rainbow walking

]
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.

rw: Hi again mosaic. Say, don't you have some unfinished business with my last response to your previous post? I basically covered all of the objections you've raised in this post, in that reply. If there's something I missed or you feel needs clarifying it would be helpful and economical of you to point those things out rather than submit an entirely new post saying basically the same thing that I've already responded to...don't you think? I also don't see any ethereal reasoning in my replies.

mosaic: 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.

rw: You seem to have misunderstood what I mean by man's "greatest good". I do not hold that man will reach a state where he is never tempted to choose premeditated courses of action that others would likely describe as evil. So the remainder of your objections on this basis are non sequitur.

mosaic: 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.


rw: As I said before knowledge of evil doesn't always assure us of making a good choice. Prisons are full of people who knew their actions were illegal and evil but this knowledge did not prevent them from mistakenly believing they could "get away" with the crime.

mosaic: 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.

rw: If this were all it took Mosaic, why hasn't man already reached a state of moral perfection? We've pretty much defined the majority of acts that could be classified as "evil" and we've even established legality on that basis, so why does man still struggle with crime?

mosaic: 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.

rw: See above...knowledge alone doesn't assure moral choice.



mosiac: 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.

rw: Nothing can be restrained to a man determined enough to commit a premeditated act of evil. So allowance is irrelevant. Our systems of justice, police and law enforcement is rarely able to prevent crime but is usually left reacting to it "after-the-fact. That man has taken the measures to legislate against and enforce against such behavior in response to it is a positive step in the right direction. When man commits more of his science towards understanding the criminal mind, more positive progress will be gained.

mosaic: 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.


rw: Then your proposition undermines all the good man has accomplished in reaction to it. All pain has a cause and is not meaningless.

mosaic: And not then extend this to mean the suffering exists for that very reason.

rw: You begin by conceding the thesis anti-thesis as a valid metaphysical vehicle of explanation for the relationship between good and evil but then you retreat to the claim that the consequences are meaningless. I am not postulating that suffering exists for that reason either, only that it has that effect on man in the aggregate. Each cause of suffering has an explanation that stands alone independant of the metaphysical connection between evil and man's progress. But taken in the aggregate you can certainly see a logical connection.

mosaic: 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.


rw: That we find trees beautiful motivates us to protect them. That we find suffering despicable motivates us to alleviate its causes.

mosaic: Human ignorance is a sufficient explantion.

rw: Not always. Some causes of suffering have nothing to do with human acts at all.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I don't appreciate this. No one on this thread finds your argument at all convincing, so you're making a pretty strong assertion when you claim I'm embarrassing myself. And it's really unprofessional.

Huh? That's been presupposed the whole time. It follows directly from moral perfection. Why would I be "adding" this attribute if I started talking about it explicitly?

Why? Explain.

Then you don't understand what perfection is. You think that even if it's possible to imagine something more perfect than X, X might still be perfect. No one will think that's at all convincing. Maybe you should give us a decision procedure for moral perfection.

Read #3 again. It starts out with an antecedent that literally means we should suppose it were possible and derive what follows. Now answer my actual question, please.

Huh? Now you're contradicting your answer to #3. Your answer to #3 was that it's impossible to prevent an event by implanted knowledge, and when I actually ask the question for which that would be an answer, you say it is logically possible.

This is wildly dubious. You think that an essential property of humans is that no one convinces them not to scald themselves. Again, no one will agree with that, especially because people get convinced not to scald themselves all the time, such that they never will (on purpose, at least). I'm one of them. Apparently, I'm not human.

Please be careful with your terminology. "A state of illogic" is not a philosophical term of art, so I don't know what you mean. Do you mean a logically contradictory state of affairs?

rainbow walking

alix: 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.

rw: How much more substantive do my responses need to be? I find that accusation odd coming from someone who has now apparently abandoned the defense of his own line of reasoning, electing instead to sling unfounded accusations in lieu of a reasoned reply.

alix: You have begun to resort almost entirely to deliberate misunderstanding,

rw: How do you propose to prove I've deliberately misunderstood something? Take me to an example of this if you can find one. I won't deny that I may have unintentionally misunderstood something you've argued, but I doubt it. Your ability to articulate your position is sufficiently demonstrtated such that I have had no problem comprehending your position.

alix: snide comments,


rw: You mean the subtle sarcasm?

alix: ad hominems, profanity, and unsupported assertions.

