long winded fool

I think we're talking about different things here. I don't think we disagree that there are differences. You simply have a problem with my calling our perception of difference value judgement.

"Option" necessarily implies the existence of two choices, as you state. A and B, respectively. (A is to do it, B is to not do it.) In order to make a choice, we must want a certain thing. Now, say A is a perfect pork chop and B is a perfect steak. As soon as I want steak, B becomes a pro and A becomes a con. (Just bear with me here. I'm a pessimist. ) If I choose B and instead get A, then I have just experienced something that falls short of what I really wanted. This is what I'm trying to prove must exist. In order for pessimism to be artificially eliminated, all option must be eliminated. We agree that people can choose not to be pessimists, but I argue that God cannot choose for us not to be pessimists and retain his omnibenevolent nature.

If all is valueless, everything is the same. There will be no more different pros. I just have to choose which ever I felt like doing.

Everything cannot be the same. If everything were the same, how could you choose anything? "Option" requires difference. A and B.

Wrong. Bad doesn't need to exist for one to make a choice. Remember all you've to do is choose. You perceived a 'bad' so that you won't end up choosing something which may end your days of choosing. Afterall we are living a life of choices. To breath or not to breath... (you can't choose to stop your breathing until you die due to a lack of air, this says alot about free will & determination).

Right! This is all I'm trying to say. To breathe can be, but doesn't have to be, considered good. Not to breathe can be, but doesn't have to be, considered "bad." I can rename "not breathing" good like you do, but they still are different things. They must be different things despite their respective value judgements by anyone in particular. Value is just something we assign to different things. It can be, and probably is, largely in error. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can call it all good if we want but there are still "options" which necessarily imply that there is still "what I want" and "what I don't want." (Keep in mind that these two labels are value judgements and completely interchangable with pros and cons, good and bad, best and less-than-best, happiness and suffering, good and evil, and all other value judgements.)

Awareness can only influence an outcome by influencing your choice. Of course this won't prevent you from ending up eating a 'yucky' steak instead of that 'prefect' pork chop. Unless you're like me knowing that be it steak or pork chop, they are yummy regardless of taste.

Yummy as opposed to...?

There are no conflicts. We make our own conflicts. If all negative reactions are eliminated, it still won't make us all exactly the same. You'll still like steak & I'll still like pork chop only that you won't mind having pork chop when there's no steak & I won't mind having steak when there is no pork chop.

On what do you base this? If I prefer steak and you prefer pork chops, then won't I experience a less than absolutely perfect feeling if I have to eat a pork chop? If I don't, then it is impossible for me to "prefer" steak over pork. Preference means you'd rather have one thing than another.

You're defining your own values very well inspite of there being none. You liked steak more then pork chop so you come up with your own values to tell me why steak is better then pork chop.

Again, it appears we agree. I must be able to judge value, therefore I must be able to percieve the difference between what I want and what I don't want.

I'm existing prefectly & 'chatting' with you so how do you account for my existence ? A flicker of your imagination ? Everything is in themselves 'prefect' (actually valueless is a much better term). We use our subjective mind to endorse them with a value. This value is relative to each & everyone of us. No doubt some values may overlap but the value of the same item is not the same for each & everyone of us (here's your less than prefect). Do you dare to deny this fact?

Not at all. So you agree that one kind of "value" must exist, just not the kind that you think I'm talking about?

Yes, your western idea of god & salvation makes you think suffering is needed & that things need a value. My eastern idea of philosophy makes me think that suffering is an illusion & things don't have a value. I won't dwell on how our differing thoughts makes us differ. It won't look nice & I don't want baseless conflict just because certain 'values' held by you will look whatever...

So then you find more value in your "eastern beliefs" than in my "western beliefs?" Why? Do they make you feel more comfortable? Would my "western" beliefs make you feel worse than your "eastern" ones? Does lattitudinal location apply value to an idea? Why would you prefer to believe that there is no value? What do you call this preference? Are you right and am I wrong? If our beliefs are one and the same in value, then why don't we agree?

Do not make the mistake of presuming to know what I believe. I never claimed to hold western beliefs nor to be a theist. I'm merely trying to hammer out a rational truth. This isn't an argument about absolute morality, this is an argument about the existence of suffering. Suffering is essentially a value judgement. Since suffering exists in the world, value exists in the world. If you can prove that no human being has ever or will ever suffer, then I'll concede that value is meaningless.

long winded fool

I essentially agree with you pilaar. The absence of what I call bad and suffering and evil would have no real effect on my free will. The important point is that these things cannot be "taken away," they can only be abandoned. As anyone who has any experience with children knows, any option can induce suffering. Say a child's two favorite foods are pizza and hamburgers. On his birthday, he looks forward to eating pizza, but instead his parents barbecue hamburgers. The child gets upset and suffers because of this. It doesn't matter what we label the child, the fact is that he is suffering. In this manner, suffering cannot be forcibly removed from the situation without removing the option. If God made the child only like pizza, then the option of hamburgers has been necessarily removed along with the suffering.

