Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

I actually did compose a reply. However your points are so far afield of this discussion that they represent (with the most charitable interpretation) an attempt to side-track the discussion into minutia.

I will address your point on "scale" as an example.

It is simply ridiculous to object on the basis of scale. We are talking about an hypothetical omnimax god, capable of creating a universe 30 billion light-years across with a hundred billion galaxies in it. Scale is simply not an issue; it is a red herring.

And this is the best of your objections so far.

I have done so.

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

FYI: I prefer "Mal" as the abbreviature of my (admittedly unwieldy) sobriquet.

luvluv

You addressed one out of 4 of my questions, and you did so in a way I alread said I considered to be invalid. I am giving examples of how what you are arguing for is impossible, and you are responding to me simply by saying "God can". That's not an argument. I'm telling you the consequences of what you are asking for and asking you if you are prepared to live with those consequences. You haven't answered that yet. Would you like to live in a universe in which you had no moral freedom?

As to your questions about Dahmer, I would answer them the same way I have been answering the questions about the scumbag who abused Jerry's niece. You cannot avoid the argument of scale by trying to select isolated incidents. You aren't asking God to stop one incident of evil, you are asking Him to stop ALL incidents of evil. Morally, those are two propositions that are so different that they belong in different categories.

To put it plainly, if I, luvluv, were to stop you from raping a girl I would certainly be justified. But if I, luvluv, were to follow you around to try to stop you from doing anything I considered to be evil, I would have to make you my slave, or give you a lobotomy, or kill you. Ethically, preventing someone's single act of evil and preventing all that persons evil are such vastly differeing propositions that they defy comparison with each other. One demands self-sacrifice on my part, the other would demand that I become a master over every one of your decisions. It is the differnce between living in a society with HAS police force and living in a society which IS a police state.

Do you consider the existence of police in a free society to be a justification for the existence of police states?

Jerry Smith

Respectfully, I think you are the one missing the big point. An all-good God would not have to act directly to prevent everything HE considered evil, and this is not the case we are making. It is an extra burden on top of our case that you are adding explicitly so that you can argue about it.

You and I do not believe it is morally wrong for us to stand by and watch evil happening without interfering, except when the innocent are being harmed. We know that it is morally right for us to intervene to stop acts of brutality against the innocent. We know that if we have the power to accomplish it, and we are unequivocally witnessing such brutality, for instance a child molestation, that it would be wrong for us to refrain from interfering.

If it is not wrong to refrain from interfering then God should be interfering in those cases. That does not mean that He should also be interfering in cases of evil that we do not consider as meriting interference.

Now, pick your horn:
It is good to watch a child molestation without acting to prevent it.
God is not good.
God is not all powerful.
There is no god.

There are no other options. What it seems you are choosing is the first horn, then trying to find a rationale for it, but your rationale fails. It is not good to watch a child molestation without acting to prevent it, even if it is perfectly acceptable to overlook a jillion gazillion other things that God thinks are immoral, such as masturbation. The latter is irrelevant to the former.

You and I are very familiar with types of "evil" that it is right for us to ignore. If I know you are masturbating, I will not and need not come stop you. Same if you are thinking dirty thoughts and I know about it.

If you are hurting a child, or someone incapable of self-defense, then you and I both know that I have to stop you if I know it is going on. Even if we agree with God on what is "evil" (i.e. smoking, dirty thoughts, etc.) we still know it is not morally right for us to interfere in many, many cases.

Therefore, we need not expect God to interfere in those cases, just be cause we HAVE TO expect Him to interfere in attempts to harm the innocent.

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

You addressed one out of 4 of my questions, and you did so in a way I alread said I considered to be invalid.

What "you consider" is irrelevant. If you wish to constrain the problem, you must show that the problem of scale is a logical impossibility, not a practical difficulty.

It is obvious by definition that practical difficulties simply do not exist for an omnimax being.

I am giving examples of how what you are arguing for is impossible, and you are responding to me simply by saying "God can". That's not an argument.

You are not showing that my arguments entail a logical contradiction, merely that they are difficult. Pointing out that practical difficulties do not entail a contradiction for an omnimax god is indeed an argument, one that you have not rebutted.

I'm telling you the consequences of what you are asking for and asking you if you are prepared to live with those consequences. You haven't answered that yet. Would you like to live in a universe in which you had no moral freedom?

