? Fine. No hope? Fine. No courage? Fine. None of these are necessary. None of these exist. And it poses no logical problem whatsoever. For every question you ask – “what about ‘virtue x’” you can answer it yourself with “not necessary”. For every question you ask – “what if people want/need ‘x’” you can answer it yourself with “they do not want/need, by my creation.”

Remember – this is a omnibenevolent/omnipotent J/C world. We are not talking about the best world that you and I, with our human nature and human desires, could create.

me: So you want to change definitions of this omnimax being mid-stream? Sorry, no can do. You’ve got one being, three attributes. That’s all. Apparently you haven’t read the OP. But your virtue free world is growing dimmer by the minute. What does it mean to be human in this world of yours?



you: Again, give me an evil reference for ‘orgasm’. Explain to me how evil plays a part in laughing when you are tickled? The frame of reference argument is weak because 1) it assumes that it is necessary (you haven’t demonstrated this at all), 2) it implies that the “inverse” feelings of evil are necessary – they are not.

me: Sexual frustration…ever heard of it? People are humored by many things; other peoples mis-fortune, embarrassment and or mischievousness, to name a few. And what does any of this have to do with your world of Oz that you haven’t gotten around to describing in some twenty pages of text yet?



you: So? Here’s an incomprehensible concept to you – “Froopies on the mizzam can shleckle more than a tardingdon.”

Have you ever wanted to understand that concept? Have you ever felt that “evil” was prohibiting your understanding of this? Do you feel your life have lacked from understanding this incomprehensible concept? No?

If you can answer why, they you can understand how meaningless your statement is re: vacation and rest.

me: Yes, we’ve established your creatures from Oz don’t want or need or find these things necessary. What, if anything, do they want? What IS necessary to your creatures in Oz? Can we anticipate a response of “nothing”?



you: Ummm….it’s my world. I’m god, remember. Yes, they are human. I should know, I invented them.

me: Say what!?

hu·man (hy›“m…n) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of human beings: meaning they have defining characteristics. 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals 3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with human beings 4. Having the form of a human being.

Let’s take another look at this creature you call human. From what I can glean you’ve described a non-autonomous, hopeless, non-productive, asexual, desireless, neurotic, dependent robot incapable of any comprehension of a meaningful life and trapped in this condition eternally, or until you die, whichever comes first. If you don’t like this description feel free to alter it with some positive descriptions of your own choosing, otherwise I will invent this world and its creatures for you and you ain’t gonna like the final outcome.

But wait, you’re not finished: This is a perfect example of what you’ve been doing all along – you ask me to create a world and then you keep introducing concepts to it. Not fair. You can question my concepts, but you can’t assume things exist, then criticize that they do. I never said liberty existed (in fact, I said it did not). Yet you assume it does, then argue that the concept is toothless, stating this as a “flaw” in my design.

me: Hahahaha…what design? You ain’t designed the first sand castle in this alleged world. If you don’t want me introducing the concepts introduce your own. I won’t object, after all, it’s your world. You’re right, I can’t assume things exist in your world because apparently nothing exists in your world including you.

you:No, RW, they are definitely human by my design. Otherwise you are simply begging the question – humans are evil by nature, therefore evil must exist, therefore because it “must” it is not a problem, therefore….what’s the point of the conversation?

me: A question I’m beginning to entertain as well.

you:If I can strip humans of evil tendencies, then I can strip them of wants and desires too.

me: Yeah, I’ve noticed you’re pretty good at stripping but not very big on dressing. Ever thought about a career in exotic dancing?



you: There is only no evil there because there are no people there. Storms and earthquakes still exist on foreign worlds.

me: Storms and earthquakes are evil?



you: No, I think you did that. In my world without suffering, people abound.

me: Don’t you mean people are bound? And these people abound on what? Liver and onions? Descriptions please?



you: I didn’t say, necessarily, that the concept or potential for evil didn’t exist *at all*. I just argued that it need not be a part of this world or our existence.

me: Back peddling? And another negative. Another non-descriptor of what is NOT a part of this world. So what IS a part of this world?

you: Still, this does not matter – ‘benevolence’ is a word we created. God could keep all of his flock from harm, all the time. We would not describe this as ‘omnibenevolence’ because we would not need to. That would simply be ‘god’.

