rainbow walking

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

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

No logical contradictions are involved.

rw: Riiiight…Like the man who is un-consciously aware that he is alive…or happy…frugal…or temperate…or courageous…or honest…or productive…they just flow up out of him without any awareness or effort on his part. Need I remind you that virtue is derived from its expression, not from awareness. A person becomes aware of virtue in the expression. So, while we’re on the subject, do these people recognize virtue in others? Or is this also an unconscious awareness. Perhaps another of those irrelevant factors of this new state of man?



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

No logical contradiction involved.

rw: You’re describing robots who can’t be virtuous because they have no choice because they have no knowledge of virtue. Virtue involves choice which involves alternatives from which to choose which involves awareness or knowledge of those choices and the possible consequences. You’ve just destroyed the logical connection between cause and effect



alix: Correct. They always freely make the right choice.

rw: They would never “freely” make any choice. No conscious awareness of their choices being “right” means no such concept as “right” and thus no motivation to make any choice. Now what if these unconscious robots find themselves in a situation where two of them equally want the same woman? (Never mind, for the moment, that such a scenario would never arise among robots with no wants to begin with), but for the sake of argument let’s say both have unconsciously decided she is the “right” woman for them? How do they resolve this competing “rightness”?

rw earlier: Never had to acquire the knowledge of “right” by trial and error and thus came upon such knowledge by some other means…thus no history…



alix: Correct. No history needed.

rw: Chuckle…so these are the first humans. No history, just sprung full blown into adulthood…no childhood…no memory…oh, and let’s not forget…no conscious awareness of their state of rightness. Boy Alix, I’m impressed with your logic. What was it again that I’m suppose to demonstrate in a rebuttal of your example…oh yeah, a contradiction….man, that’s going to be hard to do.

rw earlier: and if one of them happens to choose wrongly, as in the case of conflicting right choices?



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

rw: Uh…huh…unconsciously so, we might add. Are they all just… like… asleep or something? So if they always make the right choice then a wrong choice is never made...then where does any wrong come into play to freely avoid choosing(unconsciously)? You're talking about a world where everything is right and no potential for wrong exists. And further, you're describing a world where, even if a potential wrong choice existed, creatures unconscious of right would have no more conscious of the wrong than they would of the right. But that's irrelevant you said.

rw earlier: So, are all these people identical in personalities, desires and aspirations?



alix: No.

rw: Ah…so how do they know they are different? Unconsciously aware and all, as they are of their own rightness, seems to me they’d have as difficult a time noticing the rightness in others as they have in noticing it in themselves…yes? We seem to be entering a stage of reducing knowledge, the dumbing down of the species…their choices are always right, unconsciously so, they’re all different somehow, but no conflicting rights ever occur…amazing.

rw earlier: There’s no competing for their “rights”?



alix: Since they always make the right choice, no.

rw: Sounds really wonderful Alix, but…one question…since they are always unconsciously right…how would they know if they were competing or not? Being unconscious of rightness means being unable to determine any wrongness, so they could actually be viciously competing over the same “right woman” and never be consciously aware of it.

rw earlier: Everyone wants the exact same thing and thus no diversity exists?



alix: Of course not. What does this have to do with virtue?

rw: Chuckle…from diversity comes adversity Alix…or didn’t you know that? Ever heard of racism or justice or politics or philosophy? Care to consider the relative significance between the diversity in Marxist communism and Lassez-faire capitalism? Seen any adversity arise out of that diversity?

alix: You have changed the nature of the discuss with this remark. In a world of completely virtuous people, one can like Havarti and one can like Gouda.

rw: How does this question change the nature of the discussion? Is it not the nature of discussions to discuss the various implications in a description or example given to support a particular premise? You have been laboring along under the premise that a god can do this and my questions have been cogently attuned to this premise…so where have I changed the “nature” of anything? In such a world one can also like communism and another capitalism…yes? What if two of these folks want conflicting things Alix?

rw earlier: Or everyone wants something completely different and there's no grounds for commonality?



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

rw: And what if they want the same “thing”? A mix-up has inadvertently occurred in the maternity ward and the name tag of a newborn has been lost and two women sincerely believe that child is theirs. Do they take Solomon’s sword and split the child? How do people unconsciously want the right things?

rw earlier: So if two men loved the same woman?



alix: Because they are all three virtuous, they will come to a perfectly acceptable arrangement; acceptable to all of them.

rw: What kind of arrangement? Can you be more specific?

alix: Please note, the PoE says nothing about the conflict of good with good - it is explicitely relating to the logic problem of omnimax and the current universe.

rw: So who decides what is good and what isn’t in this world of yours Alix? There are many cases of conflicting goods in this universe, so why is this a problem for a divinely created state of affairs? Or is this just a problem with your ability to resolve the issue?