I have answered: Yes, I would. I don't consider moral freedom to be particularly important. Unlike you (apparently) I do not cherish my ability to be a sick twisted fuck like Dahmer. Indeed, I do not myself have the moral freedom to be like Dahmer: I simply cannot even imagine myself choosing to do that.

As to your questions about Dahmer, I would answer them the same way I have been answering the questions about the scumbag who abused Jerry's niece.

Your brain-dead argument about scale is simply a non-starter.

I can conclude only that you are pleased that sick twisted fucks like Dahmer exist to the glory of your cult-indoctrinated genocidal maniac of a fictional character you worship.

You cannot avoid the argument of scale by trying to select isolated incidents.

As noted, the argument from scale is simply moronic.

You aren't asking God to stop one incident of evil, you are asking Him to stop ALL incidents of evil.

Will you please stop saying stuff like this. I'm not asking a god to do anything: I do not ask imaginary fictional characters to do anything.

Morally, those are two propositions that are so different that they belong in different categories.

This is a nonsequitur. I am asking to understand your moral position. The "all" incidents is a non-starter; yes, the POE implicitly asserts that an omnimax god would indeed make all forms of evil impossible, whether by adjusting our nature, making the laws of physics such that evil were impossible, or intervening directly in all possible expression of evil.

This does not entail a logical contradiction unless you accept the premise that it is wrong to ever interfere with the expression of someone's moral freedom.

I ask you again, is it wrong or is it right?

To put it plainly, if I, luvluv, were to stop you from raping a girl I would certainly be justified.

Why? You would be interfering with the the expression of my moral freedom. You appear to be phrasing the issue deontically (without regard to consequence); Stopping me is either a wrong action, in which case you would be prohibited from doing so; or it is a right action, in which case you would be compelled to do so.

You might rephrase it as a pragmatic decision, in which case you would have to weigh the consequences of of stopping me or not stopping me.

However the pragmatic rebuttal to the POE has its own problems (practial or epistemologigical moral nihilism).

But if I, luvluv, were to follow you around to try to stop you from doing anything I considered to be evil, I would have to make you my slave, or give you a lobotomy, or kill you.

First, you are not omnibenevolent. So the comparison is inept. Indeed, your personal conception of what is "good" and "evil" is vastly different from mine. I frankly believe that even if an omnimax god did exist, it would consider your moral beliefs ridiculous: You appear to consider ordinary natural thoughts to be evil. But that is not the issue. We are talking about obvious, manifest evil, such as murder, child molestation, etc., act for which there is no controversy over their evil nature.

Second, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It is necessary neither for you to make me your slave, give me a lobotomy or kill me. You would merely need to intervene when I was about to commit evil. Unless, of course, you consider rationality itself evil, in which case, yes, you would need to give me a lobotomy like your own.

Ethically, preventing someone's single act of evil and preventing all that persons evil are such vastly differeing propositions that they defy comparison with each other.

How so?

One demands self-sacrifice on my part, the other would demand that I become a master over every one of your decisions.

We are not talking about you becoming a moral arbiter, we are talking about an omnimax god as a moral arbiter.

And you would not be a master over "every one" of my decisions; most, if not almost all, of my decisions are simply non-moral: Neither choice would entail evil. Red wine or white? Chicken or fish? Philosophy or mathematics? None of these are moral decisions.

It is the differnce between living in a society with HAS police force and living in a society which IS a police state.

The problem inherent in a police state is not that the police prevent all evil, but that they police are known to be not omnibenevolent. Giving them unlimited power gives them the power to do unlimited evil. This is again simply not a problem for an omnibenevolent god.

Do you consider the existence of police in a free society to be a justification for the existence of police states?

The analogy is inept, as noted above, because it is known that police are not omnibenevolent.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Eudaimonist

(Libertarians are in favor of free markets and limited government but aren't, strictly speaking, conservatives. They have many essential differences in philosophy and approach. Buchanan is definitely not a Libertarian! Scary thought. Libertarians are all in favor of laws, but only those laws that secure individual rights and liberties. Some Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but even they want the protection of laws. Anyway, enough of the political philosophy lesson.)

I think Malaclypse is covering this issue well enough without me, but to clarify the purpose behind my post...

The reason I ask if you are an anarchist is that your arguments for free will seem to lead in the direction of a lawless society -- one in which people are free to murder and rape without fear of retaliation that would limit the freedom to do evil. You wrote: I don't see how we can have the possibility of love without the possibility of evil. If police are extremely successful in preventing murders, rapes, etc, does this mean that we must necessarily lose some good from the world?

