RichardMorey

Regarding the original post, I think your idea is interesting but rests on a key assumption (as others have pointed out) that progressive moral "revelation" through trial and error is necessary. Note that this is explicitly not the case in Christianity; due to Adam and Eve's partaking in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, every person from then on has a moral sense (and responsibility). Therefore, it is not necessary that one takes for granted this progressive moral revelation thesis.

Richard Morey

rainbow walking

Jamie: I've come up against this idea before, and I've basically decided that its an unfounded assertion. I've banged out whole threads on this one, and given my lack of time to post lately, I don't want to side-track this thread unduely.

But even if I were to grant this assumption, you still have to prove that virtue is more valuable than freedom from suffering.

Really, this arguement holds two unfounded assumptions:
1) Virtue requires suffering.
2) Having virtue is better than not suffering.

I think both these assertions are false, and at the very least, not self-evident.

rw: Since you’ve not specified what virtues you’re referring to, I can only assume you mean the basics, so let’s take courage as an example. Most everyone agrees that courage is a virtue. But how does one express this virtue unless there is a life threatening circumstance or something similar in which someone could be injured? Virtue absolutely requires the existence of adverse, pain and suffering causative stimulants, to be expressed. It isn’t enough to say that a person is courageous. How does one know of a person’s courage unless they have witnessed it in action? Virtue often only requires the potential for suffering. The courageous person is sacrificing his safety to rescue another. If successful, suffering does not obtain. The only necessity for virtue is the potential for pain and suffering to ensue and the knowledge that such would likely be the case were virtue not expressed and practiced at that point.

Now, from this, it shouldn’t be difficult to see that being virtuous is better than not, as it has the potential of reducing instances of pain and suffering. Having virtue is a misnomer. A person does not have virtue. They either are virtuous in a specific case or not virtuous. It is quite possible for a person to be courageous at one time and cowardly at another. It is very possible for a cowardly person to learn to be courageous. Virtues must be practiced to become useful to man’s progress.



Jamie: Absolute moral clarity. It would know what is right and what is wrong because God gave it that knowledge.

rw: No Jamie, I must ask you to support this assertion. How do you give someone something that requires their continual willful choice to express? Knowledge alone does not ensure moral purity. If that were the case there would be few prisons and little crime. Every criminal is tried on the basis that he or she understands the difference between right and wrong.



Jamie: Why does it need to know it's morally superior? If God wants it to know it's morally superior, he can give it that knowledge as well.

rw: Ha! Another unsupported assertion. Morality is a matter of willful choice, not simply knowledge of right and wrong.



Jamie: Without earthquakes, would we have less joy, goodness, and love?


rw: No, you’d have no joy, goodness and love. Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon necessary to the preservation of our planets crust. Without tectonic shifting our planet would be destroyed by gravitational forces long before life had a chance to arise.


Jamie: Without cancer, ebola, polio? Think of all the extra people who would have lived and enjoyed life if they hadn't been snuffed out en masse by these evils.

rw: These are not ‘evils’ in the classic connotation. They are other life forms struggling to exist just as we are. If you have no basis for ascribing good; if man is nothing more than a cockroach or another virus, what gives you the right to declare these diseases evil? My argument allows that man’s escape from this planet will render him far less susceptible to these diseases. I’ve been through all of this in my defense of this argument and really don’t have the time to re-type the rebuttal to these claims here. If you get a chance to read this thread in its entirety you’ll find my response to these claims herein.

Jamie: Think of all the survivors who would have spent less time feeling angry, sad, and guilty. It seems the net happiness of all humanity would be quite larger in the absence of such tragedies.

rw: And think of all the unhappy, unemployed scientists, doctors, researchers, geneticists, (who, btw, will likely be instrumental in unlocking man’s aging codes), pharmaceutical developers, hospital builders, insurance claim processors, food service technicians, medical staff specialists, etc. etc. who will view such a state of affairs as a tragedy for their existence.

Jamie: If people did learn some kind of virtue from these tragedies, are those people happier because of it? Are the people around them happier because of it? Does that outweigh the lost potential for happiness from those involved in the tragedy? I just don't see it.

Is the simple joy of living a happy, healthy life with no tragedy so worthless that it doesn't count for anything?

rw: Sounds like you’ve failed to extrapolate all the costs for this happiness Jamie. Nothing is free. Life requires a struggle, competition, learning to cooperate, reaching for the virtue of discovering new vistas of choices and expanding horizons. Define what you think “happiness” is and how it should be obtained Jamie? This word means a lot of different things to each person.

rainbow walking

Hi Richard,
You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, since this argument is not a theistic argument intent on a logical proof that a god exists, christian interpretation of scripture has no relevance here.

Of course, a christian is not likely to find this argument palatable because I am essentially advocating that man and his science will be his salvation and that his moral progress, though lagging behind, will be able to come abreast of his technologies once man over-comes the real basic threats and pressures of mortality and confinement to this one planet.

I do not see religion, in any of its expressions, as being advantageous to man's salvation. Religion, all religions, begin by damning man's nature as evil and do not realize that in the proliferation of this damnation thay are, in essence, encouraging premeditated evil rather than providing any incentive for man to practice virtues that would change his historical trek. That is why the majority of man's history has been littered with wars and destruction with religious connotations at its very roots.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

You're saying that given two beings, such that one prevents ten units of useless suffering, and the other prevents twenty, all else equal, the latter isn't morally better than the former.