rw earlier: Oh, all women would look identical and behave identically in all cases…yes?



alix: No. You are creating absurdities; none of these things are relevant to virtue.

rw: Really? I was just trying to imagine a world where everyone always made the right choice. By the way, who decides what the “right” choices are as opposed to the wrong ones…that is, how did the concept of right and wrong become an established factor of such a world? If everyone always unconsciously chooses the “right”, whatever that may be, then there must be some wrong choices available in there somewhere…right? Else how do these creatures “freely” CHOOSE the “right”? But then, if everyone always chooses the right where does the wrong come from? There can’t be any wrong in such a world so there can’t be any right. No history and no consciousness of being “right” sounds like a mighty illogical state of affairs to me.

alix: If you lack sufficient imagination to imagine such a world, then try this exercise. Imagine the current diversity of human beings with but a single differnce: they always freely chose the right.

rw: Ah Alix, perhaps imagination isn’t the issue here…maybe it’s an issue of logical reasoning…yes? In a world devoid of right and wrong there is no diversity Alix.

rw earlier: This way every man, who is also identical, would have no possible reason to desire another man’s woman. Of course, such a state of affairs would flow with milk and honey at the whim and wish of each cloned individual who freely chose that which they had no previous knowledge of being right. It just happens by divine fiat.



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

rw: Well, you keep making that assertion alix, but when scrutinized with simple questions, what’s exposed in your answers is neither free nor right. All you’ve got thusfar are unconscious amoral automatons.

rw earlier: And they would have to be immortal...else they'd have to make a choice somewhere along the line that they are going to die and might as well face it.



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

rw: No, I guess an unconscious amoral automaton wouldn’t be aware of its own mortality anyway.

rw earlier: And this correlates with their existence...how? Is there any progress or science in such a world? What would be the motivation? What exactly would such people do with their lives?



alix: There could be progress in science and understanding;

rw: Really, in creatures who unconsciously always choose the right, you have a world in which no wrong exists, so there’s really nothing from which to choose. Science proceeds on trial and error, but folks who are always unconsciously right would have no basis of learning anything new…so they’d have to be omniscient or robots waiting for a program.

alix: there could be art

rw: Inspired by what? No drama...no inspiration.

alix: and culture

rw: Developed on what basis? A right that they are unconsciously aware of?

alix: and love

rw: In a world where they always choose the right but are unaware of it as a right choice? No wrong or diversity or adversity…so no hatred. How would they know or recognize love? Unconsciously? Have you been watching re-runs of the Matrix?

alix:and joy

rw: What have they got to be joyful about? What can they possibly accomplish to bring them joy in a world without diversity or adversity? A world where no sorrow could obtain?

alix: and aspiration and all the other multitudinous complexities of a world full of people.

rw: Aspiration to do what? You can't strip away the worst of this world, even using omnipotence and still end up with the best of this world, even if you intend to start over with new creatures. It doesn't work here Alix, and it won't work there. You are left with an illogical state of affairs.



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

rw: As a matter of fact I do find it personally incredible that you can postulate such a world as being logical.



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

rw: Yes, why don’t you do that…choose one simpler and stay away from logical connections to math…it tends to spoil the snake oil. But I think you get the point and there likely won’t be a next time. And I don’t think you have a clue about “virtue” either. One is not virtuous until they display, in practice…under fire…the virtue in question. Then and only then can they be said to be virtuous. Now, how such a thing can come about unconsciously is totally beyond any realm of logic I’ve ever heard. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me?

-----

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

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

rw: Look to your example…it’s a world of contradiction and stands alone as such…but keep trying, who knows…maybe you’ll be the one to actually overcome the insurmountable.

Unconsciously freely choosing the right in a world devoid of wrong where no choice exists…snicker

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, there's just too much to go through, rainbow, so I'll touch on this last thing you wrote:

There would be no need to freely choose anything at all if we were created "right" to begin with. Everything we would do would be according to god's will of righteousness. We would only do the "right" thing all the time. We would be incapable of ever doing a "wrong" thing ("right" and "wrong" being determined by god, of course).

So there are two questions that once again arise:

1. why a god would want us to choose and
2. whether or not we could choose assuming an omnimax god/creator.

Number two, first (just to be difficult ): Positing an omnimax god means we cannot choose, as that is a logical impossibility due to the dynamics of omnimax attributes, even if one posits a non-interfering god. If even a non-interfering god created the universe for a specific purpose in re: humanity in any way, then we are puppets and ultimately have no choice anymore than a twig in a river has a choice. It will be forced to go with the current no matter what it may end up doing along the way.

So you can now remove "choice" or "freely choose" from your argument's lexicon.

