rainbow walking

Thomas: No, because that's not enough to show moral perfection. Humans have to be in the best position now they could be, not just a good position.

rw: Not when I’m postulating a meta-path. We are by no means at the end of the journey. So this claim is just frivolous.

Thomas: My opinion about whether God should intervene is just as subjective as yours, so you're going to have to look for a different criticism.

rw: I’ve presented an argument based on this reality drawn from facts about our history. It is not subjective but factual.



Thomas: No, look: If it's obligatory to do X, then it's obligatory to do X whether or not you're morally perfect. If there is some correct level of intervention, then you're obligated to attempt to reach that level whether or not you're morally perfect.

rw: There is no correct level of intervention for a non-interventionist God who’s allowing man to acquire his own GG.

Thomas: And I've already shown that sometimes, some intervention but not complete intervention is obligatory.

rw: Yes, for man, who is obliged to intervene anyway…this doesn’t apply to God and that’s one of the places your argument stumbles. You are continually assuming that any example you suggest that obliges man to do X must also oblige God to do X but this doesn’t follow from my initial argument of a non-interventionist God based on man acquiring his own GG. Claims that God could still intervene without affecting man’s acquisition of his own GG are contradictory to man acquiring his own GG. Either man acquires himself or God does it for him. There is no middle ground for a morally perfect God.

Thomas: So your "all or nothing" claim is obviously false. Think about it this way: Suppose God's the only person in a position to intervene on the playground, where some intervention is justified but complete intervention would have bad effects. Do you think God would be obligated to attempt to reach those bad effects, just because he's morally perfect? Why would moral perfection change what the right thing to do is?

rw: Because it isn’t just moral perfection alone that weighs against your argument. Man’s SELF-acquisition accompanies that argument hand in hand. And, if God intervenes in one case but fails to do so in all cases, you know as well as I do, you’ll be back here arguing the same complaint ad nasuem until God is faced with doing the whole shebang just to shut you up…if God were obligated to listen to your complaints, that is. Once a God intervenes he’s never free to stop intervening because of moral perfection and man’s zealous anticipation of more and more.

And, furthermore, this example from a playground is specious because you have no way to verify an intervention if it did occur. Don’t hand me examples that can’t be verified, claims that can’t establish some necessity based on evidence that more suffering would have occurred had God not intervened in some invisible way. It proves nothing, doesn’t support your argument and doesn’t support mine.

Thomas: Your claim that God's refraining from interfering is what has allowed humanity to move forward is also obviously false, because God is omnipotent. There is no contradiction in saying "humanity moves forward at least as far as it is in the actual world and God interferes once more than he does in the actual world."

rw: It is neither false nor obviously so. If man is moving forward he doesn’t require intervention. That intervention could hinder man’s forward momentum and you have no way of knowing it couldn’t. I gave an example yesterday about the car and mechanic. If I’m to trust someone’s judgment on a matter I’ll take the professional judgment over the speculators any day. Since we’re arguing an omniscient God I’d say that fairly qualifies him to know if man’s progress needs a boost or not.

1. Most levels of suffering are not the right level.

rw: Subjective opinion. If suffering and death are part of the motivational factors of man’s forward momentum you have no possible way of knowing if there even is a right level.

2. Therefore, the chance that any particular level is the right level is very small.

rw: More conjecture based on subjective opinion. Establish a baseline and then come back and see me.

3. Therefore, the chance that this level is the right level is very small.

rw: Yes, like the chance of your subjective opinion being adequate to adjudge the effects of interference on man’s forward momentum.

4. If God existed, then this would be the right level.
5. Therefore, the chance that God exists is very small

Deny 1, 3, or 4. (2 and 5 are indisputable.)

rw: I deny them all. They start with subjective opinion and attempt to squeeze a rational argument out from the cracks.




Thomas: Do you understand what an argument is?


rw: Don’t get huffy.

Thomas: You have to find a way to deny my argument, unless you want to accept my conclusion. Show me which premise you deny. Just name a number.

rw: I denied all of them. Find a better argument that actually addresses the premises of mine.

Thomas: While you're here, show me your counter-argument, in a form with its premises numbered the way I've done the courtesy of providing for you.

rw: Certainly: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=1

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

You claim that it is better for God to let humans suffer, even if he could prevent it. That's subjective opinion.

Show me why moral perfection requires full intervention even when the best level of intervention is less than full, and show me why God is obligated to meet all of humanity's demands.

Why? Why does that matter at all? My claim is that sometimes, some intervention but not full intervention is justified -- and you answer it by saying that we'd have no way to know whether God intervened? What could that possibly have to do with my claim?