What is boils down to is: God should eliminate some suffering, but He can't eliminate ALL possibility of suffering without eliminating choice, so who gets to be relieved of suffering and who still has to suffer? The PoE essentially wants God to be partial to the one who proposes the problem, (i.e. eliminate MY suffering and the suffering of all those people whose suffering makes me suffer,) which is a quality that God does not have according to the Bible. This argument, though it is never mentioned, necessarily must include the idea "Do not eliminate the suffering of all those people whom I personally don't think are actually suffering, but who still call their negative feelings suffering." If ALL suffering, according to each individual's perception regardless of my own opinion of what suffering is, were eliminated before it became manifest, all option would logically be precluded. Since option is necessary for free will, and since free will is necessary for love, it would conflict with omnibenevolence to eliminate all suffering. And I think we'd agree that eliminating only the suffering of people whose negative feelings fall under my definition of suffering as opposed to theirs would also conflict with omnibenevolence. So, the artificial elimination of any suffering at all would seem to conflict with an omnibenevolent God.

kctan

I believe that there's no such thing as 'value'.

Not really. A choice can be forced down your throat.

Not really. Both can still be pros or both can be cons. Depends on your outlook.

It existed all right, only in our mind. Or yours for the matter. I usually don't have an expectation when I want something.

Pessimism will still be there even if all options are eliminated. It will always be the same old thing, you won't cure pessimism that way. If god is omnipotent, he/she/it can cure pessimism. If he/she/it is omnibenevolent, he/she/it will make sure all are optimists.

Same as in valueless.

Options existing doesn't mean values exist. It's not all good or all bad. It's all neutral & no value.

Just yummy. You got a problem with this ?

Not if you think as I do.
Preference doesn't mean that in the absence of the one you prefered, you'll feel sad.

Artificial value. The perceived difference is artificial, that's why it's 'perceived'.

No value exist at all.

No value. Just that our perspective of the world is different due to our different beliefs.

I don't prefer to believe that there is no value, I believe that there is no value. Your western belief making you feel worse is proven as we go along on this small little tete-a-tete. You have sufferings, you're pessimistic & you have artificial wants. I don't suffer, I'm optimistic & I have want of nothing. Using your value, which do you think is better ?

Preference without reason means you're somewhat free, preference with a reason means you'll be suffering. Our beliefs are different & both are valueless. It's a matter of what kind of preference you've. The no reason preference or the preference with a reason.

You don't have to. Just by being born in the west will make you have a very big difference with what I think. It's called cultural difference.

Suffering is an illusion. Call it a value judgement if you'll. Why 'suffer' when nothing is there for you to 'suffer' in the first place ?

Only in our minds. Care to list any sufferings which exists in the world ? Care to list any thing in this world which have a value ?

No human has ever really 'suffer' before, so are you going to concede that value is meaningless ?

Ever heard of equanimity ? As a part of Buddhistic concept not the word as defined in a dictionary.

BTW Did I ever mention that this is part of some kind of Buddhistic view ?

long winded fool

Impossible.

Choice: Act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or
separating from two or more things that which is
preferred; the determination of the mind in preferring one
thing to another; election.

Once something is forced, it can never be defined as a choice.

Not really. Both can still be pros or both can be cons. Depends on your outlook.

Exactly. I don't have to have a negative outlook. The crux of the matter is I CAN. There CAN be cons. Because this is the case, cons exist in the universe whether you recognize them or not. (They exist in the form of human pessimism, which also exists in the universe, since human minds exist in the universe)

It existed all right, only in our mind. Or yours for the matter. I usually don't have an expectation when I want something.

Another impossibility. You cannot want anything without expectation. An expectation is a mental picture about the future. It is impossible to want without a mental picture of the future. Existing in the mind is still existing. I don't claim that abstract concepts are material things. I claim that abstract concepts exist. If they didn't, we couldn't be discussing them.

Pessimism will still be there even if all options are eliminated. It will always be the same old thing, you won't cure pessimism that way. If god is omnipotent, he/she/it can cure pessimism. If he/she/it is omnibenevolent, he/she/it will make sure all are optimists.

I've already proven this is not the case. Start with the premises "If god is omnipotent, he/she/it can cure pessimism. If he is omnibenevolent, he will make sure all are optimists." If he is omnibenevolent, he will not force us to love him. If he makes everyone absolutely "good" to the maximum, (totally optimistic) freedom to choose is logically non-existent and everyone would love him because it was a decree, not a choice. Therefore, though God is omnipotent, God cannot make everyone absolutely good because he is omnibenevolent. "Less than best" can never be discarded by God. This must be done by each individual human. To say anything else that is bad can be eliminated presents a slippery slope back to this argument.

Options existing doesn't mean values exist. It's not all good or all bad. It's all neutral & no value.

Value: The property or aggregate properties of a thing by which
it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such
property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance.

If all things are equally non-useful and not desirable, where can option exist?

My argument is not that good and bad exist apart from the mind. It is because they exist in the mind that they can't be eliminated by anyone other than the person who perceives them. (not even by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.)

Just yummy. You got a problem with this ?

Not until you define it.

Not if you think as I do.
Preference doesn't mean that in the absence of the one you prefered, you'll feel sad.

I didn't say it did. Getting less than what you want doesn't necessarily make one feel sad. It means that less than what you want exists.