Number one, second: You claim a god would want us to choose so that we can approach (but never quite achieve) our "greatest possible good." If we never attain our "greatest possible good," then you've set up a false dichotomy. To ever seek a "greatest possible good," but never be able to actually attain it means there is no "greatest" possible good and that our journey would remain forever dynamic; ever expanding proportionally to compensate, which, ultimately is the equivalent of a carrot on a stick that is never eaten.

Yes, we travel long and far, but we remain forever hungry and forever wanting to eat the carrot, which we can never do, thus rendering the entirety of the journey ultimately pointless and an eternal sham, since there will be no and can never be an end to that journey for humanity to adequately reflect back upon to make the journey worthwhile in any significant manner. It will remain dynamic for all eternity, a dog forever chasing its tale, if you will, especially if we are able to remove death (or make it optional).

So, omnibenevolence is contradicted, since a dynamic journey ever reaching for something that can never be attained is ultimately cruel no matter how one attempts to justify it.

And there can be no choice possible if a god created the universe for any purpose whatsoever, since purpose means intent and intent means we ultimately have no choice in the matter, even if said god just sparked the thing into motion. If there is intent in the design, then there is ultimately no choice for those designed.

Since we're dealing with omnimax assertions we are therefore necessarily dealing with ultimate logical extensions and not merely penultimate or "unseen" extensions and the ultimate logical extensions to positing a non-interfering god with omnimax abilities result in logical contradiction (i.e., non-sequiturs).

The only valid argument, therefore, that I can see is positing a non-omnimax "god" accidentally sparking the big bang and having no conscious knowledge of its actions or the consequences of those actions and no abilities at all to stop or alter those consequences or even be known within the parameters of those actions at any point.

Which, of course, simply begs the question (colloquially), "What is a 'non-omnimax' god" that caused such consequences? Answer: nature.

EDITED TO ADD: If there is no intent to the cause (and therefore no design or designer), then there is no logical reason to posit anything other than nature. If there is no logical reason to posit anything other than nature, then there is no logical reason to posit a "god." If there is no logical reason to posit a "god," then it is illogical to posit a god and your "defeat" of PoE fails, if it entails positing a "god." If your "defeat" of PoE does not posit a "god," then it has nothing to do with the PoE, which is, itself a counter argument to anyone positing a god (with omnimax attributes).

Thus, anything you posit that entails a god (with omnimax abilities) cannot "defeat" PoE.

I think that's nice and sound. Sound's good to me anyway .

rainbow walking

rw earlier: My argument against this line of reasoning is, and always has been, if a god deems it morally necessary to intervene in one case, his omni-benevolence absolutely requires he intervene in all cases…to do less is not a matter of degrees of morality but a matter of immorality versus morality.



Thomas: I think that's a non sequitur. It all depends upon whether intervening in those other cases preserves the greatest good.

rw: Really? That’s a strange turn of events. All of your examples up to this point have been focused on the preservation of a single child. Now, suddenly when I present a logic that defies your initial claim, the greater good becomes necessary to preserve and my argument non-sequitur. You are inconsistent Thomas.

Thomas: And it's not true that everything is reducible to "moral" or "immoral"; some actions are still more moral than others, even if they're all immoral.

rw: I see. Bob’s immoral action is more moral than Jane’s immoral action. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that Jane’s actions are less immoral than Bob’s? Yet both are immoral. So your CP is arguing for a god, defined as perfectly moral, to take steps to reduce his immorality. Aren’t we committing a fallacy here? When did god get to be immoral? I thought that was suppose to be demonstrated in your premises? You’ve made no logical connection between the evidence and god’s morality that gets you past my argument.

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



Thomas: Why should your behavior be different from God's?


rw: What a bizarre question. Am I defined as omni-max?

Thomas: If it's the right thing to do, God will do it.

rw: And if it’s the right thing to do nothing…God will do nothing.

Thomas: And if it's not the right thing to do, you shouldn't do it.

rw: And won’t…hopefully, but then I’m not omni-max. I might do the wrong thing…but he won’t. But let’s drop a flag here for future reference.



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

rw: Whatever.

rw earlier: If you use god’s attribute of omnipotence to destroy logic you are left with nothing to connect the could have to the should have and therefore doesn’t exist.



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

rw: Well, let’s take a look at your logic and how you apply it from an example above. When it comes to man and god your claim is that both should behave equally.

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

rw: So, if preventing people from scalding themselves is the right thing to do, would it further be right for me to do it by defying reality and creating elves to convince them not to scald themselves? What repercussions would this have on the rest of humanity who aren’t in any danger of scalding themselves? Would the magical appearance of these elves be consistent with everyone’s understanding of reality? Am I to defy logic to prevent accidents which are the result of logical cause and effect relationships? I repeat what I said above: Violate logic and you violate your own conclusion because you need logic to connect the premises or no conclusion follows.

