rainbow walking

Hi Again Wyz,
I think what's happening here is best described by that old adage, "can't see the forest for the trees". What you appear to be doing, in your attempts to comprehend my argument, is to focus in on specific points and stack them up individually against the "problem" of evil and suffering" contained in PoE.

Let me state for the record, that each individual point, stood beside PoE, does not refute PoE on its own merits. It takes all the points together to form the deconstruction.

We could spend an eternity arguing the merits of each point in relation to PoE and resolve nothing. But my desire is to help you see the relative force of the argument in its entirety.

So I shall try to explain it differently than I have thusfar in hopes of bringing it into a different light that may facilitate a better comprehension for you and anyone else following this thread.




First let's consider the evil and suffering man has endured down through history to reach the point where we are today. Is it the "greatest amount of evil and suffering" man could endure? Well, one would have to be totally morally blind to argue that alot of evil and suffering hasn't occured. But could it get worse? In other words, can we say that what man has endured thusfar is the baseline of what is possible?

My answer is a resounding NO! It could have been alot worse, in fact I will establish the goalpost of "greatest amount of evil and suffering" to be a state of affairs leading up to the extinction of the human species. Would you agree that were this to occur it would represent the positively greatest amount of evil and suffering possible?


Now, having established that goalpost, (and assuming you agree), let's establish the other goalpost. The one I keep referring to as the "greater good of man". In my argument I established this to mean that man's greatest good will have been achieved when he reflects, to his fullest potential, all the attributes of this omni-max being. Not identical; not omni-benevolent, but as caring and loving as man is capable of being; not omnipotent, but powerful enough to do about anything he desires; not omniscient, but knowledgable enough to know what he needs to know to reflect these attributes. And I'm speaking of man in the aggregate, historical man here.

Now, having established these two goalposts, let's consider the path of least resistance between them. Does this path necessitate that man endure the degree of evil and suffering that he has thusfar?

Again I respond with a resounding NO! This path does not require man suffer any more or less than man has suffered thusfar. This path requires nothing of man but that he exorcise all his attributes as man to their fullest potential. The degree of suffering man incurs will depend on man.

Perhaps an analogy here. There is a road between my house and the store where I buy groceries. It represents the straitest surest path to the store from my house. I can travel this road in my car to the store in about 10 minutes. It would take me about two and a half hours to walk it. About three and a half hours to walk it backwards and probably ten to twelve hours to crawl to the store on my hands and knees. But I have a choice in how I travel that path to the store. Naturally my choice will determine the degree of pain and suffering I bring upon myself. This says nothing about the road. It remains the surest and straitest path to that store from my house. I imagine that road was built by the county in which I live. If I incur a high degree of suffering by choosing to crawl to the store on that road am I justified in blaming the county for builing that road?

Now let's take this back up to historical man and we realize there are some un-resolved issues involved. Historical man, up to and including you and I, have no idea where this road is going, or the best method of traveling this road. These are issues we are still wrangling over. Could that be the reason we haven't made as much progress as we could have?

But I have established that when man realizes his full potential as man he will reflect all the attributes of this being, to his fullest capacity.

So essentially I've described this meta-path as the surest route to man's greatest good. I've used man's history to define and identify it and I've placed the onus on man to realize it.

I've shown the methodology in man's politics and science and its absolute necessity. To break the methodology will effectively take man out of the game. It is a game of life and death and once you're born into this world, upon this meta-path, you are a player whether you like it or not. You can be a team player or a loner.

If evil and suffering is a problem for man, and it is a problem, then he must address it through his politics and science. Religion has proven to be ineffective.

Consequently, the more man focuses on addressing the problem the further he progresses down the meta-path towards his destination. Remove the problem, lessen the effects of the problem, change the meta-path, and you bring man to extinction; which is the goalpost of his opponent.

Assuming an omni-max being exists and created (however you interpret that concept) this meta-path, that itself wouldn't exist without a man to travel it, if the realization of man's greatest good was his goalpost, and anything he did to alleviate this problem of evil and suffering along the way would ultimately result in man losing the game, how do you justify holding him morally responsible for his apparent inaction?

But, you're likely to object, then this being is not omnipotent, as he could have created another meta-path that didn't entail the suffering incurred on this one.

However, I think it's already been resolved that omnipotence would not include the ability to create another being more powerful than the omnipotence which created it. This entails a logical contradiction. However, it's not outside the scope of omnipotence to create a being, or species, capable of emulating those attribute(S) as near to the omni's as conceivabley possible without actual duplication. And this includes omni-benevolence as well as omniscience...but it doesn't include one that should be included because it represents the final piece of the puzzle of this meta-path: ETERNALITY

Who is man's opponent? Death. As long as man believes that death is an inevitable consequence of life, his greatest good will never be realized. Why? Because death is the one final obstacle standing between man and the realization of all his goals. Over come death and man extricates himself from the game.

Now sweep aside all the religious connotations to eternal life and face the obvious. Man does not want to die. He does not want to see his family members die, his friends and neighbors. Man fears death and, at his current position on this meta-path, believes it an unconquerable enemy...an inevitability of life. But why does it have to be? Who said so? Even now as men of science begin to crack open the genetic codes and delve into the secrets of life man should be filled with hope. The final destination of man, the direction this meta-path is leading, (whether an omni-max being exists or not), is the vanquishment of unsolicited death. Not that a man can't die if he so chooses, but that he doesn't have to until he so chooses.

Those issues I referred to earlier about historical man's destination, how he's to travel it and so forth, all of them come to their final conclusion in the facing of this one obvious solution. Until and unless man acknowledges, believes, that he can conquer this enemy, his journey on this meta-path will never come into focus. When man in the aggregate decides to synchronize his politics and science and pursue this one goal his real purpose for being alive, for existing, will come blazing into the reality of his existence like a sunrise. Does this violate the rule of limited resources? Hell yes, and I say good riddance to it. There is a universe out there with unlimited resources, planets by the millions, galaxies and galaxies of un-limited resources.

But, sad to say, man does not see this clearly enough yet. Perhaps it will take a Great Tribulation on a biblical scale to wake him up, something akin to being pushed back to the one yard line and the enemy with three downs to go.

I do not think he can anticipate any help from this being. Man will stand or fall on his own merits. Perhaps that is why religion, in its various expressions, has remained dogging man's footsteps? That in religions last dying gasp it will create a stress great enough to bring man to the one yard line. Then man can decide if he's in the game or just content to be a spectator.

One thing I do not understand about atheists, is their blindness to the obvious. Man made eternal life aught to be our rallying vision. If the vision isn't bigger than the man then it isn't worthy. Not a pie-in-the-sky eternal life but the real deal. Not something granted as an act of mercy, man doesn't need mercy or grace, he needs a vision; he needs something to believe in that transcends even god. A vision of the goalpost. Not something to be prayed over, centuries of bowing in contorted positions has not brought man one step closer to any of his real values. It is up to the atheist to carry the banner. But we absolutely have to recognize who the real enemy to man is. We can sit around these forums whining about the evil and suffering longer than the believer can sit in his prayer closet and neither of us can break the impasse.

Well wyz, I seem to have taken this a tad further than I intended. I invite you to contemplate my words here even though they express much more than just a silly argument. Whether such a being exists or not is irrelevent. What is relevent is that we take those attributes, incorporate them into a vision for man and set our sights on the only logical goal that alleviates us from a community fatalism and ultimate historical suicide...yet again. History doesn't have to repeat itself. Never has man willfully embarked upon such a venture or held such a vision to be self attainable...and that is the fault of religion.

So who is man's opponent? That's easy: DEATH.

rainbow walking

Hell Wyz, while I'm on the subject, let me go ahead and take this ball to the hoop.

200 years from now, long after I'm dead and gone, I'd like to die knowing that there will exist, somewhere in this world, a community of people focused on the true goalpost of eradicating death as an unsolicited event in man's life. But this won't happen unless it starts somewhere becoming a viable idea in man's mind. An idea with humble beginnings perhaps, but with the power to galvanize future historical man into action. It's an idea that has a lot of resistance built into into our generation, foisted upon us by religion. Atheism is just the vehicle needed to get the idea planted in historical man's mind as not only a doable goal but the only necessary goal from which all others can obtain. Hell, it's already an integral aspect of man's psyche and is reflected in his medicine. It needs to be broadcast, talked about, contemplated, discussed, debated, explored, pursued with a vengeance. You want to prove conclusively the religious gods don't exist? Conquer death.

I want to puke everytime I hear somebody say that death is inevitable. I hear the echoes of dogmatic religious programming barking out of their ass when they utter such innanities without knowledge. They may as well be saying the christian god told them so.