Artificial value. The perceived difference is artificial, that's why it's 'perceived'.

Good. Then we do agree. I don't make the claim that things have value apart from humans. I make the claim that things have value because of humans.

No value exist at all.

:banghead: So which is it then? You already conceded that things have "perceived" artificial value. So this concept exists.

No value. Just that our perspective of the world is different due to our different beliefs.

I should rename what I'm talking about. It seems the sole problem is the word "value." Call it whatever you want, but it seems that we agree that it exists. English words don't matter. Different beliefs exist, different desires exist, this is all that's required for my argument to stand.

I don't prefer to believe that there is no value, I believe that there is no value. Your western belief making you feel worse is proven as we go along on this small little tete-a-tete. You have sufferings, you're pessimistic & you have artificial wants. I don't suffer, I'm optimistic & I have want of nothing. Using your value, which do you think is better ?

Then you think "my beliefs" are not as good... If not, then why not believe them?

Preference without reason means you're somewhat free, preference with a reason means you'll be suffering. Our beliefs are different & both are valueless. It's a matter of what kind of preference you've. The no reason preference or the preference with a reason.

How does a human develop a preference?

You don't have to. Just by being born in the west will make you have a very big difference with what I think. It's called cultural difference.

But I'm pretty open-minded. I adopt new views as fast as they appear to be true views. (Abe Lincoln) I'm trying to find out if your views are objectively true. So far, there appears to be a problem with your logic.

Suffering is an illusion. Call it a value judgement if you'll. Why 'suffer' when nothing is there for you to 'suffer' in the first place?

I agree.

Only in our minds. Care to list any sufferings which exists in the world ? Care to list any thing in this world which have a value ?

Careful, you don't want to be put in the position of claiming that certain folks aren't really suffering. Because suffering exists in the mind, it exists in the world. Because the poor and hungry suffer, suffering exists. Suffering isn't the only choice, but because it's a choice, and because at least one human being chooses it, it exists and can't be eliminated by anyone but the human who chooses it.

No human has ever really 'suffer' before, so are you going to concede that value is meaningless ?

As long as they think they are suffering, suffering exists. The point that you're trying to make is that people don't need to think that they are suffering and, as I would put it, suffering doesn't need to exist, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Because suffering exists in the mind, I say that it exists, and further that an omnibenevolent God could not eliminate it without sacrificing his omnibenevolent nature. (Or from your point of view, he effectively can't be omnibenevolent and make someone an optimist.)

Ever heard of equanimity ? As a part of Buddhistic concept not the word as defined in a dictionary.

Everybody is equal? I agree with this. I'd say everyone is equal in value, but I apparently have a different definition of value than you do. Value has no negative implications to me.

kctan

Semantics.

The human mind exists in the universe doesn't mean your thoughts existed in the same way in the universe.

That's what you think. I can want anything & everything without an expectation. So how ? My 'want' is not a 'want' ?

Why should freedom to choose be logically non-existence ? The freedom to choose is still there. Why would everyone love he/she/it ? We still would've the choice of loving & not loving he/she/it. The only thing is that by choosing to love or not to love, it won't cause you any discomfort.

Oh yes he/she/it can if he/she/it is omnipotent. Unless you want to limit he/she/it's power then it's another story.

Non-Useful & not desirable doesn't mean they are all the same. We can use a pair of chopsticks, a fork & spoon or even our hands to feed ourselves. All serves the same function but we still use them because all 3 are different.

Read above.

Why must everything have a definition ? Will my definition mean anything to you ? If I tell you yummy means it touches my tongue & slides down my food pipe will it accomplish anything for you ?

Or you perceived that less than what you want exists ?

Things won't have value even because of humans. In the first place, things already don't have a value. The value is perceived, with or without humans, the things still have no value. It would be better to say 'things are perceived to have a value by humans."

Where ? In my mind ? Yours ? The moment we stopped discussing about it, this concept disappears. Have it ever existed ? Did it get 'invented' everytime we discuss about it ? Or is it always 'here' waiting for us to 'discover' it everytime we discuss about it ?

The problem is, it don't exist at all. Difference alone does not make your arguement stand. Difference is just different.

I already have a believe in your beliefs. I've already seen your POV clearly. I can also make the same arguement you've make. It's there sitting with my other beliefs.

Self-interest.

There's no problem with my logic. Do not underestimate the difference cultural difference can do to your perceived open-mindedness. There are some things you just can't grasp a logic with unless you're born & being inculcate with the particular culture. You must look beyond whatever that you've ever learn & think in terms of our basic human-ness.

Since all can eliminate it just by exerting their will, I'm afraid your refutation is staring you back in the face. Existing in the mind doesn't mean existing in the world. How do you know that the poor & hungry are suffering ? For all you know, they may be happier then you.

Just thinking doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

Yes he/she/it can.

A state of the mind, not, everybody is equal. Viewing all things as equal. As in all things have no value. You would treat everyone the same, everything the same, every matter the same etc... You don't have a different definition of value from me, it's just that I see it as an illusion while you see it as solid as a rock.

long winded fool

Are you using a definition of want that is synonymous with 'desire'? Is it possible to desire something without being aware of its existence and aware that you are not in possession of it? If you are not in possession of it and want it, mustn't you logically be forced to have some kind of expectation? No, you don't have to respond negatively to this expactation, but you must have a preconceived idea of what you want and what it would be like to have it.