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

\

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

rw: Yes, but your CP isn’t omnipotent, it still depends on logic.



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

rw: Yes, I’m working from a system called rational thought…you should try it sometime.

In any state of affairs where an infinite number of diverse causes of an accidental scalding can occur…

It is not the case that an “instinctual desire not to be scalded” will be successful in reducing the number of actual scaldings, because it is not logically possible for an instinctual desire to account for an infinite number of possible instances where the event could occur. Reduction cannot be established in the face of infinity.

To further qualify this assertion I mention that children, and adults, already have an instinctual desire not to scald themselves and it only requires one scalding to activate it and establish a connection between the pain and the hot water, thus creating a life long knowledge of the danger of hot substances in contact with human flesh to such a degree that children and adults strive, from that moment forward, to avoid any such future cases.

So it is not instinctual aversion to a specific event but experience that reduces the number of cases any single individual will have to endure in his life.

Finally, it is not the case that I have to show a contradiction in such a statement to render its conclusion false. If one of its postulates is false it is not deductively sound.

Koyaanisqatsi

I forgot to touch on something else, but since I posted (and edited) just prior to your next post, you may be responding and therefore I've presented it in another, separate post.

That is, the necessity for humans to know and understand that they have chosen "right" or "wrong" for themselves.

There is no need for humans to do anything at all, especially when positing a non-interfering omnimax god. If we kill ourselves off, the universe won't care and we won't be around to care. The universe will continue and another life form will become more "dominant" in the food chain.

A non-interfering omnimax god won't care, since it would know instantly upon designing the universe that we would eventually kill ourselves off. We would simply be another set of dinosaurs.

But, further (and more toward the ultimate logical extensions argument I raised previously) there would be no possible need for a god with omnimax abilities to design us or the universe so that we find morality on our own, since, again, omniscience would allow this being to instantly know the second it thought of our existence whether or not we would eventually become moral beings or not. Hence, the story of Abraham logically contradicts the omnimax attributes of god.

The journey toward morality would be entirely irrelevant and ultimately pointless to such a being (and therefore, by extension, ourselves) since it would instantly know the second it even conceived of the parameters of the universe whether or not we ever would or could become moral on our own.

Likewise, the mandate of every human to simply be moral would be entirely irrelevant and ultimately pointless to such a being, since it, again, would know this anyway the second it thought of designing a universe wherein such actions obtain.

In other words, there can be no omnimax god creator, since the omnimax attributes logically cancel out its own possible existence the instant such a creature is posited.

And since this is (ultimately) what any PoE-type argument demonstrates, then it cannot be defeated by positing yet another omnimax god concept, no matter what the details are. Omnimax is ultimately self-contradictory and therefore ultimately self-cancelling.

Thomas Metcalf

rainbow walking :

Let's step back for a moment and try to identify the main points. Forgive my having to go over previously covered ground, but the central issues are starting to submerge.

1. I say it's morally better to do X than Y sometimes, even if it's immoral to do both. Agree or disagree?

2. I say if it's possible to imagine a morally better being than God, then God doesn't exist. Agree or disagree?

3. I say if it's possible to stop a child from burning herself by accident, by implanting a desire not to perform the action that would lead to the burn, the world would be a better place if this desire were implanted. Agree or disagree?

4. I say it's logically possible to stop a child from burning herself by accident, by implanting a desire not to perform the action that would lead to the burn. For example, God could watch, and every time a child was about to perform some action that would accidentally lead to scalding herself, he could cause the child not to desire to do that. Agree or disagree?

mosaic

Rainbow, you're the only one with the problem that it can be created by man. You postulate an ethereal reason for this which means man cannot simply do it. And I dont see why why questions are confusing you.

You have stated that if god's omniscience knows only a world in which evil is neccesary for growth, but if we achieve this world, and from then on progress without evil, we have overcomed god's omniscience. I We would be creating such a world from scarcth. God couldnt implant within us the knowledge we gained yet we will do that to the subsequent generations who arent evil. We wont need to have them experience evil to know its wrong. We wont need them to have them earn there goodness since they'll appreciate based on teachings, which will be implanted. If we exists in a realm that god couldnt preempt, then what have we done but overcome him? Why couldnt god implant us with the knowledge we will pass on? The generation that as resulted in paradise on earth as not earned their state. The sacrificial humans have. I

