rainbow walking

koy: I'm sorry, rainbow, but you keep avoiding dealing with salient points by saying, "I only need to show...in order to defeat PoE," but that's semantics, at best and nothing to do with defeating the argument; the salience of it and impact of it, nor does it address the logical extension of your own argument. You can't just say, "all I have to do is this and the argument is dead," if your own "this" doesn't hold up, yes?

To whit: An omniscient god would be able to know when humanity reaches it's greatest good. It would know (a) it is attainable and (b) it is desireable (that's why it set things up the way it did). This is part and parcel to your argument.

So, we're now in the year 10,321 (let's say); the exact point when humanity has achieved its "greatest good." From that year forward, no man inflicted evil will ever happen again and all natural suffering has been irradicated; no one dies; no one gets sick; no one inflicts harm (knowingly) on another living creature. We are all morally perfect beings as the end result of your "greatest good" journey. From that year forward, we would exist in an identical state as if god had simply mandated it from the beginning.

rw: How does one create a creature who chooses to be virtuous without some access to less virtuous choices, or a history of the consequences of such choices? How would such a creature know and recognize his choices as virtuous? How would he distinguish between drinking honey or snake venom? What you are advocating is a creature with instinctual omniscience. Such a creature is not willful but automaton.

koy: So what happens in 10,421? The same thing? How? There would have been one hundred years of absolutley no moral evil, so how did the offspring's offspring of that first generation learn to be morally perfect? What happens in the year 10,521? The same thing? How?

rw: No, your interpretation of my argument is erroneous. I am not advocating an end result where man achieves some sort of perfection…only that he becomes virtuous enough to prefer the right a vast majority of the time. I am not advocating an end to man’s history at all, in fact, I would say that man’s escape from planet earth and his subsequent extension of his life indefinitely is only the turning of another page.

koy: Your argument hinges on three things:
1. A "greatest good" is possible
2. Evil is necessary to achieve our "greatest good"
3. A non-interfering god instantiated evil in order to guide humanity toward their "greatest good."

rw: Man establishes what is good or evil based on the conditions of his existence. If a god established those conditions then a man must come to understand how far those conditions dictate his normative assignments. All premeditated evil revolves around the violation of some basic essentials necessary to avoid man’s extinction. The complex ways in which those necessities emerge and are expressed are what drives man forward as he both suffers and learns from them.


koy: Those are your conditions. You try to get around them by saying, "No, you would have to prove that a non-interfering god does not exist. All I need do is show how a greatest good could be obtained by a non-interfering god to defeat PoE."

But that's not true. You are asserting the existence of a non-interfering god, who, due to its omnimax abilities, has set all of this into motion.

Just as the PoE is in response to theists asserting an omnimax god, so to are our agruments in response to you asserting an omnimax god.

See?

rw: All my argument is designed to do is demonstrate that PoE’s conclusions are not logically sound. Thusfar not one of PoE’s proponents has demonstrated the logic or soundness in their defense of PoE. Especially in regards to my argument.

koy: So, applying the same logic to your assertion of a "greatest good" we see that it does not obtain in a logically consistent extension; i.e., what happens in the post "greatest good" world to maintain the "greatest good" absent evil?

It also contradicts god's omniscience, since, presumably, once we achieve our "greatest good" and become immortal, then everything that preceeded that state would be ancient and forgotten history; a status quo identical to if god had simply skipped all of that for us and placed us into the status quo of 10.321 to begin with.

Let's jump ahead one million years. It is now the year 1,010,321; greatest good plus one million years. We've now had one million years of moral perfection.

rw: I’m not arguing moral perfection. Man’s moral status will likely change as he changes. I am arguing man as a progressive being and that this progression will result in man’s improvement in both science and politics. I am not establishing these improvements as the end of man’s trek, just the reduction of his suffering and pain. I have articulated that man’s extrication from the confines of this planet and the inevitability of death are evidences of his achievement of something comparable to being for his greatest good. I am not arguing that these accomplishments themselves are the do-all-end-all of man’s history.

koy: But how? You're argument states that evil is necessary to achieve a greatest good; to teach us what is comparably good vs. what is comparably evil. But now there has been one million years of no evil to teach anybody the comparable good, so how do our future "greatest good" progeny maintain that "greatest good" absent evil?