Yes we've suffered, we've been on the defense for centuries and the enemy has pushed us back behind the line of scrimmage on a number of occasions. We've suffered horrendous loss and some good players have bit the dust. It's time to excuse our defensive coach, the progenator of religious ideals, and look to ourselves for a game plan. His ideas have kept us on the defense far too long. It's time to go on the offense. We've got the ball on our own ten yard line and every body's standing around waiting on a play. Hell, we don't even appear to realize we're in the game. Thanks to our defensive coach we've been playing tough defense, enduring the pain and trajedy like the good sports we are, but I say it's time we inflicted a little pain of our own.

Death fumbled the ball when we conquered Smallpox but we haven't taken advantage of the field position we gained. The defensive coach is still shouting over the bullhorn, "hang in there boys Jesus is on his way back."

Well, who cares? If he wants to play he sure as hell knows where the game is, but I, for one, am tired of seeing us get our asses kicked waiting for him to show up. If it isn't obvious to anyone else it sure is to me. He ain't coming back. Maybe he didn't like that ass kicking he got in the first quarter when he got hung up on a technicality and wound up sidelined for three days, I don't know, I wasn't there. I just know it's getting late and we need to bust a move.

I don't know how to spell this out any clearer. D-E-A-T-H is our opponent. Not Saddam Hussien. Not Al queda. Not George Bush. Not Abortion. Not Prayer in or out of schools. Not politics or economics or worldviews...but D-E-A-T-H. So our religious coach helped us defend our goalpost but he ain't no offensive coach...not by a long shot. But he ain't going away so let's just ignore him while we got the ball and play to win. Focus, focus, focus on that goalpost 90 yards down the turf.

I'm wondering how we can formulate a good first down play when we seem to think that the definition of a man's life is to grunt around for 60 or 70 years in pursuit of hedonstic happiness and then die? Seems to me we're playing our enemies game here boys. Why don't we try thinking out of the box here and pull an end around and pick up a first down or two? Sure would be good for moral. Hell, we've got a good running game, all we need to do is stay focused and quit believing everything coach religion taught us about our enemy. All we've learned is how to suffer and endure pain. I think we've gotten the message. Death is a bad mammer jammer and can hurt you. How many centuries of dying bodies do we need to plow under before we get the message that "death kills". Can we get on with the game?

I just happened to look up out of the huddle and noticed that the summamabitch had a little bit of a worried look in his eye. I think we can wear him down with the running game. Hell, what have we got to lose...our life? He's already thrown almost everything he's got at us and we're still in the game, so let's kick a little ass. Let's take it to the badass and see if he's got what it takes to keep us outta his end zone.

O'kay, I know none of us will likely live long enough to see his twenty yard line but, what the hell, I don't want to spend the rest of my days running from the bastard. Let's take it to him with a determination that we can give as good as we can take. All we need is a plan. A good play or two will knock him off balance and shut that damn defensive coaches mouth long enough for us to think strait. If all we can do is implement one determined play before we pass the ball off to the next generation, that's a helluva lot more than we're gonna do sitting on our knees begging for Jesus to come back, or Allah to have mercy, or YWYH to send a plague of locusts.

The way I see it Wyz, people aren't so much afaid of death as they are afraid to allow themselves to believe in life. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking anything away from our defensive coach. He did good in helping us endure all the tribulation that incurred when death was on the offense. But I think he's hung up on his star defensive linemen, Job and Jesus.

But ever since death fumbled the ball and we conquered smallpox, and set up a nation consistent to man's nature, humanity has been living in a state of incredulity. It's like we can't believe we' recovered the fumble and actually have the ball. We're still stuck in this defensive mindset and looking at the ball like, "where did this come from?"

It's a F-O-O-T-B-A-L-L. A symbol of our existence. Something we've got to take across the field...the meta-field of life and stick in the enemy's face. Now old coach religion's been telling us how Jesus said the last enemy he would conquer was death, but I think he was just blowing smoke and still pissed cause he got knocked out of the game. Death, to me, isn't the last enemy, but should be our first priority and concern. He is the enemy.

So let's get ready to rumble!

Wyz_sub10

What should I be doing? I should point out that this is exactly the same thing you did with me before - asked me to create a world with characteristics so you can focus on each characteristic specifically.

I think this totality is what presents a problem for you. You seem to need all dots connected to demonstrate PoE not to be a problem. This is almost impossible to do because it forces you to try and attach need and reason to even the most elementary suffering. Suffering, on the other hand, is easy to identify, and it's also easy to identify as an undesirable.

It's find to claim that this "connect the dots" is possible, but to claim that PoE is invalid because of it is a stretch.

Don't be condescending. I understand the argument you are proposing - "perhaps god must be cruel to be kind, perhaps there is no way to achieve "good" without "bad". If this is the case, then there is no PoE as god can be all-loving and still allow this world."

I see the force in stating that opportunities for bravery require opportunities for cowardice, or something similar. I do not see the force in arguing that due to thermodynamics and limited resources, burn victims are a logical necessity.

Any light will do, so long as you remain consistent in your position and definitions.

Really? What if using your "connect the dots" necessity we find out that this is, indeed, the worse it gets?

You seem to be arguing that this is the best it could get (or at an amount that must be), so why not use the same logic to assume it is also the worst?

No. I'd rather my love ones died than spent the rest of their lives being tortured.

If mankind was extinct, there would be no more suffering or evil. A massive asteroid destroying life on earth is not evil, and if death was swift, then there'd be no suffering either.

My "goalpost" is a world where everyone suffers physically and mentally for an indefinite period of time.

We don't agree on the goalposts, but we do agree that this current world isn't it. Let's go from there.

Sorry, RW, this is meaningless. How do you know we're not there? How do you know that this is the limit? Of course, I don't think it is. But how would you know if it was?

And when you say "powerful enough to do anything he desires," what does this mean?

My goalpost is the opposite of the other goalpost. Whether they are powerful or knowledgeable enough means nothing in terms of how good their lives can be.

Are you saying this path requires the suffering to date or does not? Aren’t you resoundingly saying that this path does not necessitate this degree, and then saying that it doesn’t necessitate more or less, either?

Putting those three together, are you not saying that this path has not necessitated suffering at all?

So far, so good.

Did the county build you as well? Did the county give you the reasoning on which choice to make? Can I call the county if you force me to walk on my hands and knees to the store while you drive?

This is a false analogy in every way. You can choose to suffer more if you want, but what about people who must crawl on their knees to the store? I’ve said this before in our discussions – it’s great to make grand concessions when you are neither suffering nor without choice. When you become the legless man that must drag his body to the store, come back and talk to me about the choice you have to travel your straight road. It is those people, after all, to which the PoE refers.

So we are suffering because we don’t know any better? That fails miserably 1) for all the cases where we do know better and still suffer, 2) for the cases where such knowledge is irrelevant.

Besides, I thought you argument was based on the “theory of limited resources”? Now it’s about the “theory of limited knowledge”?

Not at all. You have established that when those among us can choose not to suffer, they most likely will not. You have demonstrated nothing more.

How do you know this “meta-path” is the surest route? Wouldn’t detailed revelation be the surest route? Or simply establishing this route with more logic and less suffering?

Good non-existent-god, what the hell does any of this have to do with an omni- god and suffering?

Yes, people need to confront the challenges of life to overcome them. Yes, when you’re born into the world you must play by the rules (or write your own). I’m failing to see where this diatribe addresses the necessity of suffering.

You are saying no more than “life is what life is”. You are saying “here we are” and somehow trying to attach a metaphysical “necessity” to it. You have not demonstrated anything about a loving god in the present world.

Maybe you’re trying to say that in order to have a “meaningful” world one must have strife and challenge and, therefore, cannot be governed by an omnibenevolent god. This would make a tonne more sense than what you are saying here.

Yes, I agree. Man must rely on himself to address evil.

Why on earth does changing the “meta-path” bring man towards extinction? (Which is not the goalpost I define, BTW). Removing the problem, you seem to think, will keep man from reaching those goals you seem to think are necessary to attain, what you seem to think, is the “good” goalpost.

You seem to think a lot of things that you cannot back up. And yet, this is supposed to sink the PoE as a valid argument once in for all?

Because you assume a bunch of things, then say that if god interfered, these things wouldn’t happen.

Geez, you may just as well argue that 721 rapes a year are necessary to keep the earth from blowing up, so if god intervenes, the earth will blow up.

And if you think that sounds silly, well, it’s just as logically sound as your argument. If you can show me how a person suffering in isolation leads to the betterment of man (according to a definition that I do not agree with in any case), I have yet to see it. You simply assert that, in the big picture, it must lead there – it must preserve the “meta-path”, it must make the world a better place somehow. For a non-theist, you sure seem to have a lot of faith.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong and your argument is sounder in every way. I’ll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

Well, I’m not sold on “meta-paths” to begin with…

This is another subject, but that concession is even dubious. If a being is omnipotent, it cannot relinquish power to any other entity, or else it would no longer have all the power.