Now to address yorur first response. Yes, I agree that there is a definite synthesis/antithesis. Its only logical but the metaphysic meaning if this I deny. . If our suffering has metaphysical value then all is allowed. We cant really despise killers because its merely a learning process. Satan should be championed as the cursed being that allowed us to evovle to great morailty. What I propose taking from suffering that it is meaningless. And not then extend this to mean the suffering exists for that very reason. That we find some trees beautiful doesnt mean thats their purpose. That we find suffering despicable doesnt mean, it exists so we can find it despicable. Human ignorance is a sufficient explantion.

rainbow walking

rw: Ah…my long lost friend, I was beginning to think I would have to put out an APB or file a “missing persons” report on you. Glad to have you back. I’m at home again now and no longer at the mercy of the public library or internet café’s so maybe I can get more in-depth in this discussion than my previous circumstances allowed.


koy: Well, there's just too much to go through, rainbow, so I'll touch on this last thing you wrote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking: Unconsciously freely choosing the right in a world devoid of wrong where no choice exists…snicker



koy: There would be no need to freely choose anything at all if we were created "right" to begin with.

rw: Then it is your contention that there is something “intrinsically wrong” with man in this current state of affairs? Something like “Original Sin” maybe…or perhaps some other factor that you’d care to describe? It seems you have gotten yourself into a catch-22 situation right off the bat with this statement. If there is something intrinsically “wrong” with man I would like to know what it is. Is it something acquired at birth, or at some point later in his life? If, on the other hand, there is no intrinsic “wrongness” in man, then he is intrinsically “right” but then why does he still make “wrong” choices? Could it be there is something inherently “wrong” with his state of affairs perhaps? Does man’s existence in this state of affairs have anything to do with the available range of choices he has?

koy: Everything we would do would be according to god's will of righteousness.

rw: And out goes the “freely” aspect of this world. Why does man need a god to establish righteousness as opposed to wickedness? Is man incapable of making such categorical decisions himself, now, in this state of affairs? If so, why?

koy: We would only do the "right" thing all the time. We would be incapable of ever doing a "wrong" thing ("right" and "wrong" being determined by god, of course).

rw: But we wouldn’t be capable of knowing that our choices were right. So why should a god bother establishing categorical imperatives that we wouldn’t be able to comprehend anyway?

koy: So there are two questions that once again arise:
1. why a god would want us to choose and

rw: Perhaps because a creature that willfully establishes and chooses the “right” is happier than a creature dependant on a god to do such things for him…yes?

koy: 2. whether or not we could choose assuming an omnimax god/creator.

rw: Then you are questioning the “freely” aspect of Alix’s created new world?


koy: Number two, first (just to be difficult ): Positing an omnimax god means we cannot choose, as that is a logical impossibility due to the dynamics of omnimax attributes, even if one posits a non-interfering god. If even a non-interfering god created the universe for a specific purpose in re: humanity in any way, then we are puppets and ultimately have no choice anymore than a twig in a river has a choice. It will be forced to go with the current no matter what it may end up doing along the way.

rw: Well, what purpose are you referring to? The only one that’s been suggested thusfar is the purpose of allowing man to acquire his own greater good. How does this allowance become a restraining order against man’s willful participation in his own greater good, unless man would prefer his own extinction?

koy: So you can now remove "choice" or "freely choose" from your argument's lexicon.

rw: On what basis? I’ve clearly articulated a historical account of man’s progression that adequately demonstrates man in pursuit of his own greater good. Whether a god or nature itself has arranged the parameters of this pursuit is immaterial to man’s willful participation unless man’s own greater good is not really a good thing. Is this what you are claiming? If man had the ability to create his own universe and his own unique state of affairs, rather than being born into one without a choice as to its construction, would man pursue something other than his own greater good? If so, what?

koy: Number one, second: You claim a god would want us to choose so that we can approach (but never quite achieve) our "greatest possible good." If we never attain our "greatest possible good," then you've set up a false dichotomy. To ever seek a "greatest possible good," but never be able to actually attain it means there is no "greatest" possible good and that our journey would remain forever dynamic; ever expanding proportionally to compensate, which, ultimately is the equivalent of a carrot on a stick that is never eaten.

rw: This is a good point Koy, but consider, what is the alternative? Give up the journey, sit down and die? I have always strived to commit this argument only to a basic greater good that will result in a reduction in man’s degree of suffering, remaining as consistent to the CP as possible. My final description of man’s attained “greater good” was when man actually exhibited, as closely and consistently as possible, the same attributes ascribed to this god. That is why I say man should not jettison the attributes but doesn’t need a god to attach to them an un-attainable significance. Of course, this doesn’t mean man’s journey ends here, but it would probably mean a huge reduction in many of the causes of man’s current level of suffering.

