rainbow walking

Thomas: No one's going to agree with you there. Suppose there are two persons. Each can prevent 100 units of suffering. The first prevents ten. The second prevents twenty. And you think they're both morally equal. I agree that they're both immoral, but I don't think they're morally equal, and I doubt anyone else will, either.


rw:If these persons have the power to prevent 100 units of suffering and their prevention of 10 or 20 units of suffering probably create conditions where 5000 units of suffering are incurred by their prevention of 10 or 20, are they both unequally immoral if they refrain from preventing any units of suffering?



[b[Thomas[/b]: I don't. You don't answer the question. You were answering a different question with the quote you gave of yourself. Please just say "yes" or "no." Three characters or two characters. It's not that difficult to type. You could even just type "N" or "Y." Is it better to let a child scald herself than to convince her not to pour boiling water on herself? Y or N?

rw: It is impossible Thomas…I repeat…impossible to convince any single living person, now, in the past all the way to man’s beginning, and forever into the future, for as long as humanity exists, not to burn, scald or in some way experience the necessary pain of temperatures that adversely affect human life and health. There is not one single living individual who made it to the age of twelve without experiencing the physical sensation of “burning” in some way or another, not because they were forced to experience it, but because they chose to experience it. Whether it came by way of touching a burning match, hot stove, a campfire, a pot of scalding water, or any other element of nature that produces or becomes too hot to safely handle, every single one of us has found ourselves reaching out with our hand intentionally testing the truth value of hot things hurt. So this bullshit of trying to ascribe some synthetic value to teaching intellectually without experience, as though it has some moral significance, is disingenuous. It is not impossible to prevent toddlers from accidentally scalding themselves when their natural curiosity compels them to reach for the handle of a pot containing boiling water. But that same toddler, at some point early on in their life, will intentionally experience the sensation of burning associated with hot things coming in contact with human flesh. You can, and should convince a toddler, during that particular instance, not to touch the handle of that pot. But sooner or later, her curiosity, as has been the case for us all, will lead her to touch something hot enough to experience the pain. Have you never intentionally touched something hot, Thomas? Even knowing it was hot and had the potential to burn you? Did you slap at it believing that the briefest contact would elicit the minimum of pain? If so, what motivated the decision to do so?
It is man’s/parent’s responsibility to reduce the instances of accidental suffering, to teach our children of the dangers of scalding hot water, and to do so without actually being scalded in the process, but this will never prevent every normal individual from experiencing the pain of burning flesh intentionally at some point early in their lives. It likely won’t be an experience equivalent to pouring scalding water over oneself accidentally, we’re likely to choose a circumstance with far less potential for harm, but we all will choose to experience this truth at least once in our lives.

Now, why is a god morally responsible to do a parent’s job for them?



Thomas: I've already answered this, twice now. See pages 2 and 3 of this thread. Do a Find in your browser for "super safety man" if you can't find them, and please stop accusing me of evading your questions.

rw: This was your response on page two: Thomas: No. I've never advocated that. And I've never claimed that an accident that results in a learning process never has value. You're not engaging my posts. You seem to think I'm claiming that no accident that results in a learning process has value. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that sometimes, learning from an accident is worse than just being taught immediately, and I've proven it with my "pot of boiling water" example. So I've supported (PE). To deny (PE), you must decide that it's better to let kids pour boiling water on their heads so they learn not to do that in the future.

rw: But you are advocating a god who plays the role of a super safety man with this example. You are advocating a god somehow teach toddlers the danger of scalding water…isn’t this what a safety man does? Being accidentally scalded is a safety issue. Shouldn’t parents already know this danger before having children and hot stoves under the same roof? Why is a god obligated to circumvent parental responsibilities?



Thomas: I've never asked this question before, actually, so it's strange that you think I have. If you think I have, find where in this thread. (But you won't be able to, so please, just give me a "yes" or "no.")

rw: True, you’ve never asked it before from this angle, but you have been beating this example like a straw dog. No matter how many angles you approach this example from it still boils down to it being an accident that the parents are responsible to prevent. Humans, including children, are equipped from birth with many life saving built in sensors and survival instincts. But there likely weren’t many electric stoves and pots of boiling water around when nature and the environment genetically engineered humans, so many of these modern potential accident causing devices can create circumstances that require parental control to prevent toddlers from being injured severely. Toddlers are harmed when they fall out of trees too, should a god have circumvented gravity for children?