And if it's possible (which it must be for your argument's conditions to be sufficient to defeat PoE), then why doesn't god's omniscience give over to omnibenevolence and therefore it simply mandates "greatest good" status quo? Just erase the first 10,321 years and go immediately to the "greatest good" plus one year of humanity?

rw: My argument is based on the premise that good comes of evil and that the degree of evil and suffering encountered will affect the degree of good accomplished. I have not asserted man’s history as ending with the accomplishment of a diminishment of evil and suffering. You have misunderstood my argument’s parameters.

koy: See what I'm getting at? If there is a greatest good and we can acheive it through the necessary lesssons inherent (as you claim) in the existence of evil, then once we acheive it, evil will no longer exist. How then do we maintain a "greatest good" for, presumably, all eternity (since we will no longer die) absent this evil and, if we can achieve "greatest good" on our own, then god already knows we can achieve it on our own (due to its omniscience).

If that is the case (which must be), then why wouldn't god's omni-benevelonce kick in and just take out the unnecessary middle years?

rw: That is not the case, nor must it be, for man to achieve a reduction in the evil and suffering he now, and has in the past, endured. The CP argues on the basis of a reduction and my argument argues on the same basis. Total eradication is not my agenda and, as you point out, logically impossible.

koy: See what I mean by taking your argument to its logical conclusion and showing how it is flawed?

rw: If that were the basis of my argument you would be correct.

koy: You are saying it is necessary for god to not intervene, so that we can learn the lesson on our own, to achieve our greatest good. But god's omniscience would tell him that we can and have achieved our greatest good in a linear manner that god is not bound by, due to its omniscience. It would be able to see that in the year 10,321, humanity will have achieved its greatest good, if left all alone.

So, now that it knows this long before we actually reach the year 10, 321, why wouldn't its omniscience then give over to its omnibenevolence and just short-cut us all to the year 10,321 right from the start?

You've got to account for these questions or your argument is incomplete and therefore does not defeat anything.

You say it's important that humanity learn and earn this lesson, yet projecting forward one million years into our by then immortal future shows us that it is possible, allegedly, to exist in a "greatest good" stasis absent evil for all eternity.

rw: Again, I have not advocated a complete eradication of evil and suffering, only a reduction on par with that speculated in the CP.

koy: Why, therefore, doesn't god simply apply what it already knows to be the case and collapse time for us, due to its omnibenevelonce, and implant the knowledge we had learned and earned in god's own omniscience projections and simply put us in the year 10,321 plus?

Couldn't an omniscient, omnipotent god simply imagine those 10, 321 years, see that we can achieve our greatest good absent his help and therefore, due to omnibenevelonce, remove the unnecessary suffering in between and grant us our "greatest good" status?

rw: Only if there was an “end” such as you are projecting here. My definition of man’s “greatest good” is that state of affairs where man has extricated himself from the confines of this planet, freed himself from death as an inevitability and developed his virtues, (preference for rightness), to such a high degree as to be far more consistent in his choices than we are to date. There is no “end” of evil and suffering here, only a reduction with a reciprocal increase in joy and goodness. Who knows what awaits man in the stars?

rainbow walking

rw: Indeed, there are always differences in any given position, else there'd be no discussion...yes? Am I to understand then that you are declining to discuss this any further based on these basic differences in our presuppositions? I would certainly hope that is not the case.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

May I politely point out that the entirety of your arguments in this thread consist of subjective opinions concerning the abilities of an omnimax being? And as you put it yourself,
I offer an example which appears to lie at the heart of your argument:

In other words, your omnimax being cannot be omnimax since it cannot create certain things ("the best virtues") which are logically possible.

In fact, by this assertion you have demonstrated that the PoE is correct - that the universe is logically incompatible with an omnimax being.

I congratulate you for providing such an interesting (though somewhat lengthly) demonstration.