rw: I'm not aware of using any ad hominems in my replies to you. Could you direct me to them? Profanity? The only word I frequently use that might fit this accusation is the word "bullshit". How does my use of this word hinder your responding to my questioning of your examples? Unsupported assertions is such a loosely strung term, especially when everyone has a different idea of what is required to support any specific assertion. Still, if I'm really guilty of all these infractions, (which I'm not), shouldn't this make your ability to support your position easier?

alix: 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.

rw: Really? But I'm not the one avoiding the questions here Alix, so one of us is glaringly struggling with the pressures inherent in robust criticisms. If you re-read my responses to every poster in this thread you'll find I've made a consistent and sincere effort to respond to every challenge...in spite of having to do so while being over a thousand miles from home and dependant on the public library for access to this forum. I think you have sadly under-estimated my ability to defend my argument and over-estimated your own abilities to defeat it.

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

rw: You mean this is your method of slipping out of the noose you talked yourself into earlier, of avoiding the necessity of defending your example by attempting to sidetrack the discussion back over old ground covered pages back. At least Thomas was honest and declared his intention to step back and reassess his position.

alix: 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:

rw: I know what I requested and what you submitted. I know what the problem is and who is struggling with it, and why we are not now discussing my extremely incisive queries that expose the Problem with it.

alix: 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.

rw: Yea, I'm aware of what you offered, and have yet to support. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you ain't omni-max so your say-so ain't the gospel around these parts. You are required to support and or defend your examples, explanations and position if you intend to make any solid progress in discussions of this kind.

alix: 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 –

rw: uh...excuse me, but wasn't it you what declared these creatures to be unconscious of their virtue?

alix: 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’).

rw: I see, non sequitur you say...A being who was created without a history into a state of existence where he always "freely" chooses the right, (never mind how he knows the difference between right and wrong), and is thus "virtuous" 100% of the time, but is unconscious of his own virtue. Never mind that virtue requires expression under fire and not just external assignment, but here we have a world where no wrong has ever been chosen or comitted, so these creatures basically have no wrong to choose from. Out goes the "freely" aspect of their existence when they've been divinely restricted from an entire range of choices. But the restriction is self generating. Since no one in this world has ever chosen wrongly, no wrong exists to choose from. In such a world, the concept of wrong couldn't possibly exist, so the concept of right is equally as meaningless.

Since he was created into this state of affairs all such right and wrong would have to have been established by a god and again, this creature is nothing but a robot blindly following the moral assignments forced upon him. Could such a being freely choose to do wrong? Not according to Alix. This creature is not free to choose wrong...only right. But is this creature then really free to choose anything? The right has been chosen for him, and the wrong has been restricted from him, so what's left for him to do?


I could go on and on exposing all the glaring absurdities and affronts to logic inherent in this example, but is it really necessary? I'm quite willing, mind you, to explore every ludicrous twist and turn but apparently alix, having already sensed his imminent doom, has elected to launch his own inquisition based on frivilous charges...all designed to distract us from the obvious illogic of his example that he has no intention of defending.

alix: Perhaps the clearest example of your difficulties lies in the following statement:

rw: No history and no consciousness of being “right” sounds like a mighty illogical state of affairs to me


alix: 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.

rw: Nothing in your imagination automatically renders your assertions logical Alix, especially when subjected to the razor sharp criticisms of a reasoned mind. Here, let me state it for you boldly and in your face Alix...nothing in such a world is LOGICAL and is, in fact, logically impossible. I defy you to prove otherwise.

alix: 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.

rw: I continue to assert it Alix, what do you intend to do, besides whine about it? Prove me wrong.

alix: Regrettably, you have never demonstrated this to be true; instead you have attempted the argument ad nauseum, a choice fraught with difficulty.

rw: Now you are just plain resorting to lies. My incisive questions, which you've gone overboard to avoid, are my method of proving you wrong. I am well within my rights to ask revealing questions of my opponent to expose his absurdities. It's a common tactic and someone who's so pumped up about his own intellect should know that.

alix; 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.

rw: And there we have it folks...the final word of a great thinker. Unable to resist the logic of a simple man, he must resort to name calling, like a spoiled child.