It doesn't have to cause discomfort, it must be able to cause discomfort if you decide that it should. If it is incapable of causing a less than best feeling, then there isn't a choice. If you'd like to use a different definition of 'choice' than the one defined in the dictionary and accepted by society, I suggest you find a different term that is applicable to your definition.

Oh yes he/she/it can if he/she/it is omnipotent. Unless you want to limit he/she/it's power then it's another story.

Omnipotence is always limited by itself. In the God of the Bible, it is also limited by omniscience and omnibenevolence. An omnipotent being can never do anything which contradicts it's omnipotence. This can be logically transposed into: "Nothing outside the power of omnipotence can logically exist." It is illogical to say that God can will it. God cannot, no matter how hard he tries, make a mistake, and this is not at all a limit to his power. He also cannot, no matter how hard he tries, give us free will without choice, since this would contradict omnibenevolence. (Which would be the case if one were to postulate that he could make everyone absolutely good and still give them free will.) In order for free will to exist, some choice must exist. In order for some choice to exist, we must like something better than another thing. If we are programmed to love absolutely everything no matter what, we are robots, not free acting beings.

Non-Useful & not desirable doesn't mean they are all the same. We can use a pair of chopsticks, a fork & spoon or even our hands to feed ourselves. All serves the same function but we still use them because all 3 are different.

I agree that they all are different, I disagree that they all serve the same function. It's hard to eat cereal with chopsticks. I can choose to eat cereal with chopsticks, however this is less than best if I can also choose to eat it with a spoon.

Why must everything have a definition ? Will my definition mean anything to you ? If I tell you yummy means it touches my tongue & slides down my food pipe will it accomplish anything for you ?

I don't believe you. If this were your definition, then you must necessarily think motor oil is yummy. Yummy means that there are things you would rather eat and things you would rather not eat, all things being equal. Those things which you call yummy, (and there may be a great many) you would prefer to eat. Those things which you call not-yummy you would prefer not to eat. Yummy is a value judgment. It doesn't mean that yummy things are yummy to the universe, it means they are yummy to you.
You don't have to call the things you'd rather not eat 'yucky,' but some people do, therefore yucky exists. You simply dislike using such a word to label the feeling that you share with everyone else.

Things won't have value even because of humans. In the first place, things already don't have a value. The value is perceived, with or without humans, the things still have no value. It would be better to say 'things are perceived to have a value by humans."

Ok, I concede. Things are perceived to have value by humans. Nobody but humans are capable of eliminating this fact. If anyone besides the human perceiving the value eliminates this possibility, the human perceiving the value loses his free will. To put it simply, (and I'm sure you'll agree,) You can't physically force someone to not suffer. Not only is it impossible for humans, it would contradict omnibenevolence if God were to do it.

Where ? In my mind ? Yours ? The moment we stopped discussing about it, this concept disappears. Have it ever existed ? Did it get 'invented' everytime we discuss about it ? Or is it always 'here' waiting for us to 'discover' it everytime we discuss about it ?

No. And I agree. The moment we stop discussing value judgments, (or stop making them, to be precise) they disappear. The point is that everyone is always making value judgments on some level. This is how we decide what to choose at any given time. These cannot be eliminated by an omnipotent being who desires free will, even if we decide that actual value doesn't exist in nature.

The problem is, it don't exist at all. Difference alone does not make your arguement stand. Difference is just different.

It doesn't matter if it exists materially. If it is perceived to exist, then it can affect emotions. As long as it affects a persons emotions, it must be treated as a real thing. Hallucinations don't materially "exist," yet people have them, therefore it is rational to discuss them as actually existing phenomena of the human mind.

Self-interest.

And how do humans develop self-interest? Isn't it through value judgment? This is better for me than that? It doesn't matter if it is a true perception, isn't it the case? If I perceive something is better, won't my emotions and my actions reflect this? How can an omnibenevolent God preclude my emotions and by doing so, my freedom to act on on them, without undermining my freedom to act? Please don't say, "If He's omnipotent, he can do anything."

There's no problem with my logic. Do not underestimate the difference cultural difference can do to your perceived open-mindedness. There are some things you just can't grasp a logic with unless you're born & being inculcate with the particular culture. You must look beyond whatever that you've ever learn & think in terms of our basic human-ness.

Be careful. That almost sounds racist. Because I'm born in a different culture, am I somehow intellectually incapable of understanding yours? Do you think logic is a fluid thing that works differently in other countries? All things are either logical or they're not. I'm not in possession of absolute logic. I fail to be logical sometimes. Therefore I have an open mind. One or both of us is wrong. Please explain to me how your beliefs are logical and how I'm wrong. So far, all logic points me away from the possibility that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God could ever eliminate any evil. If you can't logically explain how the problem of evil applies to the God of the bible, I can only assume that you don't believe what you believe because it is based on reason. You believe on blind faith.