Marz Blak

Yes, rw, I am. I believe I understand your argument, and it being the case that the source of our disagreements is in certain presuppositions that are entirely speculative (on both our parts), I see no point in continuing. Don't worry, though, I'm sure we'll find other things to discuss (or argue ).

Best regards,

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

There is just as much suffering as there is right now. A = A. Yes, things could have been worse. But they could have been better. Suppose there were less suffering than there is now. That's a way the world would be better. Now we have to see if you can find a way the world would be worse...

I don't know. But as long as he's failed in one obligation, he doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether he'd do it for some or for all. If he's not doing it enough, he doesn't exist.

Not always, right?

You're contradicting yourself. First you say you don't wish there were less suffering in the world, then you say you wish there were no suffering. No suffering is less than right now. So make up your mind.

God knows best. He should teach us what he wants us to know.

How does one teach a kid not to pour boiling water on herself without the kid pouring boiling water on herself?

rainbow walking

alix: May I politely point out that the entirety of your arguments in this thread consist of subjective opinions concerning the abilities of an omnimax being? And as you put it yourself,

rw: When discussing the attributes of a hypothetical being such as the omni-max being we are discussing here everyone has some basic definitions of those attributes from which to work. My argument does not consist entirely of subjective opinions, as you have mistakenly asserted, but contains a great deal of objective observation, especially concerning man's history, scientific criteria, political and ethical norms, etc. and so forth. You cannot dismiss my argument so easily without risking an appearance of seeking an excuse to disengage without loosing credibility for your own position.


alix: I offer an example which appears to lie at the heart of your argument:

rw: For me the best virtues are not creatable by divine fiat.



In other words, your omnimax being cannot be omnimax since it cannot create certain things ("the best virtues") which are logically possible.

rw: Uh...no, that is a faulty interpretation of my statement. If such a being has created the environment from which the best virtues eventually obtain his attributes are justified and exonerated from such a charge. What I mean by divine fiat is to create such virtues sans history. I am championing logical restrictions, not wholesale negation. I have stated a number of times during the course of this discusion that for such a being to by-pass man's history will create only an illogical state of affairs. This does not mean he is incapable of doing so. It only means that the end product will not be something a proponent of PoE could hold forth as a symbol of victory. If PoE cannot obtain a state of affairs with reduced suffering without damaging humanity in the processs, PoE fails to obtain in any meaningful way. When the proponent of PoE states a god could do such and such, but fails to demonstrate the end result as being consistent to man's nature, or requires a wholesale demolition and reconstruction of man to accomplish its aim...it fails to obtain. Thusfar, proponents of PoE have not demontrated how god could do X without destroying the integrity of humanity in the process.

alix: In fact, by this assertion you have demonstrated that the PoE is correct - that the universe is logically incompatible with an omnimax being.

I congratulate you for providing such an interesting (though somewhat lengthly) demonstration.

rw: This entire exchange is based on an erroneous interpretation of one statement. If you feel comfortable declaring victory on such a frivilous basis...shrug.

rainbow walking

Very well then Marz, I do hope we can engage other subjects as equally challenging, although I doubt we'll ever agree entirely on any basic suppositions undergirding our respective positions. Sometimes it is helpful to air out those suppositions themselves to see if they are logically derived. But I respect your right to choose your battles and have enjoyed our discussions on this front. Hope to hear from you again soon

rainbow walking

rw earlier: If you concede that such a being could also do this, without a baseline for your “evidence” how do we know he hasn’t?



Thomas: There is just as much suffering as there is right now. A = A. Yes, things could have been worse. But they could have been better. Suppose there were less suffering than there is now. That's a way the world would be better. Now we have to see if you can find a way the world would be worse...

rw: Why? You’ve just conceded it could be worse. If it could be worse, and it isn’t, then you have no basis to claim a god didn’t already reduce the suffering to the levels you now complain are too high.

rw earlier: Why should he do this in some areas and not all areas? Who is to be spared and who allowed to suffer the consequences?