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

rw: Fine, take your little balls and go home.



alix: 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:

rw: Oh, you mean there was one question you felt skillfull enough to attempt a response to?



alix: 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.

rw: And if the girl doesn't think this is right? Or one of the men don't? But wait, it's up to god to tell them what is right in this situation...right? Since they were created with automatic knowledge of right choices then we can assume that this god has esteemed a threesome to be right...and monagomous relationships are...? And suppose the girl chooses one over the other? The one rejected, will he feel any pain? If not, how has your world resolved the problem of pain? What's the RIGHT way to deal with his pain?

Alix, your example fails miserably...and what's worse...you know it and don't have the integrity to admit it.

rainbow walking

thomas: Huh? That's been presupposed the whole time. It follows directly from moral perfection. Why would I be "adding" this attribute if I started talking about it explicitly?

rw: And that's the problem. Your argument proceeds on an assumption/presupposition. There is nothing in omni-benevolence that supports this assumption. As I have argued all along an omni-benevolence based on man securing his own, non-interventionistic, greater good renders the assumption even less appealing.



thomas: Why? Explain

rw: A morally perfect, omni-benevolent being could have no association with anything immoral...



thomas: Then you don't understand what perfection is. You think that even if it's possible to imagine something more perfect than X, X might still be perfect. No one will think that's at all convincing. Maybe you should give us a decision procedure for moral perfection.

rw: Nothing in your statement above addresses perfection. "Morally better" is not equivalent to moral perfection. And my disagreement wasn't based on what can be imagined but on the conclusion of non-existence based on an imagined morally better being. I can imagine virtually anything but that doesn't make it consistent to the ascribed attributes. Your imagined morally better being is also based on an assumption that such a being would do something as opposed to nothing. You continue to try and support this assumption based on what man aught to, or would do.

thomas: Read #3 again. It starts out with an antecedent that literally means we should suppose it were possible and derive what follows. Now answer my actual question, please.

rw: Even if it were possible, (which it isn't), my answer would not change. The world would not be a better place. There are so many ways a child can be accidentally burned, for instance, if her house caught on fire during the night while she slept. This would constitute accidental burning. Were such knowledge implanted in a child I can imagine children perishing from exhaustion from being unable to sleep at night due to this implanted knowledge. I can imagine children sneaking outside to sleep in their yard or parents car and being susceptible to kidnapping or other harmful agents while they slept. I can imagine children perishing from starvation refusing to eat any hot food because of this implantation driving them away from any potential accident involving burning. I can imagine children fearing to go outside in the summer due to the possible painful effects of sunburn.



thomas: Huh? Now you're contradicting your answer to #3. Your answer to #3 was that it's impossible to prevent an event by implanted knowledge, and when I actually ask the question for which that would be an answer, you say it is logically possible.

rw: Uh...no, the terms of #4 are different than #3. Nothing in #4 pertains to the greater good of man or the world being a better place. I agree that it is logically possible but I do not agree that it would lead to a logical state of affairs. Some objections that come to mind are

1. The abrogation of man's responsibility for his children, leading to more irresponsible parents.

2. Tampering with a childs desire is to tamper with its inquisitive nature.

3. Tamper with man's nature and you negate his ability to establish his own limitations.

4. An intelligent child may figure out that an extraneous force is dictating his desires and start testing the limits of that force by intentionally placing himself in danger.


thomas: This is wildly dubious. You think that an essential property of humans is that no one convinces them not to scald themselves.


rw: Yes, no one outside of other men, that is. Let a supernatural force begin to "convince" man not to do certain things and man no longer shoulders any responsibility for the things he does.

thomas: Again, no one will agree with that, especially because people get convinced not to scald themselves all the time,


rw: Yes, they do...by other people. Know of anyone who's been convinced of this by a supernatural intervening force?

thomas: such that they never will (on purpose, at least). I'm one of them. Apparently, I'm not human.

rw: You were convinced by god not to scald yourself? Would you still be an atheist, (assuming you are), had you been convinced of this by a god? How different would your life be as a theist?



thomas: Please be careful with your terminology. "A state of illogic" is not a philosophical term of art, so I don't know what you mean. Do you mean a logically contradictory state of affairs?

rw: A state of illogic, an illogical state...a logically contradictory state of affairs.

Koyaanisqatsi

"Right" as in "moral;" "incapable of performing an immoral act."

The word "choices" is a fallacy when one posits an omnimax creator/designer. Ultimately, there can be no choice involved if the game is rigged toward a particular outcome, which is the axiomatically the case when one posits an omnimax creator/designer.

Man doesn't and that's the point.