And if it is good for humans to prevent these crimes, why isn't God doing so? If God exists and is omnipotent, why isn't God doing what God could do so easily -- protect people from the evil of others? Even if this was just limited to murder and rape, it would be a big improvement.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

ex-preacher

Ditto.

According to most Christians, Satan was once a trusted angel, but he chose to sin. Christians also love to say that they aren't perfect, only forgiven. I suppose they will still not be perfect in heaven (unless free will is gone). What happens when an imperfect Christian sins in heaven? What's to keep anyone in heaven from exercising their free will to sin and hurt others? Does that mean that rape will exist in heaven?

luvluv

Jerry Smith:

You are asking why doesn't God stop evil. You are saying that because we as humans believe it is our duty to stop evil when we can, then God must also stop evil when he can.

As a human being, whatever action I take to prevent evil must spring from what I perceive to be evil.

For example, if I see a mother giving food to her child, I would not intervene because I don't think that is evil. However, if I saw a woman giving poison to her child, I would intervente, because I believe that to be evil.

If you are asking "Why doesn't God stop evil" then you are obviously asking God to do the stopping. If you are asking God to do the stopping, then God (like you and I) would have to stop evil as HE perceives it. Not as you or I perceive it. And it stands to reason that his perception of evil would be different than ours.

Therefore, if you ask God to stop all evil, he will stop that by stopping YOU, not just the bad guys, but YOU, from lying, lusting, and all the rest. He would not wait for a person to get so far gone that he was actually about to attempt to molest a child before intervening, he would stop the man before he even conceived of the act, if we are asking him to stop all evil.

So Jerry, I have to ask, do you want God to stop all evil, or do you just want him to stop the evil that happens to you?

On what grounds could God stop your niece from being abused, and not stop every other person in the world from being abused?

And if he stopped everyone else from suffering from one form of evil, wouldn't he have to stop everyone from suffering from every other form of evil?

So I'm asking you, do you want God to stop all evil or do you just want Him to stop one incident of evil?

As to masterbation, God might consider that harmful to yourself. Again, if it is God who is responsible for stopping evil, he will stop the things he considers to be evil. You might perceive there to be a great moral gap between you masterbating and someone raping a child, but to God that gulf might not exist. If you are giving God the responsibility to stop everything He considers to be evil, then He might not share your moral viewpoint that you are supposed to leave certain types of sin alone. That is certainly not the impression you get from the God of the Bible. If you give the responsibility of stopping evil over to God, you don't have the ground to start deciding what evil God gets to take away and what evil He is obligated to stop. You don't get to define the limits of God's jurisdiction. He does not work for you. He is not an appointed magistrate carrying out the will of the electorate. He would stop what he considered to be evil, and if you would give him that authority to do that, you would have no say in the matter.


Mal:

"What "you consider" is irrelevant. If you wish to constrain the problem, you must show that the problem of scale is a logical impossibility, not a practical difficulty."

I believe it is a logical impossibility to give someone free will and to guarantee the outcome of their decisions. I believe it is a logical impossibility to teach someone how to love other peope (which, again, is God's purpose, not the elimination of evil) while simply deleting the consequences of their actions when they choose not to do so. It is logically impossible to expect maturity and the ability to give love from a person who has never been able to make a wrong decision.

It is logically impossible to "be good" if it was never possible for you to do evil.

I pointed out the impracticalities in an attempt to convince you that you do not want to live in the world you claim you want to live in. But if God's goal is indeed to have a universe populated by beings who do not simply demonstrate the absense of evil but the presence of love... it is impossible for him to arrive at that by simply deleting our ability to do evil. Vegatables don't do evil, but I hardly think that God (or you) would be satisfied in a universe filled to overflowing with harmless vegatables.

A universe which was without evil, yet which was also without real love, would be a worse universe than the one we have, in the mind of the God of the Bible. As ironic as this sounds, if we did not have the option, and even sometimes the desire, to hate each other... then our decision to love each other would not mean anything. What is it to love someone if you were denied by some outside force the ability to hate? You seem to think that the ultimate good would be a universe in which no one can harm anyone else, but I think that while that universe would be "safe", it would be cold, sterile, and dead.

"Will you please stop saying stuff like this. I'm not asking a god to do anything: I do not ask imaginary fictional characters to do anything."