Since all can eliminate it just by exerting their will, I'm afraid your refutation is staring you back in the face. Existing in the mind doesn't mean existing in the world. How do you know that the poor & hungry are suffering ? For all you know, they may be happier then you.

If they are happier than me, then I'm less than maximumly happy, right? If suffering is a less than absolutely happy, then it is your refutation that has backfired. You've just admitted suffering exists (by the definition of a "less than best" feeling) by implying that any human being can be happier than another. If someone is happier than me (the poor and hungry in your analogy,) then I am the one suffering, right? Transposing the suffering won't eliminate it. Yes, I can prevent myself from suffering. No one else including God can prevent me from suffering. I can because I have free will. No one else including God can because I have free will.

A state of the mind, not, everybody is equal. Viewing all things as equal. As in all things have no value. You would treat everyone the same, everything the same, every matter the same etc... You don't have a different definition of value from me, it's just that I see it as an illusion while you see it as solid as a rock.

I don't see it as a solid rock. I already admitted it exists in the mind. You are assuming a strawman, I think, because you are expecting to argue against a preconceived idea that you know is wrong, instead of just looking at my argument as it stands. (Uh oh! A preconceived idea! Your expectations are showing. ) Value absolutely exists in the human mind. Value exists in the same way that hallucinations exist. Try telling a paranoid schizophrenic that his hallucinations don't exist. They may not be material things, but they exist. It is scientifically possible to hallucinate, and it is scientifically possible to judge value. It is, in fact, scientifically impossible to refrain from judging value. All you can do is relabel what you are doing and shy away from calling it value judgment. If value judgment carries a negative connotation to you (itself a value judgment) then you don't have to call it that, but the phenomena that "value judgment" is classicly used to label, scientifically exists in all life forms. Yummy and yucky are both labels for things that absolutely exist in reality, so long as there are things that are able to perceive them.

kctan

Don't need.

Yes there is still a choice even though it didn't cause any discomfort. A choice is for you to choose, either chopsticks, fork & spoon or your hands. I can definitely use either & my choice will not cause me discomfort. Are you going to say that my choice isn't a choice ?

That's what you think & that's what you limit he/she/it's ability to. You are limiting it's ability based upon your logic which may or may not be applicable to he/she/it. Remember the key here is you are the one limiting it's abiliy based upon your limited view of what ever is possible out there. Can an omnipotent being create a square which is round ? Of course he/she/it can. Depends on what dimensional view you're looking at the round square is one possibility.

This is what you think. In your perspective, we'll be likened to robots with no 'freewill' but the truth is if we are programmed to 'love' absolutely everything no matter what, it means we are free to choose whatever we fancy much like what we are doing now. The only difference is that there's no 'suffering'. If someone were to poke you in the stomach , you'll just smile at the person. That's all. Of course you'll view it as strange & disconcerting but it's only because of your main POV that's making it strange & disconcerting to you.

All the choices we make are the same. It's just that certain choices that we make we perceived to have a value added to it thus felt as though this particular choice is much more special then all the choices we are making at every minute of our life.

Have you think about the choice of choosing to reply in a certain way then end up writing out a totally different reply ? Have you think of the choice you've make by using an "a" rather then "the" in a sentence ?

You can argue that your unconscious thought process have already made a valued choice in choosing an "a" over the "the" but is that really the case ?

Does such a choosing process even involves value at all ? Are you going to say that this does not qualify as a 'choice' ?

That's what you think, I can eat cereal with a pair of chopsticks as well as you can use a spoon. The difference here is I grew up eating using chopsticks. I don't think you do. See the cultural difference now ? The less than best does not apply to me in this case & they all serve the same function to me as well. Now what are you going to say about that ? Practise make prefect ? What about comparing using your hands to using the spoon for cereal ?

Why are you using your definition of yummy on me ? Havn't I told you that it won't do you no good ?

What I'm interested in here is not to label things which I shared with everyone else, what I'm trying to show you is that we all have different feeling as to different kind of thingies. All these kinds of feelings are valid but it only exist in each & everyone of us alone. The feeling exist in us but it does not exist by itself in the world. The yucky feeling also don't meant that you'll be suffering just because it's yucky.

Sorry, wrong again. It's quite possible to eliminate this feeling once we isolate out what give us happiness & what brings us sadness. There are already drugs on the shelf which are used to combat depression & we can physically force these someones to not suffer & this does not turn them into mindless robots too. Yes an omnipotent being can eliminate all suffering. We just need to be born with something less that's all. Surprise isn't it ?

On some level. That's the key. We are always making choices so how do you distinguish whether the choice you are making is one with value or not ? Did you lose your free will at all when making these valueless choices ? If you never lose your free will making these valueless choices how can you lose them if an omnipotent being make all choices valueless for you ?

Existing phenomena of the human mind. Take away the mind & it's gone right ?

Not value judgement. What is best for one as an individual. No value here just raw survival of the fittest. Have you seen a lion forgoing a rabbit to chase a deer ? You don't care as long as it's food, you'll eat, no yummy nor yucky. Do you see a lion without freedom to act what it will ? Taking out your emotions doesn't mean you'll become a robot or zombie, you'll still have freedom to act on what you'll.