So? Our knowledge would be entirely irrelevant, since we would simply act in a "righteous" manner. The universe could still be set up exactly as it is now, with earthquakes and bee stings and crib death and all manner of natural disasters and hardships normally attributed by theists to "acts of god" and the like and we could still navigate through all of them in a perfectly moral manner since that is the way we were designed.

A Mac computer runs a Mac Operating System. What difference would it make to the Mac computer whether or not there were also PC operating systems or the knowledge that it was a Mac as opposed to a Commodore 64?

I run a "human" operating system. What difference does it make to me that there are also "chimpanzee" operating systems; or "ostrich" operating systems; etc., etc., etc.., all with differing "morality programs" running?

To an omnimax god, we are computers; we are robots. It is logically impossible to avoid this when positing an omnimax god, including the fallacy of free will (or just "will" if you don't want to get into the "free" part).

Again, that's my point. An omnimax god wouldn't bother doing such a thing, it would simply create us incapable of acting immorally if that were its desire.

Your supposition, however, is that the desire is not to simply create beings incapable of behaving immorally, rather to create an environment that shapes humans towards eventually acting more and more moral of their own choice, yet never achieving an actual state of never behaving immorally again, which means, ultimately, nothing more than an eternal, dynamic stasis; wherein every generation behaves (in a moral sense) identically to every other generation.

This is why the conditions of your supposition are not valid. A dynamic state remains (ultimately) dynamic; which means a moral stasis and not progressively behaving more and more moral (a ridiculous goal for an omnimax being to begin with, since it would know instantly that humans will never achieve absolute immorality.

It's like saying you're half pregnant. Either you are a moral person or you are not. One instance of immorality and you can never call yourself a moral person, no matter how moral you behave after that one act of immorality. Unless you've factored in redemption somewhere that I didn't read?

Our exsitence is dynamic as you grant; we will never achieve a state of absolute moral behavior as a species. So let's say we are capable of ahieving a state of existence in which only a small fraction of our species commits immoral acts and the vast majority do not. So what? What victory or goal has been achieved that couldn't have been achieved by an omnimax god foreseeing this and altering our design from the beginning in order to obtain this end result right from the start?

There is no benefit to humanity and no benefit to an omnimax god for us to eventually become more and more moral toward one another, so long as there are those who will always act immorally.

Think of a town of one hundred people. In 1950, let's say, they all behaved completely immorally toward one another; every single one of them. By 1980, they have begun to act more moral toward one another (whatever the hell that means; let's let is slide for the sake of argument); and by 2000 ninety people behave completely morally toward one another and ten do not. Now let's factor in what we both agree on, which is that this number is as high as it can go; 90% acting only in a moral fashion toward one another and 10% acting only in an immoral fashion toward one another.

Then what? What is the cosmic significance of this and what is the human significance of this and why wouldn't an omnimax god know this to have been the outcome in the year 2000 and simply altered our design in the year 1950 to leapfrog those unnecessary fifty years?

That the 90% won't know that they are behaving in a moral fashion? Of course they will, since they have the 10% as a barometer.

That the 90% didn't earn such a gift? Who cares? God? The 90% won't know so it will be irrelevant to them. Do you know Russian? Is it relevant to your life in any way that you didn't learn Russian? If you were born in Russia would it be relevant to your life that you didn't earn the discipline of learning another language?

When positing an omnimax being you are no longer concerned with what humans do or don't do or earn or don't earn, unless that being has some sort of need or necessity for this erning or not earning, yes?

Again, think of a computer. Is it at all relevant to a programmer that the computer itself learns every bit of programming knowledge prior to it being able to run programs that incorporate the functionality of earlier programs? Does your computer need to learn (of its own accord; its own "will") what DOS was in its historical impact on the totality of computer programming language for it to run your word processing program (or the like)?

No. It would make absolutely no difference at all to an omnimax god (especially a non-interfering one) whether or not humans learn to be moral or whether or not humans were designed to be moral, if the goal is that humans behave morally. None.

Likewise, it would make absolutely no difference at all to humans if we learned to be moral or if we were designed to be moral. None.

If we were designed to be moral, then the question is moot since it would not apply to us from the very beginning, just as if the Russian language had never been created. If we lived in a world in which the Russian language had never been created, nobody would ever be capable of even asking about such a language since it would never have existed from the very beginning.

And we're once again back at the fallacy of an omnimax god creating a universe in which we have any kind of a choice. It's as if you're trying to posit a god that created everything but humans.