Aren't we arguing about why God does not prevent evil? Since you are an atheist, and you are participating in this discussion, I assume we are discussing at least a hypothetical God. So why are you suprised when I bring Him up in the discussion? You yourself asked why doesn't God prevent evil, therefore you are asking something of what you consider to be an imaginary fictional character.

"First, you are not omnibenevolent. So the comparison is inept."

That's exactly my point. The comparison is inept. And you brought the comparison up, which begs the question of why you compared God's respobsibility to our responsibility in the first place?

Me stopping a single act of evil is not comparable to giving God the obligation to stop all evil. It does not logically follow that since I am obligated to stop a single act of evil that God is therefore obligated to stop all acts of evil.

"Indeed, your personal conception of what is "good" and "evil" is vastly different from mine."

And wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that God's conception of "good" and "evil" might be vastly different from both of ours?

"I frankly believe that even if an omnimax god did exist, it would consider your moral beliefs ridiculous"

He might, or he might not. On what are you basing this? Do you assume that omniscience must think as you do?

"You appear to consider ordinary natural thoughts to be evil."

Most religious traditions do, including the Bible. The God of the Bible, who is described as being, in your words, ominimax, clearly considers some thoughts to be evil. And as I said to Jerry above, if you ask Him to stop all evil you don't get to pick and choose what evil he stops.

"We are talking about obvious, manifest evil, such as murder, child molestation, etc., act for which there is no controversy over their evil nature."

Again, there is no controversy with God over the evil nature of lust or greed or pride. If God decided to stop all evil, he wouldn't poll to take our opinions on what is evil and what is good. If we assume that an omnimax God exists, and that He has his own opinions on what is right and wrong, and that this opinion sometimes differs from ours, the fact that his morality differs from your would not constitute a controversy. It would only mean that you were mistaken.

"Second, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It is necessary neither for you to make me your slave, give me a lobotomy or kill me. You would merely need to intervene when I was about to commit evil. Unless, of course, you consider rationality itself evil, in which case, yes, you would need to give me a lobotomy like your own."

Again, that only follows if God does not consider some thoughts to be evil. The God of the Bible clearly does. We cannot categorically rule out the possibility that an omnimax God might not consider some thoughts to be evil. And if He did, the only way he could prevent us from that particular sin is to have some direct control over our thoughts. This might not derive from a lobotomy, I was exagerating to make the point, but it would certainly involve some sort of mind control at the very least.

"...you would not be a master over "every one" of my decisions; most, if not almost all, of my decisions are simply non-moral: Neither choice would entail evil. Red wine or white? Chicken or fish? Philosophy or mathematics? None of these are moral decisions."

Oh really? What if God knows that red wine is much better for you than white wine? What if God knows that fish is much better for you than chicken? What if God believes some philosophies ( like subjectivism or jingoism or whatever) to be evil, and therefore does not allow you to study them?

So here is one new question, and a repetition of the question that you have not answered:


1) Would you please make a list of freedoms that do not involve any morality.

I believe that you will a) not be able to name more than a half dozen decisions that are totally devoid of moral content (if indeed you can think of one) and b) be left with decisions that are not very important.

2) Can you address my belief that a universe in which moral freedom does not exist would also take away meaningful human relationships, since they require moral freedom?


ex-preacher:

Did you read my response to Pompous? Can you respond to that please? I believe that answered your question.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Jerry Smith

Luvluv,

I am sorry. I have done my utmost to make clear what I am saying, and you have still not understood. I will make one more effort and bring together all of my powers of reason and logic in the most clear and concise way I know how. If you still misapprehend what I am saying I will have to give up. Please read closely...

What I am not saying:
I do not hold that it is morally necessary to prevent any act on the basis of its immorality. I do not hold that failing to prevent an immoral (read evil) act on the basis of its immorality (read evil) is a failure to do good, or a wrong in itself.

What I am saying:
I do hold that it is morally necessary to prevent certain acts on the basis of the harm they bring to the innocent. True that these acts are normally (but not always) immoral or evil acts, but this is not what compels us. It is evil, and not good, to neglect the opportunity rescue the innocent from harm within the limits of our knowledge and power.

For instance of the former:
I see you smoking a cigarette and know that it is wrong for you to do it, however, it is not appropriate for me to stop you because I know that the only person being harmed is not innocent, i.e. you are causing harm to yourself according to your own free will.

