Dr. Retard

rainbow walking:

So, first, no that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing, for example, that someone who tries to rape someone else be rendered unable to pull it off. Imprisoning the would-be rapist, or temporarily paralyzing the would-be rapist, both look like improvements. It limits the would-be rapist's freedom a bit, sure. But hey, no rape. Which is good news for the would-be victim and her freedom.

Or, to look at other ways to limit freedom a bit without robotifying anybody, what if bullets just blinked out of existence, whenever they were shot at an innocent person? Sure, that would frustrate the gunman a lot. But it would be worth it, because hey, no bullet wound. No death by bleeding.

Talk about robots is beside the point for these limitations, because they're not drastic enough to render us robots.

First, we don't just pay legislators to limit freedoms on paper. We pay them to institute armed services that are ready to kill dangerous people if necessary.

Second, policemen are willing to step in before any harm is done. If I pull out a rifle and start running towards a school screaming, in view of a policeman, the policeman will not wait until I have harmed a child to take me down. And, more importantly, this is a good thing. It's good to limit people's freedoms before they harm innocent people. That's why we have laws about harm and other laws about threats. Consequently, God's taking preventative measures also looks good.

Third, even if God had to wait until after people were harmed, that would be an improvement. In reality, God doesn't punish criminals, even after the harm is done. If God were do to so openly, that would have a big deterrent effect. That would be an improvement. But he hasn't.

Fourth, inasmuch as these proposals limit man's "autonomy of will", then too bad for man's autonomy of will. A world where people were unable to rape each other would be a better world than this one. Do you doubt it?

rainbow walking

Jen: You see no way to enact it, but you don't think that an all-powerful god could come up with a way?


rw: Omnipotence is only power. What guides the use of that power is knowledge, hence, for this god, omniscience. It would require a mind at least as omniscient to answer that question.

Jen: Or are we still in the position that god is bound by the laws of cause and effect?


rw: No, god isn't bound by any law, but PoE is. Any argument against the FWD that destroys or modifies freewill to eradicate evil and suffering does not attain. So, in the case of PoE, any use of god's attributes are chained to the preservation of freewill. With this in mind, anything this god does to alter man or his environment to elliminate evil must take into account the consequences of said act, which inculcates cause and effect. As I've pointed out ad naseum, every suggestion I've seen thusfar leads to man becoming a total dependent on god or worse...if you follow the consequences.

Jen:The very laws that he chose to create.


Which every proponent of PoE appear to hold responsible for the existence of evil and suffering. I say this because they invariably begin to either change them, violate them or eliminate them altogether. Is it just me, or does it begin to seem as if man's only and best recourse to eliminating evil is to become or appeal to lawlessness.

Jen: Why did he create those laws if they would bind him in such a way that he couldn't prevent suffering while also letting us retain free will?


rw: Well, Jen, I would say that he didn't create them to bind himself, nor do they. It's not the effect breaking or changing them would have on this god's attributes, but the effect it would have on man's autonomous will. If, as you say, this god created them for man, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that any modifications will affect man...not god.

Jen: The point is if he CAN'T do it, then he's not all-powerful. So what kind of god is that?

rw: It's not that he can't do it, if he did, what kind of effect would it have on man? Since no one has been able to show how it can be done without tampering with man's will, and in most examples, even his humanity, I'll leave you to figure out the answer.

Should this god's omnipotence be guided by his head or his heart? That's basically what one must consider. If we allow his omniscience, then we have to concede he knows more than we do...so, how do we justify claiming he's done it wrong?

Dr Rick

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas;

You may not be taken seriously on these fora if you continue posting in the manner that you have; some of your posts contain logical fallacies that do not support your arguments and imply that you are not interested in rational discourse.

Rimstalker has posted an argument, and you have not addressed it. You've only addressed a strawman argument which he did not make. Rimstalker has not argued that God is selfish, and has not even expressed that opinion, so there is no logical reason for you to make the arguments against this position that you have.

Your response to Clutch, that "My remarks about 'robots' equate 'robots' to 'lack of freedom'. I equate 'lack of freedom' to 'any hinderance of what we can now do'" is another logical fallacy known as equivocation, where you are changing the meanings of the terms you use.

Continuing posting this way if you want, but if you do, be prepared to be treated dismissively.