So zero is not less than one, then. I see.

You did not answer this question. "Yes" or "no" please.

No. They are choices with good knowledge of the results. The toddler pouring boiling water on her head is not.

If you could give a child an instinctive drive not to pour boiling water on herself, such that it would most likely completely prevent her from doing it in the future, would you?

An omnipotent being could figure out a way, unless it's logically impossible.

Please direct me to where. There's only one reply from you on the current page, so you must mean you've answered this question in the current post. But I don't see where. I've only asked it once in my previous post, so you must have answered it without me asking. Please indulge my illiteracy and quote yourself answering the above question.

rainbow walking

koy: But, absent the "free" part, the "will of man" is impotent and we are "automatons;" something you (erroneously) implied is anathema to your god.

rw: As I said, the “free” part is what engenders so many unproductive asides. “Free” carries many connotations that evince a liberalism in interpretation not necessary to my argument. And, for the record, nothing in my argument conveys any god to be mine. My argument is NOT a logical proof for the existence of a god. It is only a logical proof that PoE does not logically conclude that such a being does not exist.



koy: Well, now you're just capitulating. We're not talking about teaching or instructing somebody of what they should or shouldn't do; we're talking about an omnimax being implanting the knowledge within the genetic structure on a delayed, time-release program; about an omnimax being designing a human so that they can not, over time and as the result of past experience with necessary evil, become criminals any more (i.e., progress toward virtue).

rw: O’kay, let’s hear your version of how this is to be reflected in humanity. How does a genetic implantation prevent man from choosing a wrong or immoral course of action? How, for instance, would a genetic implantation resolve a conflict between a man’s desire to live urging him to steal food?

koy: You have posited an omnimax god who has designed humanity in such a way as to learn from "evil" and progress away from committing it (again, avoiding non-premeditated, human caused evil).

rw: Yes, but learning does not automatically equate to acting on what one has learned. Men know better than to rape but choose to do so anyway. There is something more involved in ethics and virtue than just knowledge and that is why your assertion of implantation returns us again to automatons.



koy: In other, more direct, legal terminology: to determine if the client can mentally participate in his or her own defense; whether or not the accused has the mental capacity to determine "right" from "wrong" in the actions they're accused of.

The determination of "right" and "wrong," however, is according to legal standards and not necessarily "moral" standards.

To show how radically different this concept is from legal paradigms, according to original Mormons, it is "right" (i.e., morally permissable) to have more than one wife. Would a mentally retarded defendant be asked whether or not they think having more than one wife was "right" or "wrong?"

rw: All of which just verifies my original trial and error premise in the argument. It applies to ethics as much as science.

koy: No. They would be asked questions according to the crime they're accused of. If they murdered somebody, they would be asked whether or not their actions were "wrong?"

If they said, "No, killing a person is morally acceptable in times of war and self-defense," then the psychologist would conclude that they are capable of assisting in their own defense because they understand "right" from "wrong" in accordance with the legally acceptable paradigms of "right" and "wrong" as it pertains to killing.

Does this mean, however, that they are morally "right" or knew the difference between morally "right" and "wrong?" Well, that would depend upon who is asserting such a claim. Judeo/Christians are split on the matter. Some say god said, "Thou shalt not kill" and other will say that god said, "Thou shalt not murder.'

Who is "right" in a moral (virtuous) sense?

rw: Since man is a social creature moral questions that involve legal issues are clearly established in the legality and assumed to be accepted as such by all participants in a specific culture. Some cultures have courts and other political artifices in place to debate and establish moral issues and how they are to be adjudicated. We currently possess the technology to provide every educated responsible citizen in our nation with a means to personally vote on every issue before congress such that democracy can be experienced in its fullest potential. This would not be that difficult to set up electronically.



koy: Then you agree that your proposal mandates a god who designed us in a specific way.

rw: My argument only mandates man responding to his ecosystem under the constraints of the evolutionary processes. Claims of design and creation are inherent in PoE but not necessary to my argument. I could as easily argue that nature and god have coexisted eternally; that neither require a beginning or beginner. But this is a fruitless aside to PoE anyway.



koy: And it is my personal opinion that acceptance of his anhiliation will result in his doing the "greater good," precisely because he has no other option.

rw: If this were the case then you’d have no argument against my argument. Thusfar you’ve been arguing that history does not demonstrate any moral or ethical progression. If death had the power to motivate men to improve their behavior we should have been morally equivalent to angels by now.

koy: Hence, Jews being constantly persecuted, yet always coming out on top. They are taught there is nothing after life and so seek only to better the short time they have.

Which is "better" and how do you justify such a claim without unjustified assurance of eternity?

You keep asserting that we will conquer death, but have no way of guaranteeing it to support your suppositions.

rw: I need only look at man’s historical scientific and medical progress as my substantiation. I also look at nature and see that nature itself has stacked the genetic deck in favor of some specimens of life to live for thousands of years like certain trees and some sea turtles that are over 600 years old. So I know that living tissue has the potential to live much longer than 70 or 80 years.

koy: Further, by asserting immortality, you are once again asserting a perfect state; a state you said we would never attain.