Yeah, and a Powerful Deceiver could be making you think you have a strong argument and you have no way of knowing one couldn't. "Maybes" alone never solve anything. Provide some evidence that intervention hinders humanity's progress, despite the fact that God is omnipotent. Show me the contradiction in saying "God intervenes once and humanity has what it needs." If you can't show me a contradiction, then God can make it happen.

Here's a sub-argument for 1:

(1A) There is some level of suffering that's the right level of suffering.
(1B) There are more than two possible levels of suffering.

You can't possibly deny (1B), so you must be denying (1A). But I don't see why (1A) could be false. It seems like the minimum amount of suffering required to accomplish the greatest possible good would be the right level of suffering.

You can't deny this because it follows directly from (1). You have to deny (1) or deny the inference to (2), not (2) itself. Do you understand why the fact that most levels are not the right level implies that any particular level is probably the wrong level?

Nowhere on that page is a counter-argument with numbered premises from you. If you lie to me again I will terminate my end of this discussion.

rainbow walking

Thomas: You claim that it is better for God to let humans suffer, even if he could prevent it. That's subjective opinion.

rw: I’ve drawn a very clear connection between human suffering and human progress. This is not subjective opinion. This connection trumps your subjective opinion that humans suffer too much.



Thomas: Show me why moral perfection requires full intervention even when the best level of intervention is less than full, and show me why God is obligated to meet all of humanity's demands.

rw: I already gave you a good example in the person who’s able to rescue an entire family of four from a fire and only rescues two. You conveniently skipped this analogy. Moral perfection, for a god capable of rescuing the entire human race, requires he either rescue the entire human race or have a good reason not to rescue anyone. For a god, the best level of intervention is full intervention but this would not be the best for man. You continue to equivocate between the two even though I’ve clearly spelled this out in my argument and in countless addressing of your objections.



Thomas: Why? Why does that matter at all? My claim is that sometimes, some intervention but not full intervention is justified -- and you answer it by saying that we'd have no way to know whether God intervened? What could that possibly have to do with my claim?

rw: In this argument against the CP it makes all the difference. You have offered examples that you subjectively claim a god should intervene to reduce. These examples represent your “evidence” that too much suffering exists. I won’t allow you to ride in on “evidence” of “too much”, when any reductive intervention a god might undertake can’t be verified such that you’d still be making subjective claims of “too much” regardless of how much intervention took place until the entire example of suffering was completely negated. You don’t get to eat your cake before you get it. This is another reason why partial intervention fails logically. Your judgment of the evidence as “too much” is subjective; your means of verification of “too much” is based on popular subjective opinion and any reduction brought about by divine fiat, that isn’t verifiable as having been brought about by divine fiat, leaves you no closer to a conclusion that the subjective level of “too much” has now been reduced to a satisfactory level.



Thomas: Yeah, and a Powerful Deceiver could be making you think you have a strong argument and you have no way of knowing one couldn't. "Maybes" alone never solve anything.

Rw: Nope, a non-interventionist god has no reason to deceive since deception would require intervention. Provide me with some evidence of intervention and then bring this ludicrous line of reason to the table. Otherwise you’re pissing in your own cornflakes.

Thomas: Provide some evidence that intervention hinders humanity's progress, despite the fact that God is omnipotent.

rw: I already have in my argument. Man’s progress has been achieved partially due to addressing levels of suffering sufficient to motivate his seeking of a resolution. Had a god intervened to reduce those levels, a resolution would have not been needed to be pursued and man would still be depending on a god to do not only that one reduction but any and all reductions if they are based on suffering as a motivation for gods intervention.

Thomas: Show me the contradiction in saying "God intervenes once and humanity has what it needs." If you can't show me a contradiction, then God can make it happen.

rw: Listen dude, I’m really getting tired of educating your silly ass only to be insulted for it. God is the only being with complete free will. If he can do anything he wants to do, his will is free, whereas ours is not. We cannot, at this time, cure all cancer patients…so that is a restriction to our freeness of will. One of the crucial ingredients in man’s GG is to have as free a will as logically possible. Thus, when man learns to cure all forms of cancer his will is that much closer to being freer than it now is. Not only is cancer cured, by man’s efforts, but man’s will is made freer. If a god does this for him, man has not increased his freedom of will…but actually becomes less free and more dependant on god to do what man couldn’t do because god intervened.

Since you’re arguing an inductive probability and tacking on a subjective “too much” suffering in cancer patients while man trudges along seeking a cure…I’m going to counter your anticipated objection by saying that man could have probably already found a cure for cancer. Since money appears to move mountains, if man would decide to put an exorbitant amount of money at the end of this rainbow for the man or team of researchers who find the cure, then more people would pursue a cure and go into this field of research. Since more minds focused on a problem almost always ends in a resolution much quicker, then man could have resolved this problem himself already…but apparently man, in the aggregate, does not share your subjective opinion of “too much” suffering, since the problem still exists. Thus it is not a god’s problem to motivate man when man can motivate himself.