Rick

Philosoft

This example illustrates an important point. If freedom of will entails the freedom to be, well, free of actions imposed by others, a rape would result in no net change in the overall freedom that would have obtained had the rape not occured. Thus, if God limits the freedom to rape, the freedom to be free from rape is not compromised.

Zadok001

Rainbow:

The only parts of your response to me that bears mentioning are the part regarding omnipotence. I'll answer a few other points first, though.

"Z: First things first: Omniscience cannot guide. Omniscience is knowledge. Knowledge does not guide our actions. If we allow it to, we commit a naturalistic fallacy ("should" from "does")."

rw: Then your position is that action is initiated without forethought? So, should you decide to drive your car to the store, you don’t bother to look for your car keys because, even though you know they are required, the only thing guiding your actions is your decision? I see no fallacy here nor does your explanation suffice to demonstrate one.


I'll say again. Omniscience is incapable of being an guiding force. Omniscience tells us what IS. It is knowledge, such as "The wall is white." "The cat is black." "I am 6'1"." Etc. To say that omniscience can tell us what to do is a naturalistic fallacy:

1. If I use this gun to shoot Joe, Joe will die.
2. Therefore, I should not use this gun to shoot Joe.

See the problem? I'm missing a premise: "I ought not cause Joe to die." Using merely knowledge, we can never arrive at a normative claim (i.e., a claim that tells us what SHOULD be done). I'd love to see you give me a counter-example, as it would tear down about 2,000 years of philsophic thought. (To answer this challenge, present me with an argument that contains no normative claims in its premises, but does contain one in the conclusion. i.e., you can't use 'should,' 'good,' 'wrong,' etc in your premises, but a similar guiding word must exist in the conclusion.)

This in no way entails action without forethought or consideration. Omnibenevolence is our 'guiding' force, however. It is the aspect of a being that allows that being to decide which, of a range of actions, is the 'correct' action. Omniscience CANNOT do this on its own, under any circumstances. It requires a normative idea.

"Z: Next up: It appears I've screwed up, but not in the way you think. Once again, we're defining terms differently. This time, it's entirely my fault. I didn't complete the definition of omnipotence, as I assumed you were aware of it. Omnipotence isn't, technically speaking, the ability to do anything."

rw: Say what!?! Chuckle…so now we’re back to square one? Sorry Zadok but you and I both know that YOU have not been arguing from this technicality to this point. Shall I copy and paste some of the claims you’ve made that omnipotence would allow this god to accomplish?

Again, I apologize: I didn't know you were unaware of that definition. Feel free to link me to any claims I made previously, not a single one entails a contradiction.

"Z: It's the ability to do anything that doesn't entail a contradiction. God can't drop a square circle onto the floor next to me, nor a triangular elipse. He can't make two sets of two items be fifteen items, while remaining two sets of two."

rw: Uh..no…that’s not a technicality that restricts omnipotence. I disallow it. God can alter logic to make this possible. But that’s god’s problem and not ours, until he does it such that WE can drop a square circle onto the floor. Then it becomes a matter of cause and effect…specifically in relation to our freewill. For the purposes of PoE, freewill is the only collar that will fit around god’s neck. You can have god do anything but negate man’s freewill.


You therefore allow that something can both exist and not exist simultaneously? There are two ways I can go with this. Either way, the PoE wins.

Method 1: Under your definition, God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. Therefore, the PoE is correct: God doesn't exist. This is a relatively primitive method, and it accomplishes nothing.

Method 2: The second method is more useful. Basically, you are claiming that the definitions in use are non-functional. By such reasoning, you are effectively negating omnipotence from our deity. (By the definition in common usage.) Hence, our deity is not omnipotent, and therefore the PoE is successful in disproving the existance of said deity.

As an aside: "I disallow it?" Excuse me? Methinks that's not exactly in your power.

"Z: Likewise, an omnibenevolent being, a being who BY DEFINITION commits all acts out of love, cannot commit an act not out of love."

rw: Then you hold the position that god’s actions are guided by omni-benevolence, but not by omni-science? How do you support this claim? You are, in affect, saying this god doesn’t know what he’s doing, he’s just…or SHOULD, or REQUIRED to follow his heart.