The problem comes in that many Christians do describe god as omnibenevolent. That’s what gives rise to the PoE in the first place. No omnibenevolence, no PoE.

me: Relevance? Another smoke screen to hide the fact that you’re still digging for descriptors and coming up empty?




you: And I am not proposing that. You keep introducing other planets as “evil-less” worlds. That is not a position I have forwarded at any time. (Again, you keep introducing ideas and then attributing them to me. Please stop doing that.)

me: My statement above has nothing to do with those other planets but everything to do with this alternate world you’ve yet to design using this beings attributes. So I’ve attributed nothing to you outside of that which you’ve attributed to yourself.

you: I am saying no god in this state of affairs because it is obviously contradictory to reality. When someone, such as yourself, says “it’s the only possible way”, then we get into hypothesizing merely to demonstrate that it is not the only possible way, logically speaking.

me: Sorry but I’ve never argued for a god in this state of affairs. I argue only to demonstrate the deficiencies in PoE.



you: Terminology is a problem, but that does not invalidate any of the concepts. I think I’ve acknowledged part of the problem is defining “evil” and what it entails. No matter, whatever is “added” to evil can be “subtracted” from my reality.

me: There is a great deal of subtraction taking place before a place has taken place. You keep this up and you’ll be coming out the other end of the world somewhere in China. What exactly is your reality? Got a clue?

you: We need to return to the issue of PoE – the J/C god’s creation of the world and his expectation for his creations. If the J/C is omnibenevolent and/or omnipotent, you need to account for the years of suffering of young children, who die without ever knowing happiness.

me: O'kay.

you:Of course, you can concede either omnibenevolence or omnipotence, and this entire problem simply vanishes.

me: And why would I do that? You’ve pretty much conceded it already in this alternate world you’ve yet to create. Odd that you have all these omnimax attributes at your disposal and they just don’t seem to give any boost to your brain in a way that would facilitate a description of this world you claim to have created.



you: This is where I keep getting a bit frustrated – no, I am absolutely not, now, or at any time, trying to incorporate “all good values” into this new world – that is your doing, not mine.

me: Yes, I’ve noticed that. You are not trying to incorporate anything into this world. Thusfar all you’ve done is take everything meaningful that I’ve suggested and you’ve suggested away. Your world is running out of time.



you: I haven’t described “good” – I have assigned no moral value to it at all.

me: Clearly you have misunderstood this statement. Does your world have any assigned moral value? Is it a good world? Would its creatures say it is a good world? Could they say this? How do they communicate?



you: I suppose if you ask a question, ignore the answer, give one of your own that is illogical, and then criticize it as if someone else gave it, you can hammer all the nails you like.

me: Well you know how to prevent this. Define your world!

you: But the “nails” you speak of do not exist in my world – I never introduced them, referenced them, and they are not logically necessary.

me: Why am I not surprised?

you: (But if you’ve finished with the hammer, I’m quite ready to start beating my head with it)

me I was thinking of taking the hammer away from you as there doesn’t appear to be much left of your head, as it is. Or have you already taken that away too?



you: To begin with, I never said “good” exists (I may have covered this already).

me: True, you haven’t really said anything exists.

you: But again – as I said above – one can experience a pleasurable sensation without experiencing some kind of reciprocal equivalent. I can enjoy laughter without ever having cried.

me: Now is this in your imaginary world or in the real world? In the real world you were likely smacked on the butt by a doctor when you were born and cried rather loudly.


you: Your only leg to stand on with this reasoning is to claim that anything less than the maximum pleasure possible is “evil”. Is that what you are claiming?

me: Now you want to take away the legs I’m standing on too?



you: No canvas necessary…as above, etc.

me: Boy you’re world is sinking fast.



you: No. I did not introduce liberty and hope, etc. You did.

me: Yes I did and you hastened to remove it. Is there an argument in here anywhere? Try actually DEFINING this world for us before you start defending it.

you: I could create a world without them – as I have stated many times. If you think that this is a flawed world because these things do not exist, the burden is on you to prove it. I’m only stating that evil does not need to exist and, by extension, neither do those other things. There is never an obligation to prove why something isn’t necessary. You could spend your entire life trying to explain why a banana isn’t necessary for your car, or a chocolate-covered pencil isn’t necessary for dancing the Charleston. But if you want to argue that these things are required, that’s your job.