koy: Yes, we travel long and far, but we remain forever hungry and forever wanting to eat the carrot, which we can never do, thus rendering the entirety of the journey ultimately pointless and an eternal sham,

rw: Then you’ve never made a journey just for the sake of the journey? You always had to have an ultimate purpose beyond the enjoyment? What was the alternative…stay at home and forsake the enjoyment. And if you gained some grand new experiences and learned many new things along the way, was the journey not self fulfilling….even if you had to forsake some creature comforts at home? Having made such a journey would you ever look back and conclude the entire trip pointless and a sham?

koy: since there will be no and can never be an end to that journey for humanity to adequately reflect back upon to make the journey worthwhile in any significant manner. It will remain dynamic for all eternity, a dog forever chasing its tale, if you will, especially if we are able to remove death (or make it optional).

rw: That’s a rather gloomy and depressing way to describe man’s progress Koy. Have you enjoyed the benefits of man’s progress? Do you ride to work or shop for food at a grocers or take a plane or visit a dentist? Did these benefits just pop into existence without a journey to acquire them? A struggle made by someone, somewhere to improve man’s existence in some small way? Do you think the men who proved flight was possible were satisfied with their accomplishment? Then should we look at the struggle required and give up before we make the first effort? Why is progress deemed evil or bad by those who enjoy the benefits derived? I emphatically disagree with your gloomy assessment of what future man will look back and conclude. I can’t look back and reach the same conclusion while sitting here in this air-conditioned room sharing my thoughts at the stroke of a finger, with people all over the world, almost instantly. I find it hard to imagine anyone who would.

koy: So, omnibenevolence is contradicted, since a dynamic journey ever reaching for something that can never be attained is ultimately cruel no matter how one attempts to justify it.

rw: Is it ultimately cruel to deny our progeny the opportunity to experience the deep satisfaction of making a contribution along the way…just because they may have to experience some pain and discomfort to get there? Where is the vision Koy, where is the fire and love and sense of adventure in such a postulate? Have you made an effort to imagine all the good man would be deprived of were a divine being to actually poof man into such an illogical state?

koy: And there can be no choice possible if a god created the universe for any purpose whatsoever, since purpose means intent and intent means we ultimately have no choice in the matter, even if said god just sparked the thing into motion. If there is intent in the design, then there is ultimately no choice for those designed.

rw: The only purpose I’ve articulated is for man to willfully make the journey and that along the way he would begin to realize his own greater good, as history has established. This straw man dog ain’t gonna hunt, Koy.

koy: Since we're dealing with omnimax assertions we are therefore necessarily dealing with ultimate logical extensions and not merely penultimate or "unseen" extensions and the ultimate logical extensions to positing a non-interfering god with omnimax abilities result in logical contradiction (i.e., non-sequiturs).

rw: Then why have these logical contradictions not been convincingly forthcoming? Why is it necessary to modify PoE if it’s so deductively over-coming? When will someone describe such an altered state of affairs that doesn’t, itself, defy logic?

koy: The only valid argument, therefore, that I can see is positing a non-omnimax "god" accidentally sparking the big bang and having no conscious knowledge of its actions or the consequences of those actions and no abilities at all to stop or alter those consequences or even be known within the parameters of those actions at any point.

rw: But this doesn’t rescue your argument from the deterministic thrust you seem bent on defining as a rebuttal. Man is still trapped in a state of affairs not of his own choosing. Whether this state exists by divine fiat or natural evolution, man had nothing to do with the initial conditions, so all that’s left, is for man to alter those initial conditions by his own willful efforts or sit down and die. You seem to be arguing that man, to be totally free, must have the option of creating his own state of affairs to his own liking…and ignore the fact that man does have this option. Just because it’s going to take a long time and much pain and suffering will likely ensue along the way, doesn’t mean man has to accept his imprisonment. This is preferable to an illogical creature forced to do right things, with the right defined by a god, and the creature unable to know he is right. So much for a PoE inspired world.

koy: Which, of course, simply begs the question (colloquially), "What is a 'non-omnimax' god" that caused such consequences? Answer: nature.

rw: And I have posited just such an argument, an argument that works off of PoE’s observation of a non-interfering god whose only normative purposeful assignment is omni-benevolence.

koy: EDITED TO ADD: If there is no intent to the cause (and therefore no design or designer), then there is no logical reason to posit anything other than nature. If there is no logical reason to posit anything other than nature, then there is no logical reason to posit a "god." If there is no logical reason to posit a "god," then it is illogical to posit a god and your "defeat" of PoE fails,


rw: Major fallacy a foot alert. If there’s no reason to posit a god there’s no reason to posit a PoE. If PoE hadn’t been posited my argument would have stayed home. PoE fails to obtain either way. It’s not a sound argument Koy, so why continue to align yourself with such tripe?


koy: if it entails positing a "god." If your "defeat" of PoE does not posit a "god," then it has nothing to do with the PoE, which is, itself a counter argument to anyone positing a god (with omnimax attributes).

rw: Ha…nice try. I have posited nothing in my argument but that which PoE has posited, Koy. So if my argument obtains, even without a god, it defeats not only theism but PoE as well. Theism, except for the most liberal brands, absolutely requires an interfering god.

koy: Thus, anything you posit that entails a god (with omnimax abilities) cannot "defeat" PoE.