Thomas: No it isn't. Where is the contradiction in saying that toddlers have an instinctual desire never to pour boiling water on themselves? How is that P & ~P?

rw: Toddlers already have an instinctual survival instinct, but that instinct is a reactionary instinct, not a predictive one. You are claiming a god should have built into humans an automatic predictability in regards to every circumstance involving boiling water. In the case of your example you didn’t specify if the toddler could even see the water in the pot, so how do you instinctify the unobservable? I had the impression the example you gave was depicting a toddler reaching for a pot handle while standing in a position beneath the handle such that she was likely to tip the pot over, pouring the un-observed boiling water on her head. You are contradicting every thing we logically know about physics to posit an instinctual knowledge, from birth, not to tip a pot of boiling water on yourself. There are just too many situations and circumstances that can arise where this instinct would still not prevent the accident. Your example is one good case in point. But even this complaint of what a god could have/should have done is still an appeal for him to play the role of a super safety man…you haven’t avoided that question by appealing to instinctual knowledge…it’s still knowledge implanted by an interfering god.

rainbow walking

mosaic: You say a whole lot without addresing my point. What is to prevent me? If I sincerely beleive that greater acts of evil will result in greater good, then why not make the personal moral sacrifice and do so? Be the bane to existence that will result its its new birth? Your idea is morally twisted because iyt is the sort of mythic ideals that gross marxism lives by. It gives higher meaning to suffering which is antiethical IMO.

rw: Yes, why not join the ranks of Hitler, Polpot, Stalin and Marx. Well, if your opinion is that such a choice is the antithesis of greater good then we needn’t worry about you becoming the bane of humanity. You can go on living in your fantasy world where no thesis/antithesis exists.
But you do me a grave injustice by focusing only on these choices. I have suggested an alternative that incorporates no such appeal to evil to bring about the greater good. My premise takes things to a whole ‘nuther level. The level of science where man doesn’t incur the community wrath of his institutional protections. Science provides man with alternatives beyond evil. Or have you forgotten this? Man coming to this realization…and acting on it…is the next evolutionary stage of man’s journey on the meta-path.

mosaic: And your defition of neccesary, is weak. Until vigorous prosecution? By what means? Currently, we jail masses of drug abusers. Foolishly, I believe. Now, the action of doing drugs to learn that it is bad then after jailing people only opens up more problems. Namely, how do you deal with them. The next solution will lead to more problems. The linear existence you see fails for this reason also. New problems arise every day, some graver than before, some lesser. The problem with your argument is that it first makes evil neccesary.

rw: Uh…no, my friend, mortal human existence makes evil necessary, I only admit the obvious. My definition of necessary is not limited by man’s current methods of addressing it. Only the shortsighted visionless lemmings live in the immediate and look to the politic and religion of man to resolve our dilemma. Religion seeks a resolution by damning man’s spirit; his will to live, while man’s politic seeks a resolution by containment and reaction after-the-fact. Both are without recourse and are nothing more than a stasis for the status quo to continue to rule over the collective will of humanity. Men foolishly believe that if they can collectively decide which “after-the-fact” laws to enact they are somehow in control and preserve a semblance of freedom, prosperity and progress. Man has yet to climb out of the loop of his own mortality and entrapment on this planet. But man has climbed out of the caves and clawed his way to the moon and beyond. He has hope. His hope is the same tool by which he survived the onslought of the jungle and the ice age: his science fueled by his imagination. Nothing else, no political system, no religion has ever purchased man a days peace from the never ending pressure of his own mortality…nor can they. It is your inability to clearly interpret the full import of my argument that is weak. If you think man’s only recourse to his progressive, evolutionary climb towards his greater good is to pursue evil, or if you interpret my argument in such a pale light, it is you who are the victim of a twisted morality.


mosaic: 2nd point. You didnt address anything here. You argument is that because god, could because of omniscience know that no sate of affairs without evil being first presented is illogical and counter intutive to the progress of man. Yet, the end result of our process is this illogical state of affairs.

rw: What end result are you referring to?

mosaic: So are we not overcoming, lving in a state unimginable by god if we reach it?

rw: What does a god’s imagination have to do with anything?