See previous on the naturalistic fallacy. God's omniscience tells him what IS, his omnibenevolence tells him what SHOULD BE, and his omnipotence allows him to act accordingly. In conjunction, he is REQUIRED to act accordingly.

You requested clarification on the issue of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. A priori and a posteriori are adjectives used to describe claims; i.e., claims can be a priori, or claims can be a posteriori. There are specific tests to determine which category a claim falls into. The most effective and simple test is that of negation. If negating a claim makes it a contradiction, that claim is a priori. In other words:

The statement "A square has four corners" is a priori. We know this because its negation "A square does not have four corners" is a contradiction. A square, by definition, has four corners. (Sometimes these negations get wierd. As long as they are descriptive claims, just try to envision the thing in question. If you can, it's not a priori. Try to envision a square that doesn't have four corners. No go.)

The statement "A table has four legs" is a posteriori. Negate it: "A table does not have four legs." That's fine, we've all seen tables with more or fewer than four legs. We can imagine such a table existing. A table does not, by definition, have four legs.

I really do recommend Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." It tears up cause and effect quite nicely, and places some VERY powerful limits on human knowledge. It's a rather difficult read, however.

"Z: My argument stands. There is no contradiction inherent in the concept of a world in which no evil exists."

Rw: But you haven’t explained how such a world works so your argument stands only as an assertion unsupported.


By having different natural laws. Again, simply put: The claim "The world has evil in it" is not a priori. If I negate it, I get "The world does not have evil in it." No contradiction is apparent. As a result, it is a 'possible' thing: It can exist. Hence, God is capable of creating such a world.

"Z: Therefore, such a world would have been created by any omnimax deity. Such a world does not exist. (Does anyone else feel like they need a smilie for three dots arranged in a triangle?) Therefore, an omnimax deity does not exist."

rw: And this is one of the major problems with PoE, regardless of how well it’s argued. It’s big on the “COULDS” (what this god COULD do) but it invariably fails to address the “SHOULD” or, as you’ve been using it “WOULD” do. Your presentation of PoE thusfar has just assumed that the presence of evil and suffering is all that’s needed to justify the “SHOULD/WOULD” motivation for an omni-max deity. The assumption stands out like a pimple on a mules ass.


That metaphor deserves to be permanently mounted in the White House.

The 'would' here comes from omnibenevolence. Remember the naturalistic fallacy above? Ok, here we go.

A deity that is omnipotent and omniscient but has no normative qualities never acts. It just sits there. It knows everything, and can do anything, but it won't. It has no normative qualities. Such a deity is TOTALLY without guidance for its powers. (In fact, this is true of any being: No normative qualities, no independant action.) (And no, it wouldn't just do something for fun. That would require "I ought to act if it would be fun to act." That's normative.)

Fortunately, the deity in question has a normative quality: Omnibenevolence! It's all-loving. Now, omnibenevolence basically prevents our deity from having OTHER normative properties. (What's it gonna have? Omnimalicence creates a contradiction. Any amount of evil creates a contradiction. Extra 'good' cannot exist in excess of omnimax. No other normative properties can be squeezed in.)

So, what can we conclude? We can safely say our deity has only one guiding normative principle: Love. Now, said deity ain't got nuthin' else that can tell him what to do. In absence of an action based on love, he does nothing. He sits still, and looks around. (Remember, omniscience can't guide an action independant of a normative claim.) Therefore, any action this deity takes is based on love, and love alone.

That means that if the deity chose to create, it would create only the most loving environment possible. Such an environment would not contain evil. This world contains evil. Hence, such a deity did not create this world.

What seems so unnatural about all this is that I'm assigning principles of action to a being that, by definition, is infinite. That seems really counter-intuitive, but once you understand the naturalistic fallacy, everything else falls into place rather neatly.

*phew*

I need to go deal with a parrot now. I'll try to post again later this evening, but I may not get a chance.

tw1tch

Philosoft,
Actually no. Excerpt from orig post.

My inability to kill somebody by mere thought no more reduces my Freedom (capital) than my inablility to jump to the moon. Or better yet...my inablility to make true false or flargeldy boo (I have no idea what flargeldy boo is...but it is a violation of logical law).


Because it is completely meaningless to talk about what one can and cannot do if we allow violations of both physical and logical law.