I think that's nice and sound. Sound's good to me anyway .

rw: Hey, if you like it…I like it.

rainbow walking

koy: I forgot to touch on something else, but since I posted (and edited) just prior to your next post, you may be responding and therefore I've presented it in another, separate post.

That is, the necessity for humans to know and understand that they have chosen "right" or "wrong" for themselves.

There is no need for humans to do anything at all, especially when positing a non-interfering omnimax god. If we kill ourselves off, the universe won't care and we won't be around to care. The universe will continue and another life form will become more "dominant" in the food chain.

rw: That seems to be a conclusion both atheist and theist alike arrive at from different angles. The theist arrives there due to the posited after-life syndrome. The atheist arrives there due to allowing himself to be drawn into the narrowly defining constraints of the logic he so vehemently depends on to sustain his worldview. Both are bullshit. Logic begins by narrowly defining a set of postulated constraints that rarely ever correspond to man’s actual state, arrives at conclusions that further narrow man’s perception of his current state, and then the man who buys the bullshit finds himself looking forward with a nihilistic, gloom and doom attitude. His conclusion damages more than just the possibility of an existent god-like being. It damages his own attitude towards his current and future state of existence such that he finally and ultimately is trapped into a position of , “let’s just eat and drink, (forget the merry part), for tomorrow we die” , so why bother to generate any excitement or anticipation or resolve or joy from our future prospects…logically, we’re all doomed.

Case in point…

koy: A non-interfering omnimax god won't care, since it would know instantly upon designing the universe that we would eventually kill ourselves off. We would simply be another set of dinosaurs.

rw: Ah yes…another symptom of the mind numbing, narrowing effects of logic: man is no better than an extinct species of reptiles. Do you really believe this Koy? Do you really need a god to value your own existence and fight to stay alive? And if you jettison the god, you’re suddenly no longer any more capable of valuing your own existence than the existence of a reptile? I find that hard to believe about a person whose intellect I so admire.

koy: But, further (and more toward the ultimate logical extensions argument I raised previously) there would be no possible need for a god with omnimax abilities to design us or the universe so that we find morality on our own, since, again, omniscience would allow this being to instantly know the second it thought of our existence whether or not we would eventually become moral beings or not. Hence, the story of Abraham logically contradicts the omnimax attributes of god.

rw: Do you interpret the story of Abraham as a god testing Abraham so that a god would know Abraham’s intent, or a god testing Abraham so that Abraham would know a god’s intent?

koy: The journey toward morality would be entirely irrelevant and ultimately pointless to such a being (and therefore, by extension, ourselves) since it would instantly know the second it even conceived of the parameters of the universe whether or not we ever would or could become moral on our own.

rw: And the implications of this if such a being does exist? Would such a god really move to create a state of affairs in which no creature will ever succeed?

koy: Likewise, the mandate of every human to simply be moral would be entirely irrelevant and ultimately pointless to such a being, since it, again, would know this anyway the second it thought of designing a universe wherein such actions obtain.

rw: What mandate are you referring to?

koy: In other words, there can be no omnimax god creator, since the omnimax attributes logically cancel out its own possible existence the instant such a creature is posited.

rw: Really? Then where did such attributes originate?

koy: And since this is (ultimately) what any PoE-type argument demonstrates, then it cannot be defeated by positing yet another omnimax god concept, no matter what the details are. Omnimax is ultimately self-contradictory and therefore ultimately self-cancelling.

rw: Methinks you should rethink this line of argumentation, Koy. PoE ultimately concludes that such a being must “necessarily” exist for the very reasons it fails to successfully elucidate any other logical state of affairs without destroying man. PoE also fails to look forward. It is, and will always focus only on man’s past, his failures and a skewed interpretation of the consequences of those failures…to arrive at his narrow unsound conclusion. But even worse, PoE tends to conflate its proponents own view of the future into that same narrow, un-sound state of affairs and does have an effect on a person’s attitude about his real life. PoE is about as close to a bullshit argument as you can get, it’s indefensible and unsound…period.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

You have stated that your educational background is limited, and that you have no formal training in logic. While this explains, it does not excuse your inability to make substantive responses to the posts in this thread.

You have begun to resort almost entirely to deliberate misunderstanding, snide comments, ad hominems, profanity, and unsupported assertions.