If I wished for “all the money in the world” I could never spend it. If I spent a dollar, I would no longer have all the money in the world.

I think that would be omnipotence.

You are officially off the rails here. Death might be your opponent, but it’s not mine. I think you are being a little presumptuous to state with certainty what man’s goals are.

Let’s recap - In trying to prove your point, you have assumed man has a purpose, you have asserted his goals, you have asserted the “best good” and “worse bad”, you have asserted that we are walking on a “meta-path”, you have asserted that deviance from this asserted “meta-path” will undoubtedly lead to death.

And this is supposed to constitute a defence against the PoE?

Many people have embraced death when they felt willing to let go. My wife just told me not three weeks ago that a friend of hers was upset because her mom (who has been sick) told her that she was ready to die. She felt she had lived a long and happy life and was ready to go. This is not a unique occurrence.

If my dad was suffering with painful brain cancer, I’d rather see him die.

Speak for yourself.

I thought that the omni- god, due to the “theory of limited resources” said so? If not, then what the hell was all that about in your past posts?

Whatever. This sounds like New Age banter, but I don’t see what this has to do with the PoE (especially because this is the second time you have said “whether omni-max exists or not”).

This is especially about that omni-max. That’s what we’re discussing.

You’re losing me, RW. But, hey, I’m all for man conquering his enemies.

Well, at least we agree that faith in religion is holding man back.

You can ask me again in 50 years (hopefully), but I don’t mind the idea of checking out at some point. In my career, healthcare has been a focus for me. I embrace the idea of curing disease and prolonging life. Whether eternal life is either possible or desirable, remains to be seen.

I just think man needs an appreciation for the time he has, and the empathy and concern to help others make the most of their time.

My discussions on evil and suffering are, in part, to challenge the theist to examine their position. I do not whine about the existence of either. I understand it is man’s duty to address these things, but not by saying novenas or condemning same-sex marriages.

But this wasn’t a discussion on the obligations of the atheist. It was a discussion on the validity of the PoE. It seems this discussion has transcended those borders somewhat.

Indeed.

Do not doubt that I have considered your words.

I will let you have the final word on this. While I do not agree, I will preserve the point for others to consider.

rainbow walking

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rainbow walking
Hi Again Wyz,
I think what's happening here is best described by that old adage, "can't see the forest for the trees". What you appear to be doing, in your attempts to comprehend my argument, is to focus in on specific points and stack them up individually against the "problem" of evil and suffering" contained in PoE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What should I be doing? I should point out that this is exactly the same thing you did with me before - asked me to create a world with characteristics so you can focus on each characteristic specifically.

rw: Very well, I'll go back and address each of your criticisms again.

Wyz_sub10

No, you need not do that. Your final post was interesting, and I have made my comments on it. If you would like to review anything please, do. But I think we'll likely travel in a circle once more.

rainbow walking

wyz: Do you have reason to think that "misguided competitive drivings" contribute to the greater good? I realize that is a fuzzy notion, not well defined. But a defensive that says "well, it could be for the best" isn't really saying anything about the particular issue. You could say the exact same thing about torturing birds.

Rw: Do you deny social and moral evolution? If so, you do so in the face of history. Are men still sold as chattel? Are women allowed to vote? Do you suppose these advances came about by accident, or without great struggle? Do you suppose that they existed initially by accident and not to the benefit of the elite? It is in the conglomeration of sufferings and ills that men are motivated to act for the mutual good of the community. When they do not, suffering continues to accrue.



wyz: In the same way that you dropping an anvil on my head is an example of physics and demonstrates gravity (and the inability of my skull to crush the anvil, as opposed to the reverse). But the act of you dropping the anvil or me standing there have nothing to do with the physics involved in the end result.

Rw: Not those particular physics, no. You did not specify that the child was intentionally burned in your example. My dropping an anvil on your head could very well be an act of premeditated murder to steal your limited supply of goods to augment my own limited supply, thus turning you into a victim to augment my own happiness.

wyz: The child does not have to burn to "satisfy" the thermodynamics. i.e. it is not necessary to have this happen, just as it is not necessary for you to drop an anvil on my head. (At least give me time to get out my Acme umbrella, first).

Rw: No one is arguing necessity here. Just demonstrating one of the myriad ways in which nature acts as a response to the rule of limited resources. That was your initial line of questioning remember?



wyz: You're losing me here. I'm not sure I know the specifics of "the rule of limited resources", but I'm quite sure that an omnipotent being has a wealth of avenues to ensure limited resources don't have the effect you are stating above without making it necessary for little girls to burn themselves.

Rw: The little girl’s body is a limited resource that also has some built in defensive indicators called nerves. It is nature’s way of motivating her to escape the pain to preserve the limited resource of her life and health. I would be willing to entertain any ideas as to how you imagine she can do this without the element of pain.

wyz: Actually, it would seem to me that this would have the opposite effect. A burned (but not dead) child would require more resources. Speaking as someone who has worked in healthcare for many years, I can confidently say that the cost to maintain a sick or disabled individual imposes a significant financial burden on resources. It would be better, in such cases, for god to snap his fingers and snuff her out painlessly.

Rw: Indeed, and at what percentage of burnt flesh do you suggest he snap his fingers? Also determining the relative value of one resource to another does not prevent us from making an investment. If you feel the girl’s life is a greater value than the time and resources needed to nurse her back to health you have made a value assessment and an investment. It is in just such instances as this that man learns to empathize and feel compassion. Were there no such virtue as compassion she might be left to die. When we pool our resources we’re able to offset the natural course of nature by investing those resources in saving people’s lives. I also argued that man had learned to both cooperate and compete. Seems you’re leaving out half the equation here.



wyz: No idea what you mean by any of this. So the girl, as a resource, changes "states" to demonstrate resources are limited?

Rw: If the girl lost her life in the fire her physical body would undergo the process of decomposition eventually and change states. I am not suggesting that a girl should be burned or killed just to demonstrate such a rule. But her body is a limited resource and will only withstand a certain degree of damage before she dies.



wyz: RW, what the christ are you talking about? And what does this have to do with suffering?

I understand the concept, but are you eventually going to tie this in to how a girl's burns are necessary? What "resources" do you think are being conserved here?

Rw: You keep insisting that I’ve ascribed some sort of necessity to these individual examples when I have not. It is necessary that the human body, as a limited resource of one’s existence, have some built in defense mechanisms for self “preservation” Where do you think that term originates? Preservation? As in the acknowledgment that something is limited and thus needs to be carefully allocated, like one’s own human anatomy. Are you suggesting these defense mechanisms aren’t necessary? How is one to know they’re being burned, or stabbed, or stung by bees or a host of other physical hazards a human could possibly face?



wyz: I think, first off, one has to accept the "rule of limited resources" to begin with, which, in the presence of an omnipotent being, I don't see why this is required. I understand that you will tie limited resources to goals and ambitions and health competition, etc. But there's no necessary reason to accept it. The fire doesn't have to burn the girl. If it does, it certainly doesn't have to leave her in pain. Why not burn her but make it painless in the years to follow (because it ain't)? Why not just kill the girl in order to end her suffering?

Rw: Then you are advocating that this being reduce man’s capacity to experience physical pain, thereby making self preservation more difficult and bringing man to the brink of extinction in the process. Sound logical to you? Why not develop better methods of fire prevention, pain sedation and burn treatment?

wyz: BTW, if xians never concede god's involvement in this necessarily evil state of affairs, then isn't that the PoE, right there?

Rw: I don’t know, I’m not arguing from a xian position. I merely threw this out as an interesting aside.



wyz: Okay. So then why define evil as you have defined it? It seems that we agree that interfering with the pursuit of happiness is not a good moral measuring stick.

Rw: I don’t recall defining it to mean you could do what ever you want to others to secure your own happiness. How did you interpret my definition?







wyz: But those reasons may not be legitimate. You may shoot the barista at Starbucks because you fear all the coffee has been poisoned (please don't shoot the barista at Starbucks, BTW). But that is not a legitimate reason - necessary cause. If you are going to make a jump between brain chemistry and resources, you had better explain this further.

Rw: Again, why do you keep ascribing necessary to every single such instance you’ve imagined. I do not hold that these individual incidents are necessary. I hold only that a degree of evil and pain is necessary to preserve the concept. Many causes of pain and suffering are un-avoidable, like childbirth. These would be necessary. Feeling physical pain from a life threatening event is necessary, but many acts of evil and psychosis are not necessary, but they happen nonetheless. Both are within the scope of man’s realm of responsibility to address.



wyz: That's fine, RW, but you haven't demonstrated why any of this is necessary.