Take the implication of immortality to its logical extreme and you're once again asserting a state of eventual perfection that will last for all eternity; a state that an omnimax god would know would eventually obtain and therefore its omni-benevolence should kick in long before the design of man so that it designs man initially as immortal and omniscient.

rw: What is so perfect about immortality? Besides, I’m not asserting a forced indefinite lifespan but only proffering death as a choice, rather than inevitable. You keep wanting to slip these deeply connotative terms, like perfection, into this discussion. Perfection is another of those opinionated subjective assignments.


koy: Indeed, you have raised no valid argument as to why this god wouldn't make all of us gods right from the start.

Why aren't all of us omnimax creatures? The exact same logical limitations you have declared your own god concept must adhere to would equally apply to any of us omnimax gods, as well, so what's stopping your god from making us all gods just like it?

rw: If we were all made so, we’d still be less than the one who made us because we required a maker whereas the maker required no such making. Duplicate beings cannot logically be equal to the original, unless you want to plead infinite regress.





koy: So, simple solution is: make us all gods, yes?

Everything you are posting points to this eventuality (we will become like gods), so why wouldn't omniscience kick in and make the first god reallize that its creating eventual gods; something that is time-based, but your god is not.

Indeed, your god is omniscient, so it is not constrained by linear time. It could (and must) therefore think at the same instant: man plus knowledge; man plus time; man plus immortality; man = god and just cut out the middle pointlessness and create us all as equal gods.

Why not? We must learn and earn it? Wouldn't we already in the blink of an omniscient god's mind?

Trump cards thrown.

rw: Sorry Koy, if this is your trump card you’ve been playing a losing hand. There can not logically be any equality between a duplicate to the original. This is why men place such high value on original art as opposed to duplicate copies. There can logically only be one omni anything and all other things derived from it will always be less than. Ironically you raise an argument similar to the theist who claims man is made in the image of a god.



koy: No, they do not. They are told what is good and evil according to their cult leaders. Mormons originally told their members that polygomy was "good."

Were they "wrong?"

Those fundamentalists who follow the bibles that translate the fifth (?) commandment as "Thou shalt not kill" believe that there is no justification for killing, no matter what.

Are they "wrong?"

rw: As you say, “translate” from which men then “interpret” and from there trial and error sets in until men are able to prescribe the most consistent course in the basics while allowing for discretion in the extraordinary. It is not for me to dictate right and wrong as an absolute standard. In the universe there are many planets where Mormons can live and determine their own preferences in marriage relationships. Trapped on this planet men must coexist in cultural settings that often restrict their personal morals to keep from offending the larger constituency.

Koyaanisqatsi

Then you are saying that we are automotons, contradicting what your argued previously.

If my will is not free, then I am an automoton.

Semantics. You are positing an argument (that a non-interfering god exists who created "evil" as a necessary condtition in order to trigger man's progression toward virtue) that you believe escapes the response (i.e., the counter) of PoE.

That means that your argument must be valid in toto prior to the application of PoE as a counter argument, for PoE to fail against your proposition.

Thus, my saying "your god" is merely a shorthand manner of saying "the construct and conditions of your proposition."

By not allowing for a wrong or immoral course of action. Remember, the conditions of your proposition; an omnimax being that has the power to create an arena in which wrong or immoral courses exist. All the omnimax being would have to do is remove "wrong or immoral" courses in reality and/or remove the ability for humans to take "wrong or immoral" courses.

For example, let's say running Windows XP is considered "wrong or immoral" by a god. The god would therefore simply mandate that all computers run only Mac OS and/or simply remove Windows XP as a possible choice.

Remember, again, your omnimax conditional. Such a god would be able to know instantly whether or not Windows XP (the concept) would result in a "wrong or immoral" course for humans long before the concept were ever introduced or put into use. God's "imagination" and omnimax abilities would allow for it to foresee what we could only experience in a linear fashion. God is not limited to linearity and could therefore remove Windows XP as an option from the arena at the very start.

Or, the same god on a limited scale as your proposition posits (non-interfering, except for the first time) could simply genetically implant a "do not use Windows XP" command that lies dormant and is only awakened at the point in time when Windows XP was created by man's "will" (free or not). A certainly pointless limitation, but one nontheless could still be accounted for in your proposition, thus defeating it as a valid scenario challenging PoE.

What is immoral about stealing food in order to survive?

If "your" god pre-determined that stealing food in order to survive were an immoral course, then it could simply create man without the need to eat; or implant in man a more generous nature, so that if a starving man on the brink of death were to ask for food (instead of having to steal it), it would be freely given to him.

See? This is where it all falls apart, because unless you are arguing a non-interfering god in toto (meaning it didn't do anything at all except spark life--i.e., equivalent to a force of nature like electromagnetism), then you are forced to deal with PoE and the conditions of your argument does not avoid it.

By stating that "your" god interfered by setting things up in a manner so as to guide mankind toward it's "greatest moral good" through the use of necessary evil, you are vulnerable to the counter of PoE.