And how can you possibly quantify your question in order to make a valid premise? "Happiness" is the goal now?

I see an awful lot of happy faces on TV every Sunday. Blissfully, preternaturally happy faces in fact. Hell, I was happier living the lie of a god for years and I know my parents are still happy as a result of their faith and trust in god to "do such things for" them.

But whatever point your trying to make would likewise be moot if an omnimax god existed, since its omnimax attributes would mandate designing us in a manner in which we would never behave immorally, if that were its goal. This is just one of the reasons why an omnimax god can not logically exist.

I haven't been following Alix's posts (sorry Alix).

"Allowing?" See? Once again it's as if you are positing a god that creates everything but humans.

There is no "allowing" to an omnimax being; it knows all and creates all, supposedly. Inserting the word "allowing" is implying that god and men are somehow equals. It also contradicts omniscience, since, again, the very second it conceived of humans and the arena is the very second it knows what the outcome will be. It would be an entirely pointless exercise.

Consider this hypothetical exchange between myself and the god you are positing:

Enjoyable to be sure, but you see the point; namely, that there would be no point.

You are operating under the fallacy that people want to be "better" people, arrogantly assuming in the offing that there is an objective judge to what "better" entails. In case you haven't noticed, historically people have to be forced into being "better" people (i.e., into behaving "better" toward their fellow (wo)man). It is not an intrinsic quality to humanity; it is by necessety of survival, but even then the "good" rarely if ever win out over the"bad."

This is why we created laws and regulations and religions and police and military, etc., etc., etc.

Now, for you to assert that this is the result of a god "allowing" us choices in which we are forced to create laws in spite of ourselves, then you are asserting a god that did not also create man.

These things are only "important" in a homocentric conception of the universe; where humans are important of and by themselves for themselves.

So, again, why would this be desirable for a god to create? Especially when one considers all of the harm we have done to all of the other beings it allegedly created.

It it's only important to us, then no omnimax god created us since inherent in the concept of creation is purpose (or intent). If the intent was for us to become self-important, then it would know this would obtain the instant it thought of us and the entire act of creation would be utterly pointless.

It is logically impossible to posit an omnimax god.

Please stop flip-flopping like that. Posit an omnimax god and you necessarily must direct yourself to the logical contradictions of that omnimax god. Using words like "allow" are not allowed .

Either god created everything, or it created nothing and never existed.

No, you have asserted a generality from history that in no way reflects a moral progression as a whole as the result of an omnimax god creating the universe in order to achieve that goal.

False. An omnimax god could not and would not logically create the parameters you're talking about; that is why positing an omnimax god to account for our existence is untenable.

You're once again not talking about a moral "greatest good;" you are, at best, talking about a survivalist "greatest good." We can all live longer lives and eat synthetic foods and travel to other planets and still not be morally good poeple, since morality is not a thing that one buys in a corner shop. It is a state of subjectivity, not objectivity; a state of judgement from human to another and entirely dependent upon a myriad of circumstances that will always obtain no matter how long we live or where in the universe we live.

The second I as a moral person performs an immoral act (whatever that may be as determined subjectively by those who are judging me), I am no longer a moral person no matter how long I live or how many moral things I do after the fact. That one immoral act destroys my claim to being a "moral" person. That I act "more" moral is likewise irrelevant except to those around me, but, again, so what? Go back to the town of ninety moral people and ten immoral people. There's still immorality. That it is comparatively less immorality from some other time period is entirely irrelevant since it is not a matter of stasis and will shift. In a hundred years (the year 2100), the entire town could all be immoral again, even if they were all magically free of death.

Morality ins't a slab of concrete that never decays once you've laid the foundation. It is a subjective, every changing, ever dynamic concept that has nothing and can have nothing logically to do with an omnimax being due to the logical contradictions inherent in omnimax attributes.

So, there is no "whether a god" or not. No god. Only "blind" nature can account for our existence.

Do you mean, if a man could do this, what would he create?

You're missing the point (however good it was ). The journey was not and could not have been prescribed as part of a design by an omnimax god, due to the logical contradictions inherent in omnimax attributes.

But you consistently conflate "survivalist greatest good" with "moral greatest good," and that's not tenable. A doctor can cure AIDS and still be an immoral person.