Rw: Because I’ve not argued that all such cases are necessary. But they remain our responsibility to address psychologically with our science and medicine.

Wyz: How does an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being allow for imbalances in brain chemistry that allow for such psychoses?

Rw: Why does such a being have to “allow” for such things? You understand how genetic defects arise, and that sometimes as a result of environmental pressures these mutations can actually become the next evolutionary step? Well, sometimes they don’t and people are born with physical and mental handicaps, but the evolutionary forces are random and natural. The only way to resolve such anomalies is to negate evolution. Guess where that takes your PoE?

Wyz: Emotional competition is not necessarily consistent with competition for physical resources. You cannot assume that just because we have 'x' number of trees to work with, that we also have 'x' "number" of love or confidence to work with. (Besides, if god is omnibenevolent, can't he give you all the love you need?)

Rw: As I said, each case is different and I see no reason to argue every such case that you can imagine. If this is the best you can come up with, save us both a lot of unnecessary typing. I have my limit as to how many different examples I’m going to extrapolate out for you.



wyz: What you are describing is a clockwork scenario - god connects the machinery, winds the watch, and that's that. That certainly isn't the J/C god, to be sure. But even discounting that, there is nothing about that god that demonstrates omnipotence or omnibenevolence. I would argue that it contradicts omnibenevolence.

Rw: What? I don’t know how many times I’ve said I’m not arguing the xian god. And the forces of nature are not all we’re talking about here. We have been discussing a number of examples of human suffering, have we not? So how do you take this one description of a tornado, that you introduced, and then make such a claim against omni-benevolence?

wyz: God could simply steer the tornado away from people (more on that below). Or he could have created a world where air interactions were below the threshold of major disturbances.

Rw: And how does man conduct his scientific progress if this being interferes with nature? There are a heap more factors involved in tornados and weather than just air inter-actions. You’ve got seasonal changes, jet streams, oceanic disturbances like El Nino’s, ionization, rapid heating and cooling from UV rays as the earth rotates on its axis. We’re right back to modifying the entire universal laws of nature…and then there’s all the good benefits derived from these phenomena to consider as well, as summer rains that water crops, gentle winds that disseminate seedlings, do you know how inter-dependent our economy is on the weather? You really don’t think any of these examples through enough before you offer them, do you?

wyz: You are giving me physical explanations for a tornado, as you had for why skin burns. I aware that there are explanations for these things, and I understand that you are trying to tie it all in to resources.

Rw: Yes, at your insistence…remember?

wyz: But god supposedly chose certain resources, chose then way they would interact, defined the laws (including thermodynamics and all of physics). You are saying “it is what it is”, which is not to say that anything, or the results of anything, are necessary.

Rw: Whether it is necessary that nature works the way it does is a moot question. It works the way it works and we’ve evolved to work with it as much as possible, and have the potential to one day make precise predictions of weather patterns down to the square foot. If you change these laws…well, we’ve already been down that road…yes?



wyz: One could argue that everything can be deemed to be caused by a being if that being created all and knows all, but that's something to think about.

Rw: If you want to argue for a malevolent being, go ahead, but it won’t fly. For every bad example you give I can give five good examples. I have historical precedence and empirical evidence on my side. The last census has the world population increasing. This doesn’t happen in a hell-hole world. It has the number of people becoming wealthy increasing. Another sign the world is not the slime pit you’re making it out to be. For every instance of catastrophe you can list in one part of the world, I can list similar instances of pleasantness in other parts of the same world simultaneously.

wyz: Even if they were not caused by god, the question remains on why they are allowed to happen. The PoE isn't necessarily why suffering was created, but why suffering is allowed to exist.

Rw: Why is joy allowed to exist if such a being is so cruel?



wyz: Evolution, it was seem, was a pretty poor choice of vehicle for an omnibenevolent/omnipotent being. While we can agree that evolution did occur, you'd be hard pressed to argue that evolution was a necessity.

Rw: It is natures choices and YOU are here as a result. Would you prefer not to be?

wyz: Plus, disease is, in no way, a necessity of evolution. Evolution did not require that humans succumb to disease - that's just the way it worked out. Unless, of course, you are arguing that disease is god's tool to keep the population trim.

Rw: Evolution does not require anything. It’s just an explanation for the way things are.

wyz: If so, we are back to the benevolence issue - pretty mean way to do that, wouldn't you say?

Rw: Are you now saying evolution is mean spirited or malevolent?



wyz: Isn't that a problem?

Rw: What do you think? Is it a problem beyond man’s ability to resolve eventually?



wyz: IMO, humans struggle to exist under the present conditions because god does not exist. I agree with much of what you say above, despite my protests, but only to the end that this is the way it is and there is no all-loving, all-powerful god to watch over us.

Rw: Of course, but PoE doesn’t support our concurrence on this issue, which is all I’m arguing.

wyz: If a being is omnipotent, then resources are only limited to the end that he so chooses. If, indeed, he does choose to limit resources, than we must question the benevolence behind a "plan" that makes suffering necessary.

Rw: Only if said plan doesn’t allow for man’s role and participation in the negation of its causes. And the limitations that make for many of the causes on this planet will no longer be a problem once man reaches out into the stars. The universe has an ample supply of all man needs. But the earth does not. So even this charge is frivolous by comparison.

wyz: I want to return to "steering the tornado" at this point. In another post you noted that you did not want to consider miracles or add divine acts to the mix. I'm not sure why not. After all, if you exclude miracles than you are essentially excluding omnipotence. I have already stated that the exclusion of omnipotence eliminates the PoE.

Rw: And what evidence do you offer that these “miracles” have actually occurred? Evil and suffering we can agree on, but now you’re modifying the argument to base it on controversial claims that you cannot support. I am not obligated to address such concerns in my deconstruction of PoE because PoE is not argued from the basis of xian miracles.

wyz: It seems unfair for you to insist that omnipotence is part of the god equation, yet any display of or reference to this power is not allowed in formulating solutions to suffering.

Rw: And the act of creation itself is not display enough? You’ve been arguing all these facets of creation that this being could have altered and now, suddenly, that’s insufficient to establish omnipotence? What gives?



wyz: The consequences are problematic - evil is a problem. We supposedly have an omnibenevolent god that we recognize as such despite being repulsed by the consequences of his benevolence.

Rw: How many different ways are you going to recite PoE? I’m not obligated to recite my entire argument every time you think up another way to recite the same PoE.



wyz: And losing our lives is problematic. Are you suggesting that if we really embraced god's love we would not value our lives? It would seem this is what you are saying - there is no PoE, according to you. It is our problem, not god's.

rw: The problem of evil does not negate the existence of an omni-max being. That’s all I’m saying. I have said nothing about embracing anything other than the omni-max concepts as the highest expression of our own greatest good. A god like being isn’t required.

wyz: And if we did not value our lives, would that not make our lives valueless, and run contradictory to any purpose they could have been for creation to begin with?

Rw: I’m genuinely puzzled by these comments. How did you arrive at this “we needn’t value our lives” assertion?




wyz: In the first part of your response, you seem to be saying that reducing suffering is a function of obedience rather than 'goodness'. What is 'good', then?

Rw: I was referring to the ancient theocratic systems that used religious expression as a means to appease their gods and secure obedience from their constituency. The “good” in their world was to be obedient. From that world to our world is part of that “historical man” part of my argument that demonstrates man’s refinement of his moral comprehension. We now live in a nation that has a law demanding separation of church and state.

wyz: The second part of your statement confuses me a bit. You are saying that modern societies can compete without having to follow strict rules. Regardless of the validity of this statement, I'm not sure what the relevance is. Yes, society encourages competition. Yes, there are relatively few universal rules that "handcuff" this (but still many rules). Yes, it sometimes results in suffering. But this goes back to my last statement - if this is the case, then you world you describe should promote "dog eat dog" to the fullest degree - it is good to compete for resources, in fact it is necessary.

Rw: And men have also learned to cooperate to compete with other communities. We live in a world where a synthesis of competition and cooperation has occurred. There has been a historical progression to get to this point.



wyz: You mean the consequences that god has defined? They're still god's rules. You are simply advocating that we accept the necessity, theoretically, but resist it in practice.

Can you not see the PoE in this paradox?