mosaic: As far as worlds without values seeming illogical to you, why do you think so?

rw: Because I am honest enough with myself to know that if I did not value my life I’d have no reason to pursue anything but death. If you think a world devoid of values, where a mortal man exists with a will to live, is a logical state of affairs I invite you to describe such a world.

mosaic: Its quite obvious because of our condtions, not because they can be omnipotently verified.

rw: Again, what has omnipotent verification to do with anything?

mosaic: Final question, after attaining a greater good, how does society proceed from there?

rw: The way it has always proceeded: by science, a willful expression of man’s greatest virtue; by trial and error in the face of adversity; by multiplying his field of good choices exponentially such that making bad ones are no longer appealing enough to compel him to risk the wrath of his fellows.

mosaic: If you have an idea of this, then I dont why this state of affairs being created is illogcal.

rw: It is being created…by man. Why do you have a problem with that?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

That's not the example. The example is asking whether God would be morally better if he prevented more units of suffering, even if he didn't prevent all he could prevent, all else equal. (And the answer is "yes.")

I doubt that very much. That's an extremely strong claim, that one couldn't possibly bring about the situation in which a person was convinced never to do anything to scald herself. (Although all I need is that God convince them to scald themselves less than they do now.) I hope there's some pretty strong support for such a claim. But beyond that, I must respectfully ask you, once again, to answer my question. If it were possible, would you do it? I'll gladly answer any philosophical question you ask of me. Why won't you answer this question I ask of you? Just give me a "Y" or "N" and I'll be happy.

First of all, this says nothing about whether it's possible to convince them not to do so; it only points out a contingent fact about history. But second of all, they didn't choose to feel the feeling of pain; they simply chose to perform some action (say, tipping a pot of boiling water over) and the consequence was unchosen.

No, not at all. God is omnipotent. God could convince her never to do it, and be successful every time. God need not even do that; God need not prevent all instances of suffering (say, to become a "super safety man"), just more instances than he prevents now, to be morally better.

God could install something in the fabric of the universe that allows the instinct to take effect in the right circumstances, even if it's unobservable. You still haven't shown me P & ~P. I'll make it easier for you; if it is logically impossible to instill an instinctual desire that will never cause a toddler to pour boiling water on herself, then it must lead to a contradiction. So we can set up an RAA. I'll give you the first line, and you deductively derive an explicit contradiction. Here we go:

(1) Assume there is an instinctual desire in every toddler not to pour boiling water on herself, that is successful at preventing more child-scalding than is prevented now.
(2) ...
...
(n-1) ...
(n) P & ~P

Now all you have to do is fill in the blank area in the middle.

rainbow walking

Thomas: That's not the example. The example is asking whether God would be morally better if he prevented more units of suffering, even if he didn't prevent all he could prevent, all else equal. (And the answer is "yes.")

rw: My point is Thomas, if we were discussing what human are morally obligated to do I would agree with you 100% but when discussing this relative to a god it becomes a different animal. So your “yes” is not correct. You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. My argument against this line of reasoning is, and always has been, if a god deems it morally necessary to intervene in one case, his omni-benevolence absolutely requires he intervene in all cases…to do less is not a matter of degrees of morality but a matter of immorality versus morality.



Thomas: I doubt that very much. That's an extremely strong claim, that one couldn't possibly bring about the situation in which a person was convinced never to do anything to scald herself.

rw: Scalding is just one example of the painful sensation of being burned. Man already has built in nerve sensors to alert him to the danger of being burned. Why, if the will of man is a consideration in the attainment of man’s greater good, is a god morally obligated to provide anything further by way of prevention? You haven’t responded to the factor of man’s willful participation in these examples. You just ignore it as though it is a non-entity…why?

Thomas: (Although all I need is that God convince them to scald themselves less than they do now.)

rw: If we allow the possibility that a god created this state of affairs, including man’s ability to learn, and his natural pain sensors, then you have a means of reducing pain from scalding already intact in man’s current state of affairs, especially considering how much pain and suffering man would have endured had these natural abilities not arisen.

Thomas: I hope there's some pretty strong support for such a claim. But beyond that, I must respectfully ask you, once again, to answer my question. If it were possible, would you do it? I'll gladly answer any philosophical question you ask of me. Why won't you answer this question I ask of you? Just give me a "Y" or "N" and I'll be happy.

rw: I did respond with this: You can, and should convince a toddler, during that particular instance, not to touch the handle of that pot.