me: You keep boasting about what you can create so create it! Or at least describe it. Quit telling me what isn’t necessary and describe something, anything in your world that is. How about air? Is air necessary in this world?



you: Why is this necessary? If you never need to gain this appreciation, then you’ll never miss it.

me: Ho hum….

you: You keep introducing things as if they were requirements of humankind. They’re not. It’s my species and I say that they can enjoy the ride, and that they’ll never miss whatever noble suffering you want to inflict upon them.

me: Well it’s a fact you can’t miss what ain’t there.



you Not necessarily. (see my orgasm reference – there is no reason to believe we cannot appreciate something new, even if it’s not “better”)
So?

me: So, in the first place, if your world represents something new, (which it does, a world where everything that you can imagine has been taken away or is not necessary), but not something better, then PoE fails to obtain.

In the second place, I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why you keep referring to “orgasm” as an example of something your world offers sans evil and suffering. If I go on a date with a beautiful woman and am sexually aroused, my evening is likely to end in one of two ways. Either she consents to having sex and I reach an orgasm or she refuses and I leave sexually frustrated. (Or there is the third possibility that she consents and I’m un-able to achieve orgasm, which is another way of saying sexually frustrated).

So, as you can see, orgasm is not something your world has to offer sans evil and suffering. Your creatures exist in a state of asexuality. They never have to worry about sexual frustration but they never get to experience orgasmic pleasure either. Does this sound like a world you’d honestly call the result of a benevolent act?



you: By assuming a goal or purpose, you have already assumed the need for betterment, contrast, overcoming adversity – “getting there from here”. By doing this, you have made evil necessary.

But if you did not assume a goal or purpose, none of what follows would be required.

me: Then your world is populated with creatures with no goals or purpose? This already sounds evil. Is there anything else you’d like to tell me your creatures DON’T have?



you: Of course not. I don’t deny evil exists, either.

me: Would that be in reference to your world or this world?



you: Of course not.

me: Would that be in reference to your world or this world? There couldn’t possibly be such a thing in your world, so it must be in reference to this one.



you: No. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with progress of any kind – period.

me: Social evolution does.

you: Please do not confuse complexity that may arise with ‘progress’.

me: I won’t and I haven’t, but thank you for being concerned.

you: Bacteria will exist a damn long time after we do.

me: I hope not. Are you saying this as god in your contrived world or as wyz in this one? Can you support this assertion?

you: Ants live life just fine, thank you.

me: That’s comforting to know. Relevancy?

you: And “struggle for survival” is a misunderstood concept that leads to disclaimers in the state of Kansas.

me: Are you sure its not the title of an old Tarzan movie that’s playing in New York?

you: A species that is better adapted than another species to an environment will better survive that environment.

me: Really? How did this species get “better” adapted? Did they not have to “compete” for their niche in the food chain and “struggle to survive” during and all along that process of adaptation and prove their “fitness” to hold that place for which they’ve adapted? Or maybe you just poofed them into place.

you: Species don’t square off in a ring,

me: No? Damn, you mean I bought bogus tickets to the featherweight bout?

you: and there are many environments to accommodate many species (such as our social environment). What does this have to do with my world “sans evil”?

me: Social progress. Can we anticipate any in your world, or is it a completed done deal? But then, progress of any kind presupposes some sort of struggle and since your world would have nothing to struggle with or against…except maybe you….then would your population face any kind of stagnation?



you: If I’m god making the world, then “my” creationists’ explanations would be correct, wouldn’t they?

me: If you say so. But I would think you’d have to offer some before we could be sure.

you: But I am glad you brought up evolution. The reason I know that love feels nice, or that orgasms are good, or that pizza is enjoyable, is that my brain tells my so. No frame of reference required. I asked you earlier, when you wake up do you need to check the news to see how you feel? (multiple lotteries winners = bad, mass bombings = good) Of course not.

Your brain tells you. I do not appreciate my wife’s love because I ponder hate every time we kiss. I do not consciously think about hunger whenever I am enjoying a meal. My brain lets me know these things are good. Granted, references are valid for many things (recall that I do not deny the existence of evil and its impact on humans), but references for all things pleasurable are not necessary.

me: Is there a chance that your brain is going to tell you how to erect this world sans evil and suffering in a way that can be described with positive terms and concepts?



you: But that’s not what this discussion is about. No one said that god had to make something, then make it better. The question is what should have been done in the first place.

me: Yeah, a question that seems to have you stumped.



you: The PoE refers specifically to the J/C concept of god, his creations, expectations on humanity, etc.