If "your" god can do this, then there must be a reason it did it. If there is a reason it did it, then it is open to analysis and deconstruction according to the conditions of the supposition and if any of those conditions contradict, then you have posited an invalid construct.

Right, which proves your argument false. If your argument were true, then men would have no choice but to learn over time not to rape; to progress toward virtue.

If evil was created in order to teach humanity to "become more virtuous," then we would see evidence of that, yes? But we don't. In fact, we historically see that humanity--at the very least--remains constant in its immorality; that every generation is dynamically equal in its immorality to every other generation.

If Hitler had the atomic bomb, he probably would have used it. Instead, we used it. Does that make the use of it (or creation of it) any "less" immoral?

If Ghenghis Khan could have used an atomic bomb, would he have used it? Probably. So is immorality a factor of linear progression?

No. It is not. So how can morality be a factor of linear progression?

And why your argument leaves us with nothing but automotons, who, somehow, just don't "get it" in direct contradiction to the conditions of your argument. They must "get it" over time for one of the conditions of your argument to be considered valid.

But an omnimax god would have no need of actual "trial and error." It would know instantly (due to omniscience) what works and what doesn't and what the endgame would be in order to avoid all of that in the actual design. You grant this indirectly when you posit a god to begin with, who has determined that evil is a necessity.

The problem is (and the defeat of your argument), we can see that evil is not a necessity; at least not to the extent that it exists and the manner in which it manifests.

For your argument to be valid enough for PoE to have no substantive counter, it would have to mean that all examples of evil are necessary in some way, so, you'll have to justify how. You claim the necessity is to guide humanity to its "greatest moral good" (it's high time we insert that "moral" part, by the way, since that's what you've been arguing the whole time), so you've got two hurdles, at least, to overcome before your argument can withstand the PoE counter; (1) justify every kind of "evil" act (by man and nature) as necessary, and (2) prove that humanity is progressing toward a "greatest moral good."

Those are tall orders, but ones that you must fulfill for your argument to be valid against the counter of PoE.

How is a child dying of bee stings a necessary evil and how does it contribute to humanity progressing toward a "greatest moral good?"

Likewise, how does man knowing it is wrong to rape, but it does so anyway contribute to humanity progressing toward a "greatest moral good?"

None of which addresses my question.

What? You are arguing that an omnimax god (could have) created evil as a necessary condition in order to guide humanity toward its "greatest moral good."

And to my arguments.

Accept for the fact that we don't teach death as anhilation; we instead teach that death is not the end and as a result have removed the power to motivate men to imrpove their behavior.

No, you need to go much further than that, since living longer does not necessarily equate to "eventually no death."

Sam Kinison is an excellent example. He abused his body so horribly that it was a "miracle" he didn't die of an overdose or heart disease or the like. He checked himself into rehab and it "took." He was treating his body right and no longer abusing drugs and alcohol and was on the road to fully recovery when he was killed by a car accident.

Now, in a no-god universe, that is expected and ironic; in your supposition, however, it is contradictory and illogical. Here was a man who had lead an incredibly immoral life (by most standards; even my own), who saw the errors of his ways and rejected all of it in order to live a better life, only to have one of "your" god's necessary evils take his life.

Why?

Wouldn't it have served humanity's progression toward "greatest moral good" to make sure Sam didn't die in such a random, pointless manner, especially so soon after his remarkable self-imposed "redemption?"

You have been arguing that a god (could have) set up our universe in a necessary manner according to its omnimax abilities (omniscience, primarily), in order to guide humanity toward a "greatest moral good," yet here is a perfect example of how our reality contradicts such a premise.

What "greatest moral good" is served by Sam Kinison being killed in a car crash not one year after having eschewed all of his personal "evils?" He was an extremely popular performer, whose drug and excessive lifestyle was a "hot topic" throughout his controversial career (indeed, being the son of a preacher man and a preacher himself previously ads to it). Wouldn't humanity's "greatest moral good" progression been better served by making sure Sam lived to be a ripe old age, going around the world using his celebrity and humor to teach the evils of his past ways?

Again, what has that to do with eventually no death? Those sea turtles do die, after all.

You tell us. It was something you brought up as support for the idea of a progression toward "greatest moral good."

I have no choice if you keep vacilating on what exactly it is your proposing. A necessary evil must have a reason why it is "necessary," yes? You have been arguing that the necessity of evil is to insure humanity's progressing toward a "greatest moral good" standard.

One of the things you pointed to as evidence of this progression was, erroneously, humanity conquering death, which as we both now, apparently, agree, has nothing to do with the "greatest moral good" standard, so I guess I'm now at a loss as to why you brought it up in the first place.

So? What is the qualitative significance of pointing this out? The only manner in which we would be "less than" the maker is in that initial uncaused-cause dilemia.

They wouldn't have to be absolutely identical. We could all have omnimax abilities and be identical to god in every way shape or form, except for one minor, trivial difference, having no impact on our own omnimax abilities.

Regardless, this too does not address my question. Why didn't "your" god just make us all gods as well?

How?

False. The only element of inequality is trivial and meaningless. That we didn't come first would have no qulitative bearing on our omnimax abilities or the application of those abilities.