Thomas: I don't know. But as long as he's failed in one obligation, he doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether he'd do it for some or for all. If he's not doing it enough, he doesn't exist.

rw: But you haven’t established his obligation so you can’t possibly declare failure. I have been arguing that his status as a god would increase his obligations to a level much beyond that of individual men or groups in any given point of history. Your arguments continue to ignore the historical perspective of my argument and the moral responsibility this places such a being under.

rw earlier: It would be morally better for man to acquire his own greatest good than not.



Thomas: Not always, right?

rw: There are many ways man can acquire his own greatest good as long as he has the will to do so.



Thomas: You're contradicting yourself. First you say you don't wish there were less suffering in the world, then you say you wish there were no suffering. No suffering is less than right now. So make up your mind.

rw: There is no contradiction in this answer but I will expand on it to minimize any possible room for error in my personal position. I, as a human, wish there was another way man could progress without making mistakes and incurring suffering. But I would not trade in my personal will and ability to learn from my mistakes and the maturity and personal progress I have made as a result, for any sort of divine interference. I have no desire to become a lazy, non-participant in my life, begging and awaiting some higher being’s intervention every time I stand the chance of suffering as a result of my own neglect or ignorance or stubbornness. I am a social being by choice and appreciate the contributions that have often come as a result of the suffering and sacrifices made by my fellow man, as a contribution to my own existence. I hope I can make some contributions in return and strive to do so whenever the opportunity arises. My “faith” is in man, my money is on man, and my life depends on other men as much as theirs does mine. I do not need or require the intervention of such a being, though there have been times when I wished such intervention were available. I have managed to overcome many of the handicaps I was born with and lead a productive, civilized, and often joyful life, but not without the help of my fellow human beings.
The argument I’ve presented here is an intellectual pursuit and one that I believe exposes some basic misconceptions about PoE. PoE’s conclusions are not logically supported when the underlying assumptions are exposed and put to the critical exam, and especially when confronted by a superior argument.

rw earlier: How? Don’t you mean…implant us with everything he wants us to know? What about the things WE want to know? You have to have a classroom to teach.



Thomas: God knows best. He should teach us what he wants us to know.

rw: Can you be more specific? What do you imagine he should teach us and how would that knowledge impact man historically?

rw earlier: How does one teach virtue without suffering the consequences of learning what is not virtuous?



Thomas: How does one teach a kid not to pour boiling water on herself without the kid pouring boiling water on herself?

rw: You are confusing descriptive knowledge with prescriptive comprehension. One does not teach a toddler not to pour boiling water on herself. One only prevents the child from doing so. If one were genuinely interested in the child learning not to do so, one would allow her to learn it the only possible way she could. Once a child becomes teachable they are generally beyond the stage of grasping for pot handles. What one does in this case is substitute fear for pain by convincing the child of severe consequences in reaching for the handle. This does not guarantee the child will not still make this mistake at a future time when you are not around. The only sure way to ensure the child learns not to do so is for her to endure the pain of being scalded. I can assure you this would not be an offense she would likely repeat in her lifetime.

I ask you again Thomas, is it PoE’s argument that a god should become a super safety man baby sitter? And if not, he therefore doesn’t exist?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Sometimes it's better for humans to learn something without having to experience it firsthand, right?

I'm sorry, but I didn't see an answer to the original question. Do you wish there were less suffering in the world?

Suppose it were possible. Suppose it were possible to implant the knowledge in the child's brain of what exactly would happen if she poured boiling water on herself. Would you do it?

Suppose it were possible to convince the child never to pour boiling water on herself, without teaching her that. Would you do it?

I've already answered this. See Page 2 of this thread.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

I had forgotten how much a literalist you are. Very well, let me attempt to present your own point more clearly.

P1: An omnimax being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

P2: An omnipotent being can create anything which is not logically impossible.

P3: An omnibenevolent being will minimze unecessary pain and suffering.

P4: An omniscient being knows all the consequences of its actions.

P5: Creatures possessed of the 'best 'virtues' are logically possible.

P6: Therefore an omnimax being can create creatures possessed of the 'best virtues' in such a fashion as to minimize pain.

C1: The omnimax being will instantaneously create creatures possessed of the 'best virtues'.

I realize that you are wedded to your logic, but as Mr. Metcalf has shown, it is not convincing.