I see you looking at a dirty magazine and know that it is wrong for you to do it, however, it isnot appropriate for me to stop you because I know that the only person being (potentially) harmed by your act (looking) is not innocent. i.e., you are only (potentially) causing harm to yourself according to your own free will.

I never force you to pray, because your failure has only the potential to harm yourself according to your own free will.

etc...

For instance of the latter:

I see a child who is being tortured, kidnapped, raped, etc... and it is in my power to intervene and stop the act. If I do not do so, I have done wrong, because failing to prevent harm to the innocent when it is within your knowledge and power is morally wrong. In legal terms, I become an accessory to the crime.

I see a child who is in the street and a bus is coming from behind them. I have time and strength to pull the child from in front of the bus with no risk to myself. If I fail to do so, I am wrong in my negligence.

etc...

If you disagree with my theory that to neglect to give help in cases where harm is coming to the innocent is wrong, then you have a right to say so. You can say that you do not feel it is right to intervene to prevent the torture of a child. I give you the option now:

A) It is morally good to neglect to prevent the torture of a child given the knowledge and opportunity.

If A), we stop now. I remark that your ideas of right and wrong are very twisted. I hope you will change your conceptions of right and wrong soon. Perhaps changing your religious views would help.
You need not read further in this post, because the problem of "pain" is solved here.

B) It is not morally good to neglect the opportunity to prevent the torture of a child.

If B), then we proceed to the next group of options:

1) God (who neglects many such opportunities) is not good.
2) God (who is Good and would act in many such cases if He had the power) is not powerful enough to act.
3) God is neither good nor powerful.
4) Good is different for God than it is for us, therefore we should either stop calling Him good and use a term that describes the kind of 'good' that He is (e.g. 'evil'), or stop calling the acts we would normally call 'good' by that name and call them something that describes the kind of 'good' that we know about... (e.g. 'evil'). In this case, go back to option A) because by the new and better terminology you think that preventing child abuse is evil.
5) There is no God.

There can be no other options. I defy you to demonstrate one to me.

I have known some theists who have responded to this argument by saying that God is not all-good, but only good TO the people who love Him. That is a fair answer. Being good to only the people who love Him does not excuse many of the other characteristics attributed to Him, but it does resolve the dilemma successfully.

I have known some theists who have responded that God is not all-powerful, that his power is checked by Satan. They believe that God has not yet been ABLE to defeat Satan or even hold him in check while He does the Good things that He would like to do. This also resolves the dillema successfully, but leaves us with an impression of a kind of wimpy God. Still, if we believed in Him, we could honestly 'pull' for Him because of his Goodness, and hope that He wins.

I have never known any theists who responded that God was neither good nor all-powerful.

I have seen some theists who tried to equivocate using option 4). It is important to be aware that option 4) is a reversal of the definitions of Good and Evil in any further discussions.

I have known OF some theists who adopted option 5), especially in light of the dearth of evidence to support the existence of God. These, of course, are no longer theists.

There are no other options. Which is your choice?

If you cannot understand my points after reading this post, please just say so. Please don't say, "Jerry, you are asking God to prevent evil in some cases, but if he is not going to prevent evil in every case, then how can he prevent it in these cases?". If you don't understand what I am saying, just say, "Jerry, I don't understand how what you said is any different from what I talked about before." I will then assume that one of the following is the reason:

1) I am too stupid to get the point across. In this case I don't continue trying, because my efforts have now been exhaustive.
2) You are not able to understand the point. In this case I don't continue trying, because my efforts have now been exhaustive.
3) You are simply committed to not understanding the point. In which case, I don't have a chance of making it against your will, and I don't continue trying.

I would love for you to write back that you do understand and that you do intend to resolve the dilemma about God and will let us know how it comes out.

Until then, Jerry

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

t is logically impossible to "be good" if it was never possible for you to do evil.

This is an important statement, deserving to be highlighted, and exposes a fundamental contradiction in your thinking.

If we accept this statement as a premise, we must conclude one of two things.

Either it is possible or it is not possible for an omnimax god to do evil.

If it is possible, then god is not omnibenevolent; it is not logically possible, by definition, for an omnibenevolent being to do evil.

If it is not possible to do evil, then it is logically impossible for god, by your premise, to be good. Again, by definition, a being that is not good cannot be said to be benevolent at all, much less omnibenevolent.