While you may find this personally amusing (and I admit that I continue to respond because I find your responses quite humorous), such behaviour also conveys the clear message that you are unable to deal with the numerous and valid criticisms of your frequently inconsistent attempt to deal with the Problem of Evil – indeed, it has become obvious that you do not even understand the nature of the problem.

I select an illustrative example of a recent response to one of my posts:

You requested an example of a scenario demonstrating the validity of the terms of the Problem of Evil. Let me restate that Problem, since you appear to have forgotten what it is:

P1: An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being exists.
P2: This being created the universe.
P3: The universe contains unnecessary suffering.
P4: Unnecessary suffering is incompatible with an omnibenevolent being.
P5: Unnecessary suffering is unnecessary for an omnipotent being.

C1: P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 cannot be simultaneously true.

I offered an example of a world of humans, diverse in appearance, desire, and ability, who always freely choose the right (i.e. the virtuous) course of action in any situation. Further, that this world was created instantly by the omnimax being without requiring suffering on the part of any being within it.

Your responses (which I summarize to spare others the tedium of wading through them) consisted of stating that all beings in this world must be unconscious robots unaware of their own virtue – and that they could not, therefore, be virtuous, and in addition, since there is no ‘wrong’ then there is no diversity – that all beings are exactly the same. This is a non sequitur (a fancy Latin phrase essentially meaning ‘does not follow’).

Perhaps the clearest example of your difficulties lies in the following statement:
This reveals your lack of experience and training in logic. There is nothing illogical in such a state of affairs: your inability to imagine such a state does not constitute a logic problem.

Your sole argument in this thread can be reduced to your contention that Postulate 3 (above) is false: you asser that good cannot exist without evil: that any situation involving wholly good beings is a logical impossibility. Regrettably, you have never demonstrated this to be true; instead you have attempted the argument ad nauseum, a choice fraught with difficulty.

I recommend at least a minimal study of logic, theology, ethics, morality, and formal argument before you indulge yourself in these kinds of debates: I am sure you do not wish to continue to appear to be a fool.

Under the circumstances, it becomes extremely difficult to take you seriously, but I thank you again for the humorous nature of your posts.


-----
Lest you be unhappy and conclude that your post was entirely devoid of merit, let me reassure you that the following exchange was singularly entertaining:

If you need details about how a ménage a Trois works, I suggest that Dr. Kinsey or some good pornography would be a better source; I have neither the need nor the desire to satisfy your prurient interests.

rainbow walking

Thomas: Let's step back for a moment and try to identify the main points. Forgive my having to go over previously covered ground, but the central issues are starting to submerge.

rw: Chuckle…I can certainly sympathize with your natural desire to “step back.” When one discovers the ground upon which they are standing does not support the weight of their stance “stepping back” is a logical move towards recovering their credibility. Indeed, the central issues you’ve been arguing as support of your CP are beginning to submerge beneath the waves of superior logic. But when we consider your resubmission of the questions we observe that you have not “stepped back” as much as you have “side-stepped” in the hope of gaining sturdier ground and finding some balance on the slippery slope you’ve discovered yourself to be occupying.

Rather than allowing you to further embarrass yourself by engaging in another series of dialogues that will ultimately end in another “stepping back” on your part, allow me to assist you in rendering your CP a sound argument. All you have to do Thomas, is add the conditional personal intervening to the attribute of omni-benevolence to re-invigorate your PoE argument. (notice that your arguments thusfar have all been directed at trying to establish a point of personal intervention anyway). Since most conventional theists argue for just such a being you are simply conceding a point from which your observations then become devastating and PoE obtains. Obviously, evil and suffering should not obtain in a world created by a personally intervening omni-benevolent god. If it does, such a being cannot be omni-benevolent and PoE’s conclusion is sound.



1. I say it's morally better to do X than Y sometimes, even if it's immoral to do both. Agree or disagree?

Rw: For man…yes. For a god…not necessary.

2. I say if it's possible to imagine a morally better being than God, then God doesn't exist. Agree or disagree?

Rw: Disagree.

3. I say if it's possible to stop a child from burning herself by accident, by implanting a desire not to perform the action that would lead to the burn, the world would be a better place if this desire were implanted. Agree or disagree?

Rw: Disagree…it’s impossible to prevent an event by implanted intellectual knowledge. Prevention requires experiential comprehension.

4. I say it's logically possible to stop a child from burning herself by accident, by implanting a desire not to perform the action that would lead to the burn. For example, God could watch, and every time a child was about to perform some action that would accidentally lead to scalding herself, he could cause the child not to desire to do that. Agree or disagree?

rw: Agree…but then you lose any claim to willful participation and man ceases to be man. A state of illogic is all you achieve and PoE fails to obtain.