False. An omnmax being could very easily create another being with omnimax abilities. What would prevent it from doing do so? We could, at the very least, be omniscient and omni-benevolent. Perhaps we wouldn't technically be omnipotent, since we weren't the uncaused cause, but that limitation would be trivial and non-substantive. We could be made omniscient, omni-benevolent and almost omnipotent without it creating any logical paradox.

The point being, of course, that it could be done and nothing in your argument effectively prevents it.

Fine, so in a trivial, non-substantive manner we are less than the original. What qualitative bearing would that have on our abilities or the application of those abilities?

But you must and do when you posit your argument! Your argument states that evil is necessary and deliberately designed into our universe by a non-interfering god (or, shall we say to be more precise, by a once interfering god) for the purposes of progressing humanity toward a "greatest moral good" standard. This axiomatically dictates what is "right and wrong as an absolute standard."

Then you've just sunk your own argument, since this proves that morality is dynamic and not a barometer of progression. If it isn't a barometer of progression, then there is no such thing as necessary evil. If there is no such thing as necessary evil, then god did not create it to progress humanity toward a "greatest moral good."

Koyaanisqatsi

Aren't you arguing that a non-interfering god (could have) created evil as a necessary condition in order to progress humanity toward a "greatest moral good?"

No, PoE is in response (counter response) to a theist positing an omnimax god created universe. Your argument posits the same thing, only with the erroneous limitations of non-interference.

Now I'm really lost.

No. PoE is in response to the theist supposition of an omnimax god created universe. It only "assumes" that which was set up as a condition by the theist in order to demonstrate the flaws in that supposition.

Your argument is that a non-interfering god (could have) created the evil as a necessary condition in order to progress humanity toward its "greatest moral good," yes?

And you do this by positing a non-interfering god that could have created evil as a necessary condition for humanity to progress toward virtue; toward its "greatest moral good," yes?

No, my friend, I didn't miss it and neither did you, you're just trying to avoid having to deal with the invalidity of the conditions of your own argument (or at least a part of your own argument). You have attempted to "scuttle" PoE by positing a non-interfering god that nevertheless does interfere by creating evil as a necessary condtition to progress humanity toward its "greatest moral good."

Fine speculation, of course, but irrelevant to a non-interfering god that could have created evil as a necessary condition.

It is relevant to your counter supposition that is supposed to defeat PoE.

Rainbow, you keep referring to PoE as if it is the positive assertion. It is not. It is a response to the theist supposition of an omnimax god; a counter argument to the original positive assertion of "An omnimax god created the universe."

Your argument of a possible non-interfering god is the issue and whether or not such an argument is valid to "defeat" the counter of PoE.

You can't just say, "Well, PoE fails because it doesn't address the possibility of a non-interfering god," when you can't validly support the argument of a non-interfering god.

By stating that such a being could exist and therefore it "defeats" PoE, then all you've done is switched the focus of the PoE to your assertion of a non-interfering god.

You are axiomatically asserting the possible existence of a non-interfering god as a rebuttal, I guess, of PoE, but PoE is in response to a different set of conditions from the original theist arguments.

You're treating PoE as if it were the original positive assertion, which is erroneous. It is a counter argument to theist claims.

For you to change the conditions of the original theist claim (asserting a non-interfering god) is to axiomatically assert a new positive claim for which a new PoE style counter-argument is employed (as we have all done here). You're saying PoE fails because it doesn't take into account conditions that were not in the original theist claim that the PoE-type arguments were formed to counter!

And still am, apparently!

Let's get the chronology right on this for my own sanity if nothing else .

1. Theists claim an omnimax being created the universe.
2. Atheists develop a PoE response to this claim.
3. You argue their response does not take into consideration a possible non-interfering omnimax god.
4. You justify this non-interfering omnimax god on the basis of it interfering just once, presumably, by creating a universe full of evil that is necessary evil in order to progress humanity toward a "greatest moral good."
5. We argue that your assertion of a non-interfering omnimax god is also subject to similar PoE-type invalidation of your premises.
6. You say you're not asserting anything at all, but merely showing how PoE does not invalidate the theist claim; the claim that does not have a non-interferring omnimax god as one of its conditions.
7. We point out that you are incorrect and not following proper argumentative procedure and further that your own assertion of a non-interfering omnimax god is invalid (for all the reasons given); i.e., we demonstrate that a PoE (modified to your conditions) counter, results in the invalidity of your assertion.
8. You erroneously repeat that you aren't asserting anything.

Is that it so far? Because that's--seriously and sincerely--all I can see going on here.

rainbow walking

koy: But if the same god either implanted the knowledge of evil and the reason it is bad in the same way the god understands it, or never created evil to begin with, then there would be no problem.

Likewise, if the same god simply made all of us gods, there would be no problem.

But then who would we have to subjugate to our will? See the missing problem with your argument?

rw: Virtue cannot be implanted, mandated or externally forced upon man. Consider that virtue, (right actions and choices), is a willful response to adverse conditions. It isn’t proper to say a man is courageous until a man has demonstrated his courage under fire. For instance, a company of soldiers on the battlefield come under fire and run across an open field for cover. One of them is wounded and lies stricken in the open field with enemy bullets kicking up dust around him. Two of his comrades, already safely behind cover, decide to risk their lives and run through the barrage of bullets to rescue their fallen comrad. This is an open display of courage that absolutely required the adverse conditions of war to surface as a virtue.