Yes it may sound racist but that's just how it is. Logic is not a fluid thing that works differently. It's how one is brought up that will limit ones logical thinking. Yes, the thing here is limitation brought about by how you're influence from young. Do you think an african bushman will be able to comprehend what we are discussing even in his/her own language ? Do you think what we are discussing about will sound logical to him/her ? Why bring the god of the bible here ? We are talking about an omnipotent, omnibenevolence being aren't we ? Why must we limit such a being to someone else's imagination ?


You perceived me to be happier then you. I'm as happy as you.

No, you just choose to be suffering. I'm not happier than you. We have the same degree of happiness, only thing is you chose to suffer.

No. You can be as happy as they are. When they are happy it doesn't mean you're suffering.

We can prevent you from suffering now. Only thing is are you willing ? In the future , we can do it even if you're unwilling.

I can refrain from judging values if I want to. Does that mean it's not scientifically impossible to refrain from judging values ? BTW care to provide sources for your scientifically possible to judge value statement & scientifically impossible to refrain from judging value statement ? CAT scans & observing how our brain waves move about ? How do you know that we are actually judging values & not due to different chemicals interacting in our brain causing the brain waves to change ?

long winded fool

Are you going to say that my choices are all equal in value? (And if they had no value, they would then necessarily be equal.) You would be wrong because I cannot use chopsticks to eat cereal, therefore the choice to use a spoon is of superior value for me than the choice to use chopsticks. Therefore, I will choose the spoon because I am an animal and I must judge between better for me and worse, just as you do.

That's what you think & that's what you limit he/she/it's ability to. You are limiting it's ability based upon your logic which may or may not be applicable to he/she/it. Remember the key here is you are the one limiting it's abiliy based upon your limited view of what ever is possible out there. Can an omnipotent being create a square which is round ? Of course he/she/it can. Depends on what dimensional view you're looking at the round square is one possibility.

Incapable of being limited (i.e. incapable of being something less than unlimited) is not a limitation. To say that omnipotence is limited only by itself is to say that omnipotence must be unlimited.

This is what you think. In your perspective, we'll be likened to robots with no 'freewill' but the truth is if we are programmed to 'love' absolutely everything no matter what, it means we are free to choose whatever we fancy...

Impossible! We can never fancy anything because absolutely nothing in the universe can be outside our maximum, favorite fancy. (It sounds alot nicer than it actually would be.) Our choices must be for absolutely everything all at the same time, otherwise we are not programed to love everything equally. I cannot choose between A and B without preferring one over the other. If A and B are equivalent, then no choice has been made. Two paths can lead to the same destination and still be a choice. Two paths cannot be indistinguishable and be a choice. If they are distingushable as separate paths, a value judgment must be made to choose one. "Which do I prefer, the one on the right, or the one on the left?" Once you choose, it is because you have deemed one of them to be better than the other in some way, even if it is just because you felt like going right today. Once you make the decision, you then are deeming the right path ever so slightly superior to the left. It is because of the fact that ever so slightly inferior exists, that choice exists. Call this "preference." Preference cannot be eliminated without making the paths indistinguishable and thereby making choice undefined.

All the choices we make are the same. It's just that certain choices that we make we perceived to have a value added to it thus felt as though this particular choice is much more special then all the choices we are making at every minute of our life.

I agree entirely. This fact cannot be eliminated by God without eliminating choice.

You can argue that your unconscious thought process have already made a valued choice in choosing an "a" over the "the" but is that really the case?

It doesn't matter. As long as its percieved, it exists, just like an hallucination. Since people have them, they exist. I can't sense them. I can only be told about them by someone who does. In the same way, I cannot sense someone elses value, but I can be told about it. Someone else cannot sense my value or my hallucinations, but they exist because I can tell people about them.

Does such a choosing process even involves value at all ? Are you going to say that this does not qualify as a 'choice' ?

What word would you prefer me to use instead of value? Preference? Desire? Favorite? Opinion? "Ultimately just as good as everything else BUT I'd rather have A than B at the moment?" These are all fine and are all of them value judgments.

That's what you think, I can eat cereal with a pair of chopsticks as well as you can use a spoon. The difference here is I grew up eating using chopsticks. I don't think you do. See the cultural difference now ? The less than best does not apply to me in this case & they all serve the same function to me as well. Now what are you going to say about that ? Practise make prefect ? What about comparing using your hands to using the spoon for cereal ?

So just give me a case when less than best applies to you and then my argument will stand. How about the choice between eating an egg or eating a fuel filter? Which is best and which is less than best? These are your only two choices now. Which has more value, or if you prefer, which would you simply rather eat? These questions are synonymous my friend.

Why are you using your definition of yummy on me ? Havn't I told you that it won't do you no good ?

I'm not! I'm using yours! You said yummy means "it touches my tongue & slides down my food pipe." Therefore castor oil is yummy. If it is not then you are being dishonest with yourself when you define yummy. You know that yummy means, among other thigns, not-yucky. For a thing to be yummy, not-yummy must exist for you. If it does not, then you cannot call anything yummy. Replace "yummy" with any other thing and the argument stands just as well. For good to exist, bad must exist. For happiness to exist, sad must exist. You must be aware of all of the last of these things to be aware of the first. You don't have to call your own feelings any of these things, but you must be aware of them and know how they feel in comparison to the feelings you do choose to acknowledge.