Thomas: Here's a sub-argument for 1:

(1A) There is some level of suffering that's the right level of suffering.
(1B) There are more than two possible levels of suffering.

You can't possibly deny (1B), so you must be denying (1A). But I don't see why (1A) could be false. It seems like the minimum amount of suffering required to accomplish the greatest possible good would be the right level of suffering.

rw: And why does 1A require a god’s intervention to achieve? If man’s stated goal of GG is to eliminate as much suffering as logically possible, there is no acceptable level of suffering, so 1A is denied.



Thomas: You can't deny this because it follows directly from (1). You have to deny (1) or deny the inference to (2), not (2) itself. Do you understand why the fact that most levels are not the right level implies that any particular level is probably the wrong level?

rw: See my response above.



Thomas: Nowhere on that page is a counter-argument with numbered premises from you. If you lie to me again I will terminate my end of this discussion.

rw: Terminate anything you want to turkey, I don’t care. I assumed you could count without my having to tack numbers on to each premise. Apparently my assumption was ill-founded. Why don’t you try actually formulating an intelligible rebuttal instead of beating this dead horse into dust. My argument stands unrefuted.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I can draw a connection between human suffering and a lack of human happiness. You're still using your subjective opinion to say that humans' progress is good.

If it's morally right to rescue only two of them when one could rescue four, then God will rescue only two. Right? Or will God do something morally wrong? Either it's morally right to rescue only two or it isn't. Which one?

You gave me a simple maybe without evidence. I gave you a simple maybe without evidence. We're even. I have no reason to believe your maybe; you have no reason to believe my maybe.

You're starting to call me names and insult me. Do it again and I'm out.

Point me to the contradiction you've demonstrated in my sentence in your above paragraphs, because I'm sure not seeing it.

So zero would not be an acceptable level of suffering? Even if our goal is to eliminate as much as possible?

Again, with the insults. I was just starting to get accustomed to the sexist use of the male pronoun over and over again, and now you descend even further from serious academic discussion. I don't understand why you can't just have a civil discussion with me. If I'm too stupid to understand your points, I would hope to elicit pity, rather than derision.

And I assumed you had actually read my post, wherein I asked for numbered premises. Now show me your argument with numbered premises.

rainbow walking

Thomas: I can draw a connection between human suffering and a lack of human happiness.

rw: And thus the cause for pursuit of a resolution to the suffering which leads to progress.


Thomas You're still using your subjective opinion to say that humans' progress is good.

rw: Then you wish to argue that it is better for humans to die at or near the age of 40? To abandon any recourse to science?



Thomas: If it's morally right to rescue only two of them when one could rescue four, then God will rescue only two. Right?

rw: I didn’t say it was morally right to rescue only two when you could rescue four.

Thomas: Or will God do something morally wrong? Either it's morally right to rescue only two or it isn't. Which one?

rw: He will do nothing that you can prove to be morally wrong.







Thomas: Point me to the contradiction you've demonstrated in my sentence in your above paragraphs, because I'm sure not seeing it.

rw: I need only diminish the probability of your inductive conclusion.



Thomas: So zero would not be an acceptable level of suffering? Even if our goal is to eliminate as much as possible?

rw: There is no acceptable level of suffering…from 0 to infinity.



Thomas: And I assumed you had actually read my post, wherein I asked for numbered premises. Now show me your argument with numbered premises.

rw: I showed you my argument. If you want the premises numbered, number them yourself. Call me a liar or refer to me in the improper gender again, and I’m out.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Then it doesn't fit the analogy! We're talking about situations in which some intervention is morally right but full intervention isn't. So the car analogy doesn't work. What you need is an analogy in which it's morally right to rescue two instead of four -- to intervene partially but not fully -- but God won't do it. Because either it's morally right to intervene partially and not fully, or it isn't. If it is, God will. If it isn't, God won't.

No, you have to show an explicit contradiction, because you're claiming God can't intervene without precluding our science, history, culture, knowledge, etc. Because God can bring about any non-contradictory state of affairs, you must show a contradiction to show he can't intervene without precluding these goods.

This seems wildly implausible. Everyone seems to agree that there are situations in which there is too much or too little suffering, even if we can't always identify them. Don't you agree that there are possible worlds in which there is too much suffering?

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out where the numbers would go, or even what the specific premises are. I think if you understand your own argument, you should be able to present it in a numbered-premises form. I'm asking you out of courtesy to do it for me, because I can't seem to figure out your argument adequately without that. I would do the same for you. Any serious philosopher would do the same for her interlocutor.

How do you define lying? I say it's knowingly making a false statement. Which you did. You indicated that your argument, in numbered-premises form, was on the first page. It wasn't. So you lied to me.

When did I refer to you in the improper gender? What are you talking about?