Another example: A man, moved by compassion, spends thirty years of his life researching the cause of a debilitating disease in search of a cure. At the end of his days he has only advanced man just enough for the next generation to actually find the cure. The virtues of patience, compassion and persistence displayed by this man required the adverse condition of this disease for their expression.



koy: So?

rw: Then PoE must destroy man to obtain. Sound logical to you?
quote:



koy: But it doesn't; your argument does. Your argument states that man is not man, but a designed entity with a predetermined purpose.

Please don't counter with, "No, it's not predetermined," because it is. It must be, for your argument to hold water.

Either we came to where we are on our own, or we were setup to become what we are. What you're trying to argue is that a god set everything up to make us become what we are, which means that we didn't do it on our own.

rw: So we had to create our own universe in order to escape the charge of predetermination. We had to do so before we arose on this planet and we had to establish life to be mortal by our own choice…else any progress we make is devalued as nothing more than a predetermined course of events.

koy: Even if a god said, "These paradigms MAY result in man becoming virtuous," then it is impossible to state that we became virtuous on our own and if you're not arguing that we become virtuous on our own (which you're not) then god intervened.

If god intervened at any point, then all of its omnimax qualities come into play and PoE defeats your supposition.

Remember, PoE is in response to your argument; not the other way around.

You are not "defeating" PoE; you are invoking PoE.

rw: Oh my…so many straw men and so little time. (sigh) In the first place PoE is not a response to my argument. You’ve inverted the entire discussion, (or should I say subverted). I did not create a non-intervening god…PoE did. I merely concede PoE’s observation that such a being does not apparently intervene in man’s affairs. Only PoE erroneously concludes that such a being doesn’t exist. In my argument I concede the non-interference postulate upon which PoE depends and reach for a different, more logical, conclusion.

Now, let’s address this predetermination straw man. The factor of predetermination in my argument is based on our current state of affairs and holds true whether this state of affairs was created or arose naturally. This factor does not dictate man’s choices or his will but only provides a range of possibilities. I postulate that man’s current state of affairs, (his existence in this universe irrespective of how this universe came to exist), predetermines him to have three possible futures.

1. A form of stasis where everything remains the same and only the names and faces change generationally.

2. Eventual self caused or natural extinction.

3. Gradual progress and social evolution towards an expansion of these three choices to include other possibilities.

The barometer I have used to gauge which of these possible futures we appear to be pursuing is man’s history. The particular facets of that history being man’s politic and his science: His politic being the best representation of his moral status at any given point and his science being the best representation of his intellectual status at any given point.

Even a cursory glance at man’s history is sufficient to conclude that #1 (stasis) does not accurately reflect man’s current state of affairs. I will concede that through the course of man’s past history there have been long periods of political stasis and even regression, but that man’s science has marched tirelessly forward in spite of, indeed often as a reaction to, these periods. So I conclude the invalidation of #1 primarily occurs via science and technology, else man would still reside in the trees and caves. However, at any point in man’s history stasis can still become a viable reality if man fails to advance scientifically.

It is not possible to completely invalidate #2, indeed as long as man exists #2 will remain a viable possibility. What it is possible to ascertain from history is that man continues to exist and thus #2 remains only a future possibility. Man’s history further reflects a willful invalidation of #2 morally as a self imposed restraint against self extinction and scientifically as a self generated response to natural phenomena that could possibly lead to extinction.

Since #1 is not now true and #2 requires our constant vigilance and willful participation, both of these possibilities taken together lead us inexorably to #3 as the most logical course and direction of man’s future. Thus I conclude that all aspects of man’s existence are only partially determined. How man exists, how long he exists, in what frame of mind he exists are all partially open to his willful self determination.

There is no complete freedom of will in the sense that man can dictate his own genetic structure prior to birth, choose his own parents or social climate into which he is born, but there is also no power in these factors that can long resist his will once he chooses not to be victimized by these circumstances. So the will of man is an autonomous force of man’s existence.




koy: "Desire" or survival instinct? We know, painfully, that this "desire" you speak of can be contravened through suicide and other forms of self-destruction. You had originally argued (in regard to asserted, eventual immortality) that it would be a choice. Why? What made you admit that capitulation?

Some are just "lost?"

rw: I do not intend to convey immortality when I say indefinite lifespan, but I find it curious that you here admit that man can willfully circumvent his predetermined survival instinct.



koy: Incomplete. All of man's "normative valuations" stem from his basic desire to live and be happy in relation to other humans. If there were no other humans, then there would be no question of happiness, yes? Using your own logic, that is. No other humans would mean no comparative unhappiness.

Or are you asserting that a human can be unhappy absent the knowledge of other humans to make him happy? If so, then you've defeated your own argument.

rw: Man is a social creature. This does not mean he cannot be happy in isolation. It’s a matter of personal preference what makes a man happy in relationship to other humans. The point is, all systematic normative classifications arise from man’s mortal existence and do not exist independently of man. They are man created and man specific.



koy: And there's the core of your fallacy. Why is man's existence "good?"

rw: Because man says so and expresses that statement every time he takes another morsel of food to sustain his existence. Is it your position that man’s life is of no value and is not good; or perhaps indifferent? I don’t think indifferent man would survive for any period of time.



koy: Again, the fallacy. Why are the "necessary requirements of his existence" also "good?"