What I'm interested in here is not to label things which I shared with everyone else, what I'm trying to show you is that we all have different feeling as to different kind of thingies. All these kinds of feelings are valid but it only exist in each & everyone of us alone. The feeling exist in us but it does not exist by itself in the world. The yucky feeling also don't meant that you'll be suffering just because it's yucky.

Ok. We all have different feelings. Lets not label them. God cannot remove our feelings without compromising our free will. If he removes some, why should he not remove others? Since all feelings are equally valid, there is no reason to ask him to remove some and not all of them, unless some of them are actually less good than others.

Sorry, wrong again. It's quite possible to eliminate this feeling once we isolate out what give us happiness & what brings us sadness. There are already drugs on the shelf which are used to combat depression & we can physically force these someones to not suffer & this does not turn them into mindless robots too. Yes an omnipotent being can eliminate all suffering. We just need to be born with something less that's all. Surprise isn't it ?

How can an omnipotent being eliminate suffering if suffering doesn't exist in the first place? Aren't all feelings equally valid? In the context you're using, doesn't this mean they all have equal value? Doesn't that mean they all must feel the same? If any feeling feels less good than another, then it is of less value to me than the more good feeling, right?

On some level. That's the key. We are always making choices so how do you distinguish whether the choice you are making is one with value or not ? Did you lose your free will at all when making these valueless choices ? If you never lose your free will making these valueless choices how can you lose them if an omnipotent being make all choices valueless for you ?

If value exists, then I distinguish value by how the choice makes me feel. Bad or Good. If value doesn't exist, then there is no need to distinguish whether my choice has value or not, because it can't. All choices make me feel exactly the same. If this were the case, then I would never make any choice and neither would you. Choice cannot be perceived without some difference in value. Would you rather eat pork or pork? It's your pick. Even this has value because there is a "left" pork and a "right" pork. Which would you rather choose and why? Answer these and you have your value judgment. It doesn't need to be profound or to be an escape from suffering. As long as you have a choice, you are judging some value.

Existing phenomena of the human mind. Take away the mind & it's gone right ?

Right! I agree with this one hundred percent.

Not value judgement. What is best for one as an individual. No value here just raw survival of the fittest. Have you seen a lion forgoing a rabbit to chase a deer ? You don't care as long as it's food, you'll eat, no yummy nor yucky. Do you see a lion without freedom to act what it will ? Taking out your emotions doesn't mean you'll become a robot or zombie, you'll still have freedom to act on what you'll.

Now you're really stretching. What is best for one as an individual is value judgment. Survival of the fittest cannot exist without value judgment because that's all it is. The lion jugdes the rabbit as of higher value than the deer, because the rabbit is in his sights and the deer is not. By choosing the rabbit, he has made a value judgment. By choosing the deer he has made a value judgment. The lion is not the king of value judgment. It isn't universal, but it is a value judgment, therefore value exists.

And how would you choose what you will without an emotion? Does "will" exist separate from emotion? If so, what is it? How do I know what I "will" or "would not?" How is the choice made if not by how it makes you feel?

Yes it may sound racist but that's just how it is. Logic is not a fluid thing that works differently. It's how one is brought up that will limit ones logical thinking. Yes, the thing here is limitation brought about by how you're influence from young. Do you think an african bushman will be able to comprehend what we are discussing even in his/her own language ? Do you think what we are discussing about will sound logical to him/her ? Why bring the god of the bible here ? We are talking about an omnipotent, omnibenevolence being aren't we ? Why must we limit such a being to someone else's imagination ?

I'm afraid I must disagree. "African bushmen" aren't inferior thinkers than the people of your culture. There are intelligent men and women in every culture. There are ignorant men and women in every culture. It's nice that you have so much pride in your homeland, but the truth of the matter is that the average person in your culture is just as ignorant from a critical thinking standpoint as the average person in America and vice versa. You know more about your culture, I know more about mine, African bushmen know more about theirs. We are all equally capable of learning about each others'.

This is another example of you making value judgments. Granted, you aren't saying people of western cultures are bad or good, you're saying they're less valuable at understanding your beliefs as folks from your own culture. Therefore, when discussing particularly intricate areas of your beliefs with someone, you will choose the eastern idividual who has higher value for the particular discussion than a westerner who does not understand even the elementary parts of your beliefs. This is a value judgment and you make similar ones all day every single day,

You perceived me to be happier then you. I'm as happy as you.

So then when you said: "How do you know that the poor & hungry are suffering ? For all you know, they may be happier then you," were you purposely being deceptive or did you just momentarily forget your own beliefs? How can anyone ever be happier than me if they are always as happy as me?

No, you just choose to be suffering. I'm not happier than you. We have the same degree of happiness, only thing is you chose to suffer.

But you said the poor and hungry could be happier than me. If this is the case, then there is something less than absolutely happy, in which case I can label it anything I want, including "suffering."

No. You can be as happy as they are. When they are happy it doesn't mean you're suffering.