Rw: The consequences are not defined until after the fact. But then, after having experienced them a few times you’d think men would quit trying to re-invent the wheel, but it still remains that man is a participant and this places upon him responsibilities to learn and grow politically/prescriptively and scientifically/descriptively to succeed at the acquisition of his own greatest good. Pointing at the unpleasant side of the journey, while ignoring the beneficial side, and blaming/claiming such a being is cruel and morally deficient if he does exist, but doesn’t exist, is not logical.



wyz: Has does this differ from my statement, way back in the discussion, that evil or suffering can exist conceptually? You seemed to think it was a problem, now you are saying it is not a problem.

Rw: It has to exist conceptually, but this entails it exist perceptually.

wyz: It seems clear, RW, that you are not actually arguing for an omni- god at all. You are clearly describing a watchmaker god that sets up the universe and let's it wind down.

Rw: Really? That doesn’t seem so clear to me, but no matter. PoE only describes three attributes and those are its own undoing…not mine.

wyz: I agree that in this universe, the PoE isn't a 'P' at all. But for the omni- god, there remains much to address.


Rw: Perhaps…but not from PoE’s perspective.

rainbow walking

Rw: Ah…wyz, judging from the over-all tone of this reply, you seem to be a bit pissed. Just my personal subjective observation. If true, don’t sweat it, I do have a tendency to piss folks off. (shrug) Not intentionally, mind you…well, not usually intentionally :^D but, at any rate, we seem to have spiraled from an intellectual meeting of the minds to a more emotionalectual bumping of heads. But that’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes such exchanges also afford opportunities for truth to emerge. Hey, I have a hard head…what can I say:^D



wyz: I think this totality is what presents a problem for you. You seem to need all dots connected to demonstrate PoE not to be a problem.


Rw: That’s not a problem unless someone, (and I’m not calling any names here), decides to isolate a proposition, compare it to an example taken from PoE, and then claim victory because the isolated proposition doesn’t, by itself, deconstruct PoE. A complex argument like PoE requires a complex rebuttal. That’s not a problem. I’m a complex kind of guy…

Wyz: This is almost impossible to do because it forces you to try and attach need and reason to even the most elementary suffering.

Rw: The thing is wyz, many forms of pain and suffering are necessary to man’s survival, procreation and or historical progress. It depends on the example being considered which of these factors will best explain its necessity. But, conversely, no single example HAS to occur just to satisfy necessity. So, from this perspective, such examples needn’t be necessary to convey the bigger goals. If man can’t, either now or sometime in his historical progression, address any one of these forms of suffering, then PoE obtains. In other words, if you find an example of a cause or form of suffering that is positively outside man’s scope of potential to address, then you might have a resurrected PoE.

Wyz: Suffering, on the other hand, is easy to identify, and it's also easy to identify as an undesirable.

Rw: Yes, that’s why this form of PoE is an “evidential” argument. It considers the reality of pain and suffering as “evidence”. However, what I have done in my argument is to interpret the evidence from a specific paradigm tying your evidence into a bigger picture and thus demonstrating how it serves man’s greater good in either preserving his life (a limited resource), facilitating his procreation, or his historical progression either politically or scientifically, and thereby achieving a thrust towards his greater good.

wyz: It's fine to claim that this "connect the dots" is possible, but to claim that PoE is invalid because of it is a stretch.

Rw: Not only is it possible but it diffuses PoE in the process. A stretch isn’t necessary. It’s obvious, once you begin to extrapolate every such isolated piece of “evidence” out to its logical connection.



wyz: Don't be condescending.

Rw: Condescension wasn’t my reason for saying this. I genuinely think the reason we’re still butting heads here is because you haven’t fully grasped the implications in my argument. This is likely my fault because it is a complex argument and I’m not very good at launching complex arguments in a way that facilitates comprehension. You’re not the first or only one to point this out to me, so I know I’ve got a handicap in this area.

Wyz: I understand the argument you are proposing - "perhaps god must be cruel to be kind, perhaps there is no way to achieve "good" without "bad". If this is the case, then there is no PoE as god can be all-loving and still allow this world."

I see the force in stating that opportunities for bravery require opportunities for cowardice, or something similar. I do not see the force in arguing that due to thermodynamics and limited resources, burn victims are a logical necessity.

Rw: And that falls back on my shoulders as being an indictment against my communicative skills. Or perhaps I misunderstood your query concerning the rule of limited resources? This particular example was approached, by me, from the scientific perspective because I perceived that to be the general focus of your question. It was an isolated explanation of the science involved in the burning of human flesh and how it ties into the rule of limited resources. By itself it says nothing normative or detrimental to PoE.



wyz: Any light will do, so long as you remain consistent in your position and definitions.

Rw: Hehehehe….



wyz: Really? What if using your "connect the dots" necessity we find out that this is, indeed, the worse it gets?

Rw: In reality I hope that it is. I hope it gets better and not worse. However, that man could conceivably self extinct, is also a possibility and, to me, would represent the worst case scenario.

wyz: You seem to be arguing that this is the best it could get (or at an amount that must be), so why not use the same logic to assume it is also the worst?

Rw: Because it is not based on an assumption but on the reality that extinction would not be preferable to our current state of affairs. To argue differently is not logical. And I am definitely not arguing this is the “best” it could get…in relation to pain and suffering. Quite the contrary, I’m arguing that it will get much better as man progresses. I’m arguing that this meta-path is the best possible path because it allows for those eventual realities. You may be confusing my assessment of the meta-path with my assessment of the degree of evil and suffering that could occur along that path.



wyz: No. I'd rather my love ones died than spent the rest of their lives being tortured. If mankind was extinct, there would be no more suffering or evil. A massive asteroid destroying life on earth is not evil, and if death was swift, then there'd be no suffering either.

Rw: But I would prefer to live, to destroy that asteroid before it destroys my family.

Wyz: My "goalpost" is a world where everyone suffers physically and mentally for an indefinite period of time.

Rw: Then you are advocating that nothing change. That everyone does experience some degree of pain and suffering during the course of their lives is a fact. That every instance in which that suffering was experienced can be said to have been necessary is not a fact. The meta-path does not necessitate the type, degree and duration of any specific case of suffering, but that some degree of suffering is inevitable. It also allows man the privilege of addressing his pain and suffering to minimize and eliminate its causes.



wyz: We don't agree on the goalposts, but we do agree that this current world isn't it. Let's go from there.

Rw: Your statement above doesn’t sound like this current world isn’t it. It sounded to me like a description of this current worlds level of suffering. Unless I’ve misunderstood what you mean by indefinitely? I took that to mean the duration of any particular instance of suffering was indeterminate…which is the case. If what you meant was that everyone would spend their entire lives in pain and agony then you have just described a scenario leading up to extinction. Why would man procreate under such extreme conditions?



wyz: Sorry, RW, this is meaningless. How do you know we're not there? How do you know that this is the limit? Of course, I don't think it is. But how would you know if it was?

Rw: Because you’d have no reason to argue PoE. The level and degree of pain and suffering, when we get there, will be all but a thing of the past. The same evidence you use to argue PoE supports my answer to this question.

wyz: And when you say "powerful enough to do anything he desires," what does this mean?

Rw: Being very good, that he would desire to do very good things and would have the ability, politically and scientifically, to do so.

wyz: My goalpost is the opposite of the other goalpost. Whether they are powerful or knowledgeable enough means nothing in terms of how good their lives can be.

Rw: Did you read the part in the paragraph above about “being as caring and loving as man is capable of being”?



wyz: Are you saying this path requires the suffering to date or does not? Aren’t you resoundingly saying that this path does not necessitate this degree, and then saying that it doesn’t necessitate more or less, either?

Rw: Exactly. I’m saying that the element of pain and suffering, (your evidence in PoE), is built into man’s interaction with the meta-path, thus as an element of man it becomes a necessity, but the degree and duration is not set in stone. It could have been more, it could have been less. When you stump your toe on a rock and experience a sharp pain in your foot do you blame the rock or your own clumsiness? Did you have to experience that particular pain for whatever duration it lasted, at that particular time? No! You could have been more careful with your steps. The meta-path allows you some control over the degree of pain and suffering you experience. Sometimes, some causes of suffering are unavoidable, at that time, but not forever because man, in the aggregate, via science and politics, can address these causes also.

wyz: Putting those three together, are you not saying that this path has not necessitated suffering at all?

Rw: Exactly! The meta-path itself necessitates nothing…only man’s inter-action with the meta-path incurs occasions for pain and suffering. It’s twofold. The ability to experience pain and suffering is a necessity of inter-action, (competition, procreation, self preservation, historical progression). The DEGREE of pain and suffering experienced is not set or dictated by the path, but by man as he travels that path relative to these factors.



wyz: Did the county build you as well? Did the county give you the reasoning on which choice to make? Can I call the county if you force me to walk on my hands and knees to the store while you drive?