Meaning I would, but qualifying that with the observation that I am not a god nor endowed with the responsibilities of a god for mankind as a whole.



Thomas: First of all, this says nothing about whether it's possible to convince them not to do so; it only points out a contingent fact about history. But second of all, they didn't choose to feel the feeling of pain; they simply chose to perform some action (say, tipping a pot of boiling water over) and the consequence was unchosen.

rw: I already stated it is not logically possible to convince them to do so…nor is it healthy to prevent a human from testing his survival tools. It is impossible, short of implanting complete omniscience into every unborn child, to predict every case where a child might be burned or scalded. Neither is it necessary when they’ve got parents and other responsible adults to look after them.

In reference to “choosing” how one experiences dangerous elements of one’s existence, I find that utterly laughable. Would you prefer man experienced dangerous elements to his existence by a feeling of tickling? And how would being tickled by scalding water provide the proper response of “fight or flight”? Many folks enjoy being tickled so it might actually encourage them to seek out such experiences for pleasure.



Thomas: No, not at all. God is omnipotent. God could convince her never to do it, and be successful every time.

rw: Yes, he could, and create an illogical state of affairs. There is a logical connection between cause and effect that absolutely requires an effect. I await a logical connection between this could have and should have that doesn’t seriously modify man or his state of existence beyond the logical. If you use god’s attribute of omnipotence to destroy logic you are left with nothing to connect the could have to the should have and therefore doesn’t exist.

thomas: God need not even do that; God need not prevent all instances of suffering (say, to become a "super safety man"), just more instances than he prevents now, to be morally better.

rw: Morally better, in this case, fails to obtain. See argument above on the all-or-nothing aspect of omni-benevolence.



Thomas: God could install something in the fabric of the universe that allows the instinct to take effect in the right circumstances, even if it's unobservable.


rw: So now you’re reduced to an appeal to magic?

Thomas: You still haven't shown me P & ~P. I'll make it easier for you; if it is logically impossible to instill an instinctual desire that will never cause a toddler to pour boiling water on herself, then it must lead to a contradiction. So we can set up an RAA. I'll give you the first line, and you deductively derive an explicit contradiction. Here we go:

(1) Assume there is an instinctual desire in every toddler not to pour boiling water on herself, that is successful at preventing more child-scalding than is prevented now.
(2) ...
...
(n-1) ...
(n) P & ~P

Now all you have to do is fill in the blank area in the middle.

rw: Certainly…

(2) Assume an X number of diverse instances where scalding can occur accidentally and let X be equivalent to infinite.

(n-2) P & X

(n) P & ~P

Now, as I’ve pointed out before, unless you can qualify your “more or less” assignments to these incidents with accurate figures you’re just pissing in the wind and your evidence is unconvincing.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

Your entertainment value is beyond question. Your logic, on the other hand, lacks rigour.

Your point,
You concede that an omnipotent being could bring about the desired state (Man's greatest good - MGG for short) without suffering.

If the finished product (MGG) represents an illogical state of affairs, then it does not and cannot exist.

Note that your point, that virtue cannot be demonstrated without adversity applies equally well if omnimax creates MGG or man does.

You are clearly stating that MGG is illogical.*

But if MGG cannot exist, then it cannot be reached. It if cannot be reached, then man's suffering is in vain. If man's suffering is in vain, then an omnibenevolent being has created unecessary suffering.

Therefore the PoE is proved: an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being is incompatible with the existing universe.

I think you should be proud of yourself: agreeing with the PoE is not easy.


* One should note, as a logical aside, that inability to demonstrate a virtue does NOT constitute a logical impossibility. Rw does not appear to understand this point.

rainbow walking

alix: Your entertainment value is beyond question. Your logic, on the other hand, lacks rigour.

rw: hahaha…anyway it’s “rigor” .




alix: You concede that an omnipotent being could bring about the desired state (Man's greatest good - MGG for short) without suffering.