When I am unhappy it doesn't mean I'm suffering either. The point is that unhappiness exists. Would you agree to this?

I can refrain from judging values if I want to. Does that mean it's not scientifically impossible to refrain from judging values ? BTW care to provide sources for your scientifically possible to judge value statement & scientifically impossible to refrain from judging value statement ? CAT scans & observing how our brain waves move about ? How do you know that we are actually judging values & not due to different chemicals interacting in our brain causing the brain waves to change ?

It is still scientifically impossible because you can't refrain from judging value, even if you refrian from calling your value judgments value judgments. Every single decision you make is based on the weighing of value and the choice is always for the thing you perceive to have higher value. Everything you've done today has been what you perceived to have been the highest value for you at the moment. All life forms judge value. Male animals choose to mate with female animals because they perceive the females as having higher value for mating than males. OR, male humans choose to mate with other males because they perceive other males as having higher value for mating than females. The perceived values aren't universal for everyone regardless of individual circumstances. They are perceived values and exist in absolutely everyone's individual choices.

kctan

Why did it revert back to you again ? Remember a view goes both ways. It may pose to have a value to you but what about me ? To me all 3 choices are as equal as they can get. So how ?

Omnipotence is unlimited. If you wish to nitpick on the 'relatively' then go ahead.

Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence

Main Entry: 1al·mighty
Pronunciation: ol-'mI-tE
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ealmihtig, from eall all + mihtig mighty
Date: before 12th century
1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all <Almighty God>
2 : relatively unlimited in power
3 : great in magnitude or seriousness

That's what you think.

I don't mind eating either. I have made my choice, so what now ?

By my definition castor oil is yummy.

This part is your definition for my yummy. My definition can only be mine if it bears just what I said it is. You don't need the opposite to recognise your own feelings. One can be happy without knowing sadness while one can be sad without knowing happiness. It's all in how one interpretes one's feeling to another or how another interpretes one's feelings. If by my description it bares the likeness to what you feel as happiness then I'm happy in your definition. Do I have to feel sadness in order to know what's it's like to be happy in your sense ?

This is in regards to your context. For you, suffering is real & in existence therefore you need a god to remove it for you. For me suffering is an illusion which can be vanquished with a thought just like all other feelings. For me, feelings are all the same whatever I show on the surface is of no importance to me but the same cannot be said for those trying to interprete how I'm feeling at the moment.

You havn't state what kind of value are there between the left pork & right pork. Is the value 'left' & 'right' ? If I were to choose left without a reason can you accept my choice ? Are you going to scream 'left' is a preferred value to me ? Is 'left' really a value or are you just trying to tickle my funny bone ? A judgement can be make without any value attached. Why are you so obsessed with attaching value to judgements ? Must one always explain why one makes a particular choice ? Ever heard of "I donno, I just did it, that's all" ?

The 'value' should be food. Both animals are in sight. So why did the lion still go after the rabbit instead of the deer ? Bad value maker or simply don't care as long as it's food ? Use occam's razor. Food is food why need to add 'value' to food ?

A choice can still be made regardless of feel. How else do you choose between using your right or left hand when either hand can do the same job ? Eg. picking up an object. Not every choice will warrant an emotional attachment. It's called making a choice with reason rather then emotion.

Capable doesn't mean you'll understand fully what they are trying to convey. Yes we can learn fully but this does mean that you think the same way as they do. Now the problem is are you capable of doing that ? In the end we are still limited by our culture up to a certain degree in what we'll accept & what we'll not. A stay of a decade or 2 may help I suppose but that still depends on how much you're willing to embrace this new culture.

Not really. The difference here is that you see everything as value added while I don't. You perceived that I value an easterner more as he/she could understand me easier but as you've pointed out above, an easterner may not understand me as much as you as there may still be difference in our POVs in that he/she may regard value as something which is as real as you think it is. The crux here is that we must be of similar POV in the first place to tick while it may take sometime for us to come to terms with our different POVs. Of course by being an easterner the possibility of us having similar POV is greater since my POV is based upon eastern philosophies.

In your context remember ? People can be happier then you in your context. In my view, all can achieve the same state of happiness.

No. For you unhappiness exists. For me, no.

This is your POV remember. You ain't making an effort to understand my POV. This is the crux of it all. You perceived that every decision I made must come with an explaination while I tell you that it does not. As long as I make any decision without a reason, your POV does not stand while any decision I made with a reason reinforces it. This is pretty easy to understand as we both agree that values are perceived.

Thus it shouldn't be this hard for you to further deduce that we can further throw this perceived value away & do things as they come by without weighing the options. Of course such a course of action in a world perceived to have value would be quite foolhardy. As it would let others perceived that we are nuts or highly 'eccentric' or 'weird'. It still can be done right ?

So are you open minded enough to embrace this belief into your mind ? Try it for some things which you perceived to have lots of value to you & see the difference for yourself.

Unconditioned happiness is something which could change one quite drastically. If anyone were to ask you why you're always happy or cheerful you can always ask them back "why shouldn't I be happy or cheerful ?" with a smile of course. Want to perceive a value in it ? Feel free as well.