Rw: Yes, yes and yes, (in relation to PoE, of course). Whether or not the county will respond to your call is another question. If I force you to do anything against your will it becomes a matter of man’s responsibility to address…not the county’s. As far as “reasoning”, it would be more cogent to say reasoning capacity.

wyz: This is a false analogy in every way. You can choose to suffer more if you want, but what about people who must crawl on their knees to the store?

Rw: Compassionate people cooperate to help them. Scientific people work to prevent future cases such as this. Political people work to converge limited resources towards addressing that prevention. In an ideal world, of course.

Wyz: I’ve said this before in our discussions – it’s great to make grand concessions when you are neither suffering nor without choice. When you become the legless man that must drag his body to the store, come back and talk to me about the choice you have to travel your straight road. It is those people, after all, to which the PoE refers.

Rw: Now there was a time when such people had to crawl, but that path has encouraged men to use their minds to build for them better means to travel and artificial limbs. Historical man has a role in this journey. He’s not some squid being drug along by forces beyond his ability to address…and that is the beauty of this meta-path. There does not always reside within every cause of pain and suffering an immediate resolution. But there always resides within every cause of pain and suffering an immediate incentive to address the cause and alleviate the suffering.



wyz: So we are suffering because we don’t know any better?

Rw: In some cases, yes…but not because we can’t learn.

wyz: That fails miserably 1) for all the cases where we do know better and still suffer, 2) for the cases where such knowledge is irrelevant.

Rw:
1. If we know better and still suffer why would we blame such a being for our willful ignorance?

2. It would be helpful if you would provide an example of such a case as I am without a clue as to what you are talking about.

wyz: Besides, I thought you argument was based on the “theory of limited resources”? Now it’s about the “theory of limited knowledge”?

rw: Knowledge is a limited resource and must be gained in the same way most other resources are gained…by hard work, cooperation and competition.




wyz: Not at all. You have established that when those among us can choose not to suffer, they most likely will not. You have demonstrated nothing more.

Rw: Choice is the first step. Men do not come to such a place unless they’ve earned it. To earn it will require the fullest development of mans goodness, knowledge and power/abilities.



wyz: How do you know this “meta-path” is the surest route? Wouldn’t detailed revelation be the surest route? Or simply establishing this route with more logic and less suffering?

Rw: Want to put that to the test? Describe how man will have virtue on revelation or logic alone. I don’t care if you’re God Almighty or Aristotle, commanding me to feel compassion or describing the feeling of compassion in logical terms is not the same as actually experiencing compassion; of actually coming face-to-face with a man with no legs or a girl who’s been horribly burned and scarred. Now let me see if I can anticipate your next barrage of questions. “Well, why is feeling compassion necessary to benevolence or goodness?” Self explanatory. “Well, why do people have to be scarred or born with no legs so that you can feel compassion?” So that we will get up off our arses and do something, contribute something to the cause of ensuring that future generations won’t have to be scarred or legless which is all a part of historical man’s trek towards his greater good.



wyz: Good non-existent-god, what the hell does any of this have to do with an omni- god and suffering?

Yes, people need to confront the challenges of life to overcome them. Yes, when you’re born into the world you must play by the rules (or write your own). I’m failing to see where this diatribe addresses the necessity of suffering.

Rw: Only because you absolutely refuse to extrapolate out any further than your nose. Let’s continue with your “yes’s” shall we? Yes when you experience pain or suffering in this life it compels you to do something, sometimes something that makes a difference, even if only to one person, and an aggregate of persons making a difference makes an aggregate of difference and historical man marches on, and the end result is that the concepts contained in such a being’s attributes are expressed in a loving creature called man.

wyz: You are saying no more than “life is what life is”. You are saying “here we are” and somehow trying to attach a metaphysical “necessity” to it. You have not demonstrated anything about a loving god in the present world.

Rw: Did you read the first sentence in that paragraph about science and politics? Are these not concepts that have a historical significance? Meaning they carry more than a “life is what life is” weight of authority and promise of future value attained. If I was saying “here we are” why would I even invoke history or man’s greater good?

wyz: Maybe you’re trying to say that in order to have a “meaningful” world one must have strife and challenge and, therefore, cannot be governed by an omni-benevolent god. This would make a ton more sense than what you are saying here.

Rw: Maybe you should stop trying to describe my argument based on your interpretation of one paragraph and consider the paragraph in the context of the entire argument.




wyz: Yes, I agree. Man must rely on himself to address evil.

Rw: Excellent.



wyz: Why on earth does changing the “meta-path” bring man towards extinction?

Rw: If such a path facilitates man’s progression towards a greater good, what would the alteration of such a path facilitate?

Wyz: (Which is not the goalpost I define, BTW). Removing the problem, you seem to think, will keep man from reaching those goals you seem to think are necessary to attain, what you seem to think, is the “good” goalpost. You seem to think a lot of things that you cannot back up. And yet, this is supposed to sink the PoE as a valid argument once in for all?

Rw: And what more back up do I need? I’ve presented a logical argument resplendent with a number of cogent propositions based on empirical data like history, science and politics that presents us with a more salient interpretation of the evidence used by PoE and, as a result, nullifies PoE’s conclusion.



wyz: Because you assume a bunch of things, then say that if god interfered, these things wouldn’t happen.

Rw: History, science, politics, logic, reason and persistence. I haven’t assumed anything. I’ve supported my claims at the outset. I’ve graciously expanded on them to improve clarity and all along the way you’ve tried to pick them apart and I just keep tying them back together. I appreciate every opportunity I get to demonstrate their veracity and will continue to do so…on and on and on for as long as it takes. Taken together, as any good argument should, they absolutely eviscerate PoE and you have failed to resurrect it.

wyz: Geez, you may just as well argue that 721 rapes a year are necessary to keep the earth from blowing up, so if god intervenes, the earth will blow up.

And if you think that sounds silly, well, it’s just as logically sound as your argument.

Rw: Oh really? And you think my argument says X number of things have to take place and if not the earth will explode? No wonder your attempts to defeat it are failing so miserably.

Wyz: If you can show me how a person suffering in isolation leads to the betterment of man (according to a definition that I do not agree with in any case), I have yet to see it. You simply assert that, in the big picture, it must lead there – it must preserve the “meta-path”, it must make the world a better place somehow. For a non-theist, you sure seem to have a lot of faith.

Rw: What’s this person doing suffering in isolation? How’d he get there? What’s his condition? What’s his pain tolerance level? Does he have no recourse to modern medicine?

wyz: Hey, maybe I’m wrong and your argument is sounder in every way. I’ll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

Rw: Then we’ve found something upon which we both agree. You are wrong and the argument is sounder in every way.



wyz: Well, I’m not sold on “meta-paths” to begin with…

rw: However, I think it's already been resolved that omnipotence would not include the ability to create another being more powerful than the omnipotence which created it. This entails a logical contradiction. However, it's not outside the scope of omnipotence to create a being, or species, capable of emulating those attribute(S) as near to the omni's as conceivably possible without actual duplication. [/quote]



wyz: This is another subject, but that concession is even dubious. If a being is omnipotent, it cannot relinquish power to any other entity, or else it would no longer have all the power.

Rw: How does one relinquish one’s capacity to do things outside of being held captive?





wyz: I think that would be omnipotence.

Rw: In splitting apart the above paragraph you’ve misplaced omnipotence. It’s in the first sentence directly above this one.



wyz: You are officially off the rails here. Death might be your opponent, but it’s not mine.

Rw: Relax, you’ll get your shot at it. Then you’ll see if your current position is accurate or not.

Wyz: I think you are being a little presumptuous to state with certainty what man’s goals are.

Rw: And what goals did I state?

wyz: Let’s recap - In trying to prove your point, you have assumed man has a purpose,

Rw: I have assumed nothing. I have given a detailed reference to man’s history. You do know the difference between assumption and a supported assertion? Unless you’re planning to argue with the history books I suggest you re-evaluate this misapplied accusation. I have conclusively DEMONSTRATED that man is progressing towards a greater good.

Wyz: you have asserted his goals, you have asserted the “best good” and “worse bad”, you have asserted that we are walking on a “meta-path”, you have asserted that deviance from this asserted “meta-path” will undoubtedly lead to death.

And this is supposed to constitute a defense against the PoE?

Rw: Are you sure you didn’t omit any postulates? Here’s a good place to check: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=54275

No matter how you slice it or dice it wyz, I have a sound argument, I have it down pat, and you can’t trip me up in my words, regardless of how many times and ways you re-arrange those words and then reinterpret those rearranged words to make it appear to say something else, all I have to do is arrange them back into their proper order and the argument remains sound. Which is quite unlike your PoE inspired alternate state of affairs that you set out to devise and never got around to actually describing in a way consistent to PoE.



wyz: Many people have embraced death when they felt willing to let go. My wife just told me not three weeks ago that a friend of hers was upset because her mom (who has been sick) told her that she was ready to die. She felt she had lived a long and happy life and was ready to go. This is not a unique occurrence.