Urw: Uh…no Alix, I concede that an omnipotent being could by-pass man’s participation and bring about an illogical state of affairs without suffering. I further qualified the concession that such a state would be anything but MGG. The initial claim, from which this concession came, was as follows:


rw: I have never claimed that virtue was equivalent to MGG but only a means of acquirement. I specified the parameters of MGG in the OP. I redefined, in my defense of the argument, man’s PFR, (preference for rightness), to “virtue” which I believe carries the same connotation as PFR and is easier to follow.




alix: If the finished product (MGG) represents an illogical state of affairs, then it does not and cannot exist.

rw: Uh…no Alix, again you are conflating my argument to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. I stated that an MGG brought about by divine fiat, by-passing man’s historical and willful participation represents an illogical state of affairs. That is not the same as MGG is an illogical state of affairs.

alix: Note that your point, that virtue cannot be demonstrated without adversity applies equally well if omnimax creates MGG or man does.

rw: Uh…no Alix, if man is a willful participant he is necessarily embroiled in adversity through-out his existence as a result of his involvement. I do not posit the end of adversity to be the beginning of MGG. My argument remains consistent to the CP that calls only for a reduction in suffering and evil…not a complete negation.

alix: You are clearly stating that MGG is illogical.*

rw: Am not.

alix: But if MGG cannot exist, then it cannot be reached. It if cannot be reached, then man's suffering is in vain. If man's suffering is in vain, then an omnibenevolent being has created unecessary suffering.

rw: Not a very robustly stuffed straw man Alix.

rw: Therefore the PoE is proved: an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being is incompatible with the existing universe.

I think you should be proud of yourself: agreeing with the PoE is not easy.

rw: Hahahaha…well, I give you credit for arrogance.


alix: * One should note, as a logical aside, that inability to demonstrate a virtue does NOT constitute a logical impossibility. Rw does not appear to understand this point.

rw: Really? In this case, and seeing how this assertion stands in need of a supporting cast, then you wouldn’t mind entertaining me with a brief description of a logically possible state of affairs where humanities virtues cannot be demonstrated, would you? Try to keep it consistent to PoE and show some reduction in suffering or evil along the way, if you really want to impress me.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

If you are going to correct someone's spelling, you should at least verify that it is in need of correction...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rigour

it is hardly my fault that America adopted a language it is unable to spell. I suspect that the early suggestion to make the United Colonies bilingual (English and German) might have rationalised both American spelling and American grammar.

Now to your request:

Omnimax could create a group of people who freely chose the right under all circumstances. In such a world, all men (and women) would be virtuous, even though they would never need to demonstrate that virtue under adverse circumstances (such as situations of immorality, willfull evil, or other unpleasantries). No suffering would be required to create such a world, therefore the PoE would be satisfied by the condition of reduced suffering. There exists no logical contradiction in the existence of such a group of people; they are virtuous, and freely choose the right in all cases.

You failed to respond to my point that absence of contrast does not eliminate a quality. Consider a trivial, thermodynamic example: if all things in the world are at a temperature of 30 degrees, does it logically follow that nothing is at a temperature of 30 degrees? Of course not.

rainbow walking

rw: Nor is it my fault.

alix: Now to your request:

Omnimax could create a group of people who freely chose the right under all circumstances.

rw: Really? And how would such people know to do so? How would they recognize their choices as "right"?

alix: In such a world, all men (and women) would be virtuous, even though they would never need to demonstrate that virtue under adverse circumstances (such as situations of immorality, willfull evil, or other unpleasantries).

rw: Really? And how would they know they are virtuous if their alleged virtue is never tested?

alix: No suffering would be required to create such a world, therefore the PoE would be satisfied by the condition of reduced suffering.

rw: Really? And people who “freely” choose right under all circumstances never face circumstances of conflicting rights? Never had to acquire the knowledge of “right” by trial and error and thus came upon such knowledge by some other means…thus no history… and if one of them happens to choose wrongly, as in the case of conflicting right choices? So, are all these people identical in personalities, desires and aspirations? There’s no competing for their “rights”? Everyone wants the exact same thing and thus no diversity exists? Or everyone wants something completely different and there's no grounds for commonality? So if two men loved the same woman? Oh, all women would look identical and behave identically in all cases…yes? This way every man, who is also identical, would have no possible reason to desire another man’s woman. Of course, such a state of affairs would flow with milk and honey at the whim and wish of each cloned individual who freely chose that which they had no previous knowledge of being right. It just happens by divine fiat. And they would have to be immortal...else they'd have to make a choice somewhere along the line that they are going to die and might as well face it. And this correlates with their existence...how? Is there any progress or science in such a world? What would be the motivation? What exactly would such people do with their lives?