Because non-existence is "bad?" Why would mere existence be intrinsically "good?" What of the dinosaurs, then?

rw: Why do parents nourish and protect their children? I say my continued existence is a “good” and a value to be pursued. If you cannot say the same you have some problems. I also say those elements of my world that fulfill and preserve my life are also “good” and worthy to be attained. I bet you say the same, if not, the only way to live consistent to such a claim is to, as Ayn Rand would say, close your mouth and die.



koy: But the question, again, is not about man valuing his own existence; the question is, why would the god you posit value man's existence?

rw: Omni-benevolence. If such a being exists and created the parameters of man’s existence he could have created those parameters in such a way as not to allow man to experience any joy or goodness in his existence. Or he could have created automatons with no will and no way to express any virtue.





koy: What has our will got to do with a god's omniscience, especially if it isn't "free?"

rw: You mean a PoE inspired non-interfering omniscience…?



koy: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. How did "to be reallized" get into this?

rw: Go back and read my OP. “Realized” is the same as progressing towards. It’s a process and has always been in this.

rw: You just erroneoulsy slipped that qualification in there without justification and without logical support. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, rendering any premises or conclusions based upon it invalid. You can't do that. Sorry, but foul! I must throw a red flag and your syllogism is discarded as non-sequitur.


koy: If such a being as you posit exists (with omnimax qualities), then its omniscience would already know the outcome of the given parameters and then it's omni-benevolence would kick in (as you argued previously in a different manner).

rw: Knowing the outcome of a process doesn’t restrict the process.

koy: You must cease to randomly apply the omnimax trump cards whenever they suit your presuppositions as that is a distinct fallacious no-no.

rw: And you must cease randomly stuffing all this straw into undersized pantaloons.

koy: Remember, you are the one asserting the existence of an unproved concept, so the best you can do is argue: If we assume such a being created the accoutrements necessary for a creature such as man to arise, and such a being is omni-benevolent, then his purpose for doing so must necessarily be for the good of that creature. Period.

The "to be reallized" qualification is an invalid addendum that results in a forced, invalid conclusion.


rw: As I said, an omni-benevolent and omniscient being would know that creating a virtuous creature requires a process and adverse conditions from which virtue can become a reality, thus his omni-benevolence would motivate him not to interfere in man’s realization and process of attaining his own greatest good.



koy: And therefore, your primary fallacy. PoE does not argue how it should be reallized; it argues how it could be reallized.


rw: Apparently someone doesn’t understand the parameters of PoE. PoE argues from both a could have to a should have. In other words, if such a being existed he could have done something different. If such a being is omni-benevolent he should have done something different. So, there is, as yet, no fallacy in my argumentation, but a heap of misconception about the parameters of these arguments in yours.



koy: See? You do know the distinction, yet did not argue it prior in anything you've posted. You've been arguing "should" and not "could."

rw: Yes, in fact I concede the could have to PoE. Obviously if such a being is omnipotent he must necessarily be able to do anything except contradict his other attributes. What I have maintained in my argument is that he doesn’t allow himself to intervene because creating a willfully virtuous creature by divine fiat is not logically possible. To circumvent logic and create such a creature anyway would only result in a state of illogic, not a willfully virtuous creature like man, and PoE again fails to obtain.



koy: But you aren't. You've been arguing a "should" and thinking you're arguing a "could."

rw: Oh please…

koy: Could an omnimax god lessen suffering and still be non-interfering in the manner you argue? Yes, it could.

Therefore, PoE is valid.


rw: I am still waiting for your explanation of what kind of creature we will end up with. If man has the power to lessen his own suffering why do we need a god to do so? Pain and suffering are natural early warning signs that adverse conditions are present and virtuous behavior is required. If there is a great deal of suffering then there is opportunity for a great deal of virtue expressed in science and compassion.



koy: "Responsibility?" To whom? To man? Or to your god? If to man, then no problem. If to your god, then why?

You keep asserting a form of "responsibility," but to whom? That's the question. If the responsibility is to man, then it would have nothing to do with a god; if the responsibility is to a god, then it would have nothing to do with man.

If the responsibility is to man and it has to do with a god, then what is the "has to do with" addendum? What is god's purpose in any of this and why does it only apply to humans?

rw: Why would man have any responsibility to a non-interfering god? It is precisely that non-interference that places the responsibility upon man for his own continued existence.



koy: Beg pardon, but virture was Hitler's only objective. The "Aryan ideal," for example, was to be the most virtuous human imaginable (and, indeed, though I don't mean to lump any of us into this mess, a perfect example of what you've been talking about). The entire purpose of Hitler's "Reich" (as stated) was in the purification of the human race to make sure that only perfect humans were generated from that day forward. He therefore murdered the old and the infirm and the nomads (i.e., the Gypsies and the Jews). Care to review the tenets of the Hitler Jugend?

rw: I repeat, virtue, was not the primary objective and still isn’t for those who promote the Aryian race ticket. It is, and always has been, about racial domination.



koy: And the same tactic you are employing when you argue that a god designed the world in such a way as to result in man's "greatest good."