I mean if we are going to allow violations of logic...we don't need to argue any more...we both are right. Right?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

tw1tch

Dr Rick,

Then explain this...

(bottom of page 3)

...he said it...not me.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

rainbow walking

Dr: So, first, no that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing, for example, that someone who tries to rape someone else be rendered unable to pull it off.


rw: And how do you propose god pull this off?


Dr: Imprisoning the would-be rapist, or temporarily paralyzing the would-be rapist, both look like improvements. It limits the would-be rapist's freedom a bit, sure. But hey, no rape. Which is good news for the would-be victim and her freedom.


rw: Oh, to be sure, but you’ve omitted a few details here. Just who is doing the paralyzing and imprisoning? Is this where god dons his superman outfit?

Dr: Or, to look at other ways to limit freedom a bit without robotifying anybody, what if bullets just blinked out of existence, whenever they were shot at an innocent person?


rw: And where do we get these omniscient bullets?

Dr: Sure, that would frustrate the gunman a lot.


rw: Not to mention the residual effect to every law of nature that would have to be abrogated to accomplish this wondrous feat.

Dr: But it would be worth it, because hey, no bullet wound. No death by bleeding.


rw: And what if you happen upon a not-so-omniscient bullet that couldn’t discern between an innocent victim and a would-be robber?

Dr: Talk about robots is beside the point for these limitations, because they're not drastic enough to render us robots.

rw: This is true. If you follow the consequences of all the natural laws that would have to be either eliminated or drastically altered to make this happen, we would become non-existent.

Dr: First, we don't just pay legislators to limit freedoms on paper. We pay them to institute armed services that are ready to kill dangerous people if necessary.

rw: And do we also pay people to become dangerous just to give these guys something to do?

Dr: Second, policemen are willing to step in before any harm is done. If I pull out a rifle and start running towards a school screaming, in view of a policeman, the policeman will not wait until I have harmed a child to take me down. And, more importantly, this is a good thing. It's good to limit people's freedoms before they harm innocent people. That's why we have laws about harm and other laws about threats. Consequently, God's taking preventative measures also looks good.

rw: And I agree. Laws are necessary but they don’t eliminate choices, they just make the consequences of choosing those choices very expensive. So you agree that judicial law is good, but you are willing to jettison natural laws because they somehow permit evil?

Dr: Third, even if God had to wait until after people were harmed, that would be an improvement. In reality, God doesn't punish criminals, even after the harm is done. If God were do to so openly, that would have a big deterrent effect. That would be an improvement. But he hasn't.

rw: And this is the path to total congenital dependency on god…not a way to preserve freewill at all. If we can convince this god to step in and take over law enforcement, how long before we start yammering for him to perform all manner of miraculous feats on our behalf.

Dr: Fourth, inasmuch as these proposals limit man's "autonomy of will", then too bad for man's autonomy of will. A world where people were unable to rape each other would be a better world than this one. Do you doubt it?

Oh I most definitely doubt it. This is called punishing the innocent along with the guilty. Not a recommended approach to eradicating evil.

Philosoft

I know what your original post said. My point was that your exemption of physical law is arbitrary because we can easily postulate additional physical laws that would prevent specific actions from being done. If our universe contained a "prevention of child rape" force particle, that physically restrained people who were attempting to rape children, it would be an additional physical law that would be exempt by your reasoning.

Because your 'Freedom' is entirely arbitrary. What if I could jump 12 feet high? If there was such a gravity "loophole," that would mean there was an additional act of will that I could instantiate in practice. Would I then have something greater than 'Freedom'?

I'll make sure not to challenge Freedom via logical law anymore. Oh wait, I didn't.

Violations of logical law are not germane to my argument, which is why I didn't mention them.

Clutch

rainbow,

Sorry, was there an argument there? I might have missed it, if it was hidden amongst the bizarre questions. You seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to take seriously, the notion of omniscience. Were I a Christian, I don't think I would insult my idea of god by supposing that he would have to put on a Superman outfit for the paltry purpose of deflecting a bullet here and there -- many bullets everywhere, for that matter. He's omnipotent. Nothing is burdensome, tiresome, a hassle, exhausting, distracting, diverting, draining, bothersome or fatiguing for him.

If you are incapable of taking that seriously, you should say so up front. Fair warning for your interlocutors.