Rw: No it isn’t but it doesn’t mean we have to succumb to old age and sickness. When we reach the point of death becoming a choice rather than an inevitability, we will have addressed the geriatrics of old age and all possible diseases such that extending life won’t incur suffering of a different kind.



wyz: If my dad was suffering with painful brain cancer, I’d rather see him die.

Rw: Were I positing an immediate resolution to death without the journey to eradicating disease and aging, you’d be right. But if we never envision a resolution to death, it isn’t likely we’ll ever see such a vision come to pass.



wyz: Speak for yourself.

Rw: I speak for all of us, whether you agree or disagree.



wyz: I thought that the omni- god, due to the “theory of limited resources” said so? If not, then what the hell was all that about in your past posts?

Rw: Where did I say anything about the meta-path excluding this possibility? Limited resources only applies to this planet. By the time we actually conquer death as an inevitability we’ll likely also be exploring the reaches of space where the rule of limited resources does not apply to such a limiting degree as it does on this world. You continue to ignore the potential of historical man.



wyz: Whatever. This sounds like New Age banter, but I don’t see what this has to do with the PoE (especially because this is the second time you have said “whether omni-max exists or not”).
Rw: It has everything to do with PoE. I am describing man’s greatest good as a species and some of the accomplishment this would entail.

wyz: This is especially about that omni-max. That’s what we’re discussing.

Rw: And the possibility of his existence is not excluded but also not elevated. The concepts contained in the attributes are needed and that’s all.



wyz: You’re losing me, RW. But, hey, I’m all for man conquering his enemies.

Rw: I’ll be more than happy to clarify anything you find incomprehensible in any of this…inside or outside the context of PoE.



wyz: Well, at least we agree that faith in religion is holding man back.

Rw: Excellent.


wyz: You can ask me again in 50 years (hopefully), but I don’t mind the idea of checking out at some point. In my career, healthcare has been a focus for me. I embrace the idea of curing disease and prolonging life. Whether eternal life is either possible or desirable, remains to be seen.

Rw: Fair enough.



wyz: I just think man needs an appreciation for the time he has, and the empathy and concern to help others make the most of their time.

Rw: I think that appreciation, rather than being hampered by extended life, would be augmented by all the vistas of possibilities this would open up for man. With life being extricated from the list of limited resources man has TIME to do anything he wants. Certainly this should be appreciated. Patience becomes an automatic instantiation because he has no need to hurry. And, by the time man reaches this level of accomplishment, medicine will have advanced tremendously such that suffering from disease and other maladies is not a factor in his existence. Many of the diseases that plague man are specific to this planet. Once man advances into space these diseases do not have to follow him.



wyz: My discussions on evil and suffering are, in part, to challenge the theist to examine their position. I do not whine about the existence of either. I understand it is man’s duty to address these things, but not by saying novenas or condemning same-sex marriages.

But this wasn’t a discussion on the obligations of the atheist. It was a discussion on the validity of the PoE. It seems this discussion has transcended those borders somewhat.

Rw: Yes, quite naturally.



wyz: Indeed.

Do not doubt that I have considered your words.

Rw: I am glad. That is all any man, in the final analysis, can ask of his neighbor.



wyz: I will let you have the final word on this. While I do not agree, I will preserve the point for others to consider.

Rw: Very well then, I appreciate the opportunity you’ve afforded me to defend the argument and to take that defense beyond the argument. Until our minds meet again….

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I already answered this. (And Dr. Retard provided a useful analogy.) Please read my post again.

That's what God does. God is not limited to the laws of physics.

Non sequitur.

Definition of "omnipotent."

Huh? What does it matter what it would take to satisfy me?

Demonstration of the current levels? What does that mean? Demonstration of the current level itself? Or why they're relevant? Or why the current level is too much? I've already provided reasons. There's lots of suffering around and God is obligated to tell us that there's a good reason for it the way a mother is obligated to tell her kid there's a good reason for vaccinating the kid.

I've already answered this. First, there are some things we can't do for ourselves, such as preventing natural disasters, and second, people are indeed obligated to help other people, even if those people could help themselves. If I watch person X about to shoot innocent person Y, I'm obligated to prevent it, even if it's within X's power to refrain from shooting Y.

Non sequitur. God could change only the pain in childbirth and leave everything else the same. I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand what "omnipotent" means.

Not if you understand "omnipotent," "necessary," and "sufficient." Please consult a dictionary.

It's sufficient for a greater good but not necessary. God could create people without making women go through childbirth. But more importantly, the pain involved in childbirth is unnecessary.

Please do me a favor and when you propound this sort of theodicy, take a moment and think to yourself, Is this pain necessary for the greater good in question? Then I don't have to spend the time explaining to you that and how it isn't. God could provide more available sterilization methods, which would cause women to cease giving birth more often. God could warn women about the pain in question, or coerce them into not giving birth by non-painful means. Please, so you don't continue to make me spell things out that are totally obvious, think about what it means for God to be omnipotent before you continue to repond with these sorts of attempted objections.

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,



Thomas: I already answered this. (And Dr. Retard provided a useful analogy.) Please read my post again.

rw: And I’ve already responded in kind to doc’s analogy, so please take the time to read my response again, as it applies here as well.



Thomas: That's what God does. God is not limited to the laws of physics.

rw: And you have not given us any reason why he is morally obligated to change them. If the laws of physics serve a purpose, and I have outlined such a purpose here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=54275
and that purpose entails the acquisition of man’s greater good, then any modification of those physics will probably not facilitate man’s securing his own greater good. If CP’s remedy leads man to greater suffering or extinction, it fails to obtain. Such a being would probably not wield power independently of his omniscience that would allow him to know the final outcome of any such tampering.

Your argument continues to focus on his omni-benevolence as the motivator and omnipotence as the facilitator, but completely ignores omniscience as the initiator. I do not contend with your claim that he can make these modifications, to do so would cancel out his omnipotence. My deconstruction of PoE is based on the argument that he will not allow himself to do something that he would probably know the detrimental outcome of. So long as you continue to belabor this issue of omnipotence you hobble your own argument, not mine.



Thomas: Non sequitur.

rw: It may appear non-sequitur to you. But it incurs a burden on omni-benevolence. If God has established these laws of physics in consonance with his will/omniscience, and omni-benevolence is equivalent to the greatest good, certainly violating a law, even if he installed it, cannot be seen as an example of good. If these laws were not good an omniscient being would know this and not have enacted them to begin with. The burden is on you to demonstrate these physics to be bad and needful of modification. Thusfar your arguments have not been successful in this area. For every instance of pain and suffering incurred I can demonstrate a greater instance of good and benefit to man and point to historical precedence to demonstrate how man has also acted, and will continue to do so, to alleviate those instances of pain and suffering incurred. There is no moral indictment to be had here against God.



Thomas: Definition of "omnipotent."

rw: The definition of omnipotence says nothing to your conditional, “if all other goods can be preserved. When you bridge the gap between modification and preservation we’ll talk. Inserting omnipotence to bridge the gap ignores the interpretation of your own “evidence” and the extrapolation of the consequences were omnipotence alone the only factor in securing a lesser degree of pain and suffering. The correct interpretation and application of pain and suffering, relative to man’s progression, leads us to suspect that any modification attained by omnipotence alone would probably lead to man’s demise as a species. If man is not progressing towards a greater good he is regressing into stagnation and extinction.



Thomas: Huh? What does it matter what it would take to satisfy me?

rw: It has nothing to do with satisfying you, but establishing the validity of your claims regarding the evidence. Different people have different levels of pain tolerance. The threshold is needed to adjudge just how much of a modification you’re alleging this God is morally obligated to secure. It also allows me to assess whether man can accomplish this reduction himself and the ramifications to our species in the aggregate were it actually accomplished. If man can do it himself, God isn’t needed and your claims are frivolous. If a reduction affects man’s perceptual capacities then his future, as scientific, political man is threatened, and your claims are dangerous. If these valid considerations of your “evidence” are held as irrelevant well, such a claim is just ignorant.



Thomas: Demonstration of the current levels? What does that mean? Demonstration of the current level itself?

rw: Yes, for starters, your assumption that current levels(?) are too high. Based on what standard? If you concede from the outset, in your CP, that some pain is necessary, how are we to determine what is unnecessary? You seem to have abandoned this line of exploration and be proceeding on the assumption that pain, itself, is a bad thing and aught to be reduced, if not completely eliminated. If pain is man’s perceptual means of determining threat to his existence, and you advocate a reduction of pain, how is man to see to his survival?