What's the difference? Hitler instantiated a course of events that was supposed to result in man achieving its "greatest good." The events were seen as "necessary evils" in order to teach the world the "right" course of events.


rw: In the first place my argument only asserts “greatest good” as a possibility, not a written in stone eventuality. In the second place, my argument provides man with willful choices in the acquisition of that greater good, something Hitler and his thugs were not advocating in the least. Theirs was an idealogy that demanded racial domination. This is neither virtuous nor consistent to man’s nature as a willful creature.



koy: Yes, it is. Clearly, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you.

rw: The possible amount of pain and suffering has been established and demonstrated to me? Where and when?



koy: Of what? Explain WMD's, then. According to you argument, we should (yes, should) have no longer engaged in selective murder in order to establish a "greater good" of humanity.


rw: Why is that? Did I specify in my argument anywhere how long this process would take?

koy: Hitler and Stalin (and Pol Pot and Ghenghis Khan and George Bush (Sr and Jr) and insert any number of genocidal mass murderers for the purposes of ethnic cleansing here), however, disproves your argument.

rw: This would be true if man’s history were now over and you and I were just doing a casual research paper on a species of hominid called man that went extinct early in the 21st century. The jury is still out.



koy: Then why does your god allow us to burn our hands to the bone?

There, I've run rings around you; logically. (cue Monty Python responses )

rw: Excuse me? God is now suppose to violate your willful act of sticking your hand in a fire? So now this god is not moral unless he forces man to exist against his will.



koy: That was not the extent of my "claim." History proves that we have grown more "non-virtuous;" not less.

Recent events prove this. We (America)--who were once avowed to never instigate a war (overtly)--just did for corrupt reasons having nothing to do with man's "greatest good."

rw: As I said, man’s science has outdistanced his moral progress but any claim against man based on his current position is premature. America is a vast improvement over Soviet Russia or Hitler’s Third Reich.



koy: They are not "gloom and doom predictions!" They are unemotional, clinical assessments of human existence. They are facts of our nature.

rw: They are a skewed interpretation of only a partial history. How many good things has man done? How much of his virtue has been expressed in the adversity of these conditions? How many men have learned to love and feel compassion during and as a result of these events? You only want to consider the negatives and never even attempt to take an objective look at the aggregate.



koy: Agreed. However, this has nothing to do with your argument.

rw: It is central to my argument. I have postulated that man doesn’t need a god to interfere; that man, when properly focused, can overcome any obstacle on his own and that his science is his greatest virtuous expression; and that an omniscient god would know this and behave accordingly by leaving man alone.




[b[koy[/b]: And? The dinosaurs reigned for millions of years and they were wiped out. Gone. Anihilated. What could have been more virtuous than the dinosaurs, given this paradigm? Man? How? Did Tyrannosaurus (the top of the food chain and therefore, arguably, like man) develop WMD's or flourocarbons to destroy the Ozone layer or Jihads or death camps...etc., etc., etc.?

And don't say they didn't have the "capacity" to do it, since we have no idea. We only have bones in the ground.

rw: If you have nothing but bones why bother to argue such creatures were virtuous? Apparently they weren't virtuous enough. BTW, what are WMD's?

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

Two issues arise from your most recent post.

Once again, you validate the PoE.

You state,

An omnipotent being could do this. If it can't, it's not omnipotent. If it doesn't choose to, it's not omnibenevolent. Either way, the PoE is validated by your own arguments.

Second,
is interesting - but it has no relevance to the PoE.

I am puzzled: are you, or are you not actually discussing the PoE in this thread?

mosaic

I'm only on thr second page but rainbow, why, after hearing your argument am I wrong to murder and rape chidren? Do "evil" things? See, I've come to the conclusion that while I'm merely indulging in my psychotic tendencies, that in of itself will serve as some lesson to humanity. I have no way of measuring or tabulating this but merely asserting this is suffiecient since you can come up with any number of events to correspond to the event. That is, if I didnt rape a specific girl, the parent would not have established a "help for parents of raped children" fund. Maybe, when the parent was frantically searching for the girl, she bumped over someone who was about to be stabbed in the back, and thus by extension, being a rapist helped saved a life...which then spawned some other event and so on..Etc. All illusory incidents in which no objective consessus on the greater good, or neccesity it served can be gaged.Your ethics are twisted. But even if I postulate that many of the possibilities are purely negative, you will blankly assert that it serves some greater goood, is neccesary because life is so but uneccesary because life is.


How do you tabulate history? Rate progress on an ethereal scale? You seem to leave out the possibility of humans ultimately failing, degenerating in an endless case of war. And if that happens, what was the purpose or value of a meta-path? Why does omnibelevonce prescribe such and end and why should we even assume that what we consider omnibelevonce is that of "god." Shouldnt we repudiate such mechanic neccesity? Such a world where this has to happen? I might in fact from your premises assert that the greater good is the total rejection and hate of god. That god wants us, to deny and hate him, even destroy him so we are no longer bound by its a priori neccesities. That is, the absence of god(who cant create moral beings who dont endure suffering) is the absence of evil itself. Since his omniscience, knows only of worlds where for things to be valued they have to be earned.