alix: There exists no logical contradiction in the existence of such a group of people; they are virtuous, and freely choose the right in all cases.

rw: Indeed, there is also no logic in such a world

alix: You failed to respond to my point that absence of contrast does not eliminate a quality. Consider a trivial, thermodynamic example: if all things in the world are at a temperature of 30 degrees, does it logically follow that nothing is at a temperature of 30 degrees? Of course not. [/B]

rw: I wasn’t aware such a point was being raised. If all things in the world remain constant where comes the need for temperature or degrees? Why would anyone be motivated to measure the immeasurable?

Alix Nenuphar

Never claimed it was. Merely pointing out that your worry about spelling is irrelevant to your topic.

Back to the fun:

Alix: Omnimax could create a group of people who freely chose the right under all circumstances.

rw: Really? And how would such people know to do so? How would they recognize their choices as "right"?

They know how to do so because omnimax created them that way.

Whether or not they recognize their choices as 'right' is irrelevant: a virtuous man can be unconscious of the fact that he is virtuous; his virtue is not predicated or connected with the fact that he is aware of it.

No logical contradictions are involved.



alix: In such a world, all men (and women) would be virtuous, even though they would never need to demonstrate that virtue under adverse circumstances (such as situations of immorality, willfull evil, or other unpleasantries).

rw: Really? And how would they know they are virtuous if their alleged virtue is never tested?

See above. To know that one is virtuous and to be virtuous are not logically connected.

No logical contradiction involved.

alix: No suffering would be required to create such a world, therefore the PoE would be satisfied by the condition of reduced suffering.

And now a long response from rw:
Correct. They always freely make the right choice.

Correct. No history needed.

No. Omnimax has created a group of people who always freely chose the right.

No.

Since they always make the right choice, no.

Of course not. What does this have to do with virtue? You have changed the nature of the discuss with this remark. In a world of completely virtuous people, one can like Havarti and one can like Gouda.

People will want many different things. Some will want the same things.

Because they are all three virtuous, they will come to a perfectly acceptable arrangement; acceptable to all of them. Please note, the PoE says nothing about the conflict of good with good - it is explicitely relating to the logic problem of omnimax and the current universe.

No. You are creating absurdities; none of these things are relevant to virtue. If you lack sufficient imagination to imagine such a world, then try this exercise. Imagine the current diversity of human beings with but a single differnce: they always freely chose the right.

Yes. They do not need a history, because omnimax creates them in such a way that they are both free and choose the right.

Despite the fact that you are obsessed with mortality, this is in no way relevant to either the PoE or my example. They need not be immortal.

There could be progress in science and understanding; there could be art and culture and love and joy and aspiration and all the other multitudinous complexities of a world full of people.

alix: There exists no logical contradiction in the existence of such a group of people; they are virtuous, and freely choose the right in all cases.

This is a completely unsupported assertion. Please demonstrate why such a world lacks logic - at the moment you are arguing from personal incredulity.

I was attempting to clarify the point that one need not be conscious of one's virtue to be virtuous. I regret that you failed to understand my example; I will chose a simpler one next time.

-----

I have presented an example as you requested: a world of virtuous people who freely chose the right; a world full of potential and activities; full of art, love, sports, etc.. A world not created by a process involving suffering.

Where is the logical contradiction? Where does such a world involve a statement P & ~P?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I think that's a non sequitur. It all depends upon whether intervening in those other cases preserves the greatest good. And it's not true that everything is reducible to "moral" or "immoral"; some actions are still more moral than others, even if they're all immoral.

Why should your behavior be different from God's? If it's the right thing to do, God will do it. And if it's not the right thing to do, you shouldn't do it.

I'll assume you mean a logically impossible state of affairs.

You're being really vague here. What do you mean by "destroy logic"? God could create little elves who convince people not to scald themselves accidentally all the time.

\

Huh? What's wrong with that? God's omnipotent. He can make it happen.

You must be working in a system with which I'm unfamiliar. You need to find a substitution instance for P & ~P, which would mean some sentence like "It is the case that [x] and it is not the case that [x]." So could you give me that explicit sentence, please?