Thomas: Or why they're relevant? Or why the current level is too much? I've already provided reasons. There's lots of suffering around and God is obligated to tell us that there's a good reason for it the way a mother is obligated to tell her kid there's a good reason for vaccinating the kid.

rw: Yes, there is lot’s of suffering in our world, and in every case it has a cause and every cause has an explanation thus God is not obligated to do for us what we can do for ourselves. Additionally, in those explanations resides a great deal of knowledge of how man can address those causes, thus the onus is on man to do so…not on God.

Some good reasons: self preservation, procreation, motivation to learn and improve techniques for pain reduction, historical man’s greater good, and a host of lesser ones. This completely dismantles your assumption that they are unnecessary and exonerates God from moral culpability.

Some of the causes: Greed, pride, ignorance, competition for limited resources, over population in certain regions, war, current inability to accurately predict natural phenomena, current inability to modify genetics, current inability to predict human behavior…just to name a few. All of which fall within man’s realm of capability to address both individually and collectively. This completely derails your assumption that they are God’s moral responsibility.

God is not obligated to do for man what man can do for himself.



Thomas: I've already answered this.

rw: Let’s consider again your answers.


Thomas: First, there are some things we can't do for ourselves, such as preventing natural disasters,

rw: Why is prevention the only solution? There are a lot of things we can do and have done, such as work on improving our ability to predict them, mass exodus from their path, warnings to people who settle in areas of high probability to such phenomena, better building standards, better emergency relief preparedness, etc. and so forth. That these practices have not been incorporated worldwide is not the fault of a God.

Thomas: and second, people are indeed obligated to help other people, even if those people could help themselves. If I watch person X about to shoot innocent person Y, I'm obligated to prevent it, even if it's within X's power to refrain from shooting Y.

rw: You are correct. Men are obligated to help other people in spite of themselves in every case where the opportunity presents itself. But you are postulating from this that God aught to have been bound by this same obligation on a historic scale addressing all such cases across the board. Your example above is an instance of violence. Right or wrong it represents man’s aggressive nature. Thus to address it would require a modification to human behavior, making man passive. To have done this would have prohibited man from realizing his evolutionary climb out of the jungles to the top of the food chain. It is likely man would have been an extinct species centuries ago. PoE fails to obtain.



Thomas: Non sequitur. God could change only the pain in childbirth and leave everything else the same. I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand what "omnipotent" means.

rw: How many times do we have to beat this dead horse? Modify the pain and you tamper with the world population. You also make it more difficult for a woman to know when she’s going into labor. It creates an entirely unrealistic set of problems that invariably lead to man’s extinction. I’m beginning to suspect you don’t understand basic science.



[b[Thomas[/b]: Not if you understand "omnipotent," "necessary," and "sufficient." Please consult a dictionary.

rw: Why don’t you facilitate my understanding and describe the relationship between these terms in conjunction with your CP. While you’re at it, don’t neglect omniscience, science, and man’s greater good.



Thomas: It's sufficient for a greater good but not necessary. God could create people without making women go through childbirth. But more importantly, the pain involved in childbirth is unnecessary.

rw: Then God should just dispense with the entire evolutionary process in relation to man and just plop children out at will…or at random intervals. Hell, why not just plop out full grown adults? And man’s greater good, attained by his own efforts, is served by this…how? Eliminate childbirth and you eliminate sex. So we jettison one joy for a reduction in pain? Eliminate sex you eliminate human relationships. So we jettison love, companionship, family environment just to alleviate the pain of childbirth. Wow, what a stroke of genius! Glad I didn’t think of it first.

You think omnipotence is your blank check Thomas, but you keep getting reeled in by the realities of the consequences and being pushed further and further out into the twilight zone with these appeals to God’s power. May I suggest you take another look at your CP for the noose that’s choking your own arguments. Power wielded without omniscience is like an elephant in a china shop.



Thomas: Please do me a favor and when you propound this sort of theodicy, take a moment and think to yourself, Is this pain necessary for the greater good in question?


rw: It may come as a shock to you Thomas but that’s exactly how I came upon that line of reasoning.

Thomas: Then I don't have to spend the time explaining to you that and how it isn't.



rw: Well Thomas, such explanations as you have advanced, but not defended, just don’t fly. And since I don’t depend on you to do my thinking for me, I’m not obligated to accept them without question. Nature has it’s own methodology Thomas, that also doesn’t depend on your explanations for results.

Thomas: God could provide more available sterilization methods, which would cause women to cease giving birth more often.



rw: Something, I might mention, that man already has and…you know the rule by now…right? God ain’t obligated to do for man what man can do for himself.

Thomas: God could warn women about the pain in question,


rw: Why bother? Seems to me man already has a fairly functional pediatric in place that does the same thing.

Thomas: or coerce them into not giving birth by non-painful means.


rw: Oh my…we are grasping for straws.

Thomas: Please, so you don't continue to make me spell things out that are totally obvious, think about what it means for God to be omnipotent before you continue to respond with these sorts of attempted objections.

rw: Ah, that’s sweet. I appreciate your concern for my position and all but, from now on, don’t take such a condescending attitude with me…kay? I’ve given serious consideration to all your explanations, extrapolated them out for your benefit, and shown the slippery slope you’re now expecting me to join you on. Sorry Thomas but I have a theodicy to attend to and you have a CP to resurrect. May I suggest you look up the definition for omniscience? See ya.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Suppose there's an elderly couple next door, and no matter how much I turn down my music, they'll think it's too loud. Does it follow that I can play my music at 140 decibels and it's okay? No. No one will think that. Even if we don't know the right amount of suffering, we can still decide when there's too much of it. Can't we?

I have told you this over and over again: That the laws of physics are sufficient for humanity's greater good (in your language, that the purpose "entails the acquisition of man's [sic] greater good") does not entail that they are necessary for it. And it's a big non sequitur to say God's probably not powerful enough to reduce the pain of childbirth without precluding some greater good. Of course he is. He's God. I've outlined a few possible scenarios. All I have to do is identify possible scenarios, because God is omnipotent.

Show how.

I agree with that proposition, that he will not allow himself to do something of which he knows the detrimental probable outcome. My claim is that God can avoid the detrimental probable outcome of reducing the pain of childbirth and increasing other things to compensate.

Exactly, and that's the point of the problem of evil. There is no God, because the way the natural laws are set up, there's a lot of needless suffering.

Sufficience does not entail necessity. Sufficience does not entail necessity. Sufficience does not entail necessity. Show why pain of childbirth is necessary for a greater good, rather than just sufficient. I've told many stories in which God reduces the number of births in other, less painful ways. Because God is omnipotent, you must show that every one of those stories is impossible.

If you think there's a good amount of suffering in the world right now, you are a moral curiosity. There is some suffering that doesn't seem to be necessary for any greater good, and God is obligated to tell us at least that it is the way a parent is obligated to tell her kid that there's a greater good to getting vaccinated. But God is silent. That's our best clue that some of it really is unnecessary.

God could warn us in other ways. Please, please, please, before you make these statements or ask these questions, think: Can God secure the greater good in some other way? Then we don't have to go over this same ground again and again. (This marks instance #1 in this post of you suggesting that some pain is sufficient for a greater good when God could bring about the greater good some other way.)

Back before we had the ability to predict them, back when they seemed completely random and an act of God, there was no way to avoid some natural disasters. And take dangerous diseases such as cancer -- we have no way to cure all cancer right now, or predict it.

Yes, because if God is morally perfect, that moral perfection is via the same sort of morality that humans use. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to say that God is morally perfect. If God observes some bad stuff going down, even if humans have the ability (if they all worked together) to keep it from happening, if they won't do so, God is still obligated to stop it. If I see two babies stabbing each other with scissors, I'm obligated to step in and keep them from continuing.

No, it wouldn't have. God has other ways to prevent it. God could make the person miss, or change her mind, or could cause the bullet to stop in mid-air and the two actors to forget it ever happened. Let me ask you respectfully again to think before you make these statements: Could God have done it any other way? Then we wouldn't have to waste time like this. (This marks instance #2 in this post of you suggesting that some pain is sufficient for a greater good when God could bring about the greater good some other way.)

God could tell her other ways. Do you see a pattern here? Over and over and over again, you say, "But wait! Then we'd have problem P!" And I respond, "God is omnipotent. God could avoid it this way." Now before you claim any more of these problems, you must think for a moment: Could God fix it some other way? (This marks instance #3 in this post of you suggesting that some pain is sufficient for a greater good when God could bring about the greater good some other way.)

I'll wait till you actually respond to my point before I respond back.