If you want to engage in a discussion of “a” problem of evil, irrespective of J/C beliefs, then you’ll find no opponent here. The PoE arises from the fact that reality contradicts J/C teachings. If you do not want to reference J/C teachings, then I’m not sure what we’re talking about.

me: Then you obviously didn’t read the OP.

you: Like I said, abandon omnipotence or omnibenevolence for the J/C god and the PoE goes away completely.

me: Why should I want to do that?



you: I never said it had to be based on struggle or anything else. It could be a cookbook, for all I care.
me Ah…then there is a cook book in your world? Now we’re getting somewhere.

you: Of course, as noted above, the concept or potential for evil could exist. (my flock could simply be forever shielded from them) Although this would make things messy for my world, so you should stick to cookbooks.

me: Is that your way of saying that your world consists only of a cook book and I shouldn’t anticipate anything other than this one positive statement about your world?



you: Me in the form of god, perhaps? “I shall sprinkle musings upon my flock like raindrops from the heavens, so sayeth Me.”

me: Oh, yeah, we mustn’t forget that YOU are somewhere in your world sprinkling and tinkling away.



you: I’ve read it, thanks. I abstained from getting into the details of it for a few reasons – firstly, even in my Christian days I (and most of the RC church) re: the book as metaphorical for events happening in the past. So describing a war in heaven would not actually be referring to a war in heaven, but to an event that happened on earth. The concept of RC heaven is absolutely consistent with perfection, regardless of Revelation.


me: Yes, the RC church is notorious for its obfuscating interpretations of biblical text not consistent to its interpretations…but then, so are all the religious groups.


you: Secondly, the war referred to in Heaven is a final battle. Afterwards comes the eternal perfection, after the final defeat of “the dragon” (or some such nonsense). So this remains consistent as well.

me: Consistent to what? War is war, whether it occurs now or later. The fact that Revelation declares that it will occur is irrefutable, regardless of how many millions of believers wish otherwise. It is a blemish on the proponent of PoE’s perfect little example and I am amused by how many people arguing PoE bring this up and then fight for their interpretation like a fundy.


you: I avoided these points because I do not want to derail the thread with a discussion on what Revelation is and is not, or what it does or does not mean. It’s irrelevant. As a former practicing Christian for 25 years, who went to the schools, the retreats, the sermons, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the supposed perfection of heaven and the afterlife is very much a part of the belief system.

me: Hey, you brought it up initially so don’t blame me if it turns into marsh mellow.



you: I feel quite certain that it does not.

As an endnote, I find your position odd for a non-theist. Not that I expect a non-theist to simply trumpet the PoE issue, but because I wonder if you understand the PoE. I’m not saying that to be insulting, I’m just saying that you seem to be approaching this by trying to challenge me to build a better mousetrap irrespective of J/C god’s attributes.


me: I would settle for a simple roach motel at this point.

you: If I do not need to be omnibenevolent, then let evil fly. If I do not have to be omnipotent, then I could just admit that not all things were under my control. Both of these would be logically acceptable.

But when a Christian states that 1) all things comes from god, 2) evil things exist, 3) god does not create evil, then you encounter a logical problem in a hurry.

You could, instead say 1) god has power over all, 2) evil things happen, 3) god cannot eliminate evil things, but you still have a problem.

Or 1) god is perfect and good, 2) evil things happen, 3) god will not protect the innocent from evil, then you have a problem.


We are simply wasting time if we are only trying to determine if any good can come of bad.

me: Well, there’s a great many things I can say that are far more complex than this to eviscerate PoE. But why bother. You’ve more than proven my point for me in your obvious inability to describe such an alternate world. PoE is not an ironclad argument. If it were you wouldn’t be expending so much time and energy trying to make it fly and coming up a flop. I’m still awaiting one single valid description of this alternate state of affairs sans evil and suffering.

Goober

Some claim that all evil is necessary because the greater good is acheived by letting humans exercise their free will without intervention.

Of course, if god doesn't intervene to reduce suffering, that makes all that praying a bit pointless then, doesn't it?