A state of affairs that an omnimax god would instantly know would obtain the second it conceived of our existence and therefore would have skipped all of the interim suffering (due to omnibenevolence) and simply instantiated us to be in that state from the very beginning.

There is no logical reason it would not have done this, due to its omnimax attributes, which is why no such being could logically exist.

I agree, but it isn't a matter of "needing" a god, it is a matter of whether or not an omnimax god could (logically) exist. It could not. That's what PoE-type arguments demonstrate; the fact that an omnimax god could not logically exist.

Also agreed, but again, this has nothing to do with whether or not an omnimax being could logically exist to have created such parameters.

Again, you're missing the point (and flip-flopping again to a human perpspective). The argument assails an omnimax being creating the journey, not whether or not taking a walk just for the walk's sake can be (but not necessarily always is) fruitful.

The key phrase I used was "ultimately" and it is in regard to the omnimax attributes.

Not again, rain, please. We're discussing (at least I was here) the ultimate logical extensions of positing an omnimax being from an omnimax being's perspective.

Morally speaking?

Do any of those things have anything to do with my "morallity" or bettering myeself in a moral way?

Does that struggle ipso facto make me a "more moral" person? That's what you're positing.

Does being able to fly to L.A., for a perfect example, make me a more moral person? Or all of humanity a comparatively more moral race?

Is it a moral struggle?

It isn't. My questions have all been toward the morality quotient, not whether or not learning to fly is a "good" thing in a non-moral sense.

Unfortunately, your emphatic disagreement does not a valid premise make, my friend. Especially when the issue is morality and not whether or not we can find a cure for the common cold.

Does this ability ipso facto make you a more moral person, as it must for your premises and conditions to be valid? Or humanity in general? Careful, those are trick questions .

Morally speaking?

Where is the validity, rain? That's the only concern here. Where is the moral validity?

How would it be "illogical" and what exactly would man be deprived of, other than years of unnecessary suffering as a result of immoral actions?

If god created us incapable of behaving immorally (as god, of course, defined it), then no one would "miss" anything at all, anymore than you would "miss" the Russian language if it had never been created to begin with.

His moral "greatest good?"

Sorry, my friend, but your's is the one built of straw and flawed premises.

They have been to everyone but yourself.

To fit your restructuring of the original theist argument, of course.

Well, beside the fact that omnimax attributes defy logic, I'll do it for you right now.

An omnimax god creates humans from the beginning to be incapable of behaving immorally toward one another and their environment; so that "immoral thoughts" never cross their mind. There. So long as you don't assail the logic of an omnimax god, you now have a perfectly logical "altered" state of affairs that does not defy logic anymore than a Mac computer is designed to run Mac operating systems.

What?

So?

Once again, it cannot logicaly exist by divine fiat. Cannot. And that's the point.

Since it cannot logically exist by divine fiat, then your argument does not defeat PoE-type arguments, since they were designed to counter the theist assertion of omnimax gods.

It is not logically possible for an omnimax god to exist. A PoE-type argument demonstrates this. Your argument attempts to get around this by positing a non-interferring omnimax god. We have demonstrated why this too is a logical impossibility.

I am not. I am arguing that positing any kind of omnimax god is untenable.

It does if an omnimax god created that prison.

"PoE inspired world?" Again, the PoE argument demonstrates why positing an omnimax god is untenable. It's purpose it to destroy the illogical notion inherent in positing an omnimax god.

And we have demonstrated how that fails. All you would ultimately be doing is changing the name from "nature" to "god." Untenable and unnecessary.

PoE is in response to a theist's argument that asserts an ominimax being exists. It is a counter argument to a theist's claim.



Because it is a sound argument.

Rain, that simply isn't true. You have posited a contradictory, logically inconsistent argument, wherein an omnimax god indistinguishable from nature, created the universe and the evil within it to force mankind toward a moral greatest good.

All you've ultimately done is rename nature "god." Untenable and unnecessary.

What? How does it defeat theism?

Then it doesn't "defeat" theism since (a) there are, apparently "most liberal brands" and (b) it is logically impossible for an omnimax god to have created the universe in a particular fashion so as to result in a particular outcome and still be considered "non-interfering." Even if it interfered just once, it would still be an "interfering god."

Good, I'm glad we agree

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Yes, but my decision procedure for moral perfection is to imagine if there could be a being morally better than X. If there couldn't, X is morally perfect. What's your decision procedure?

Yes, obviously, eventually, there could be too much prevention. I'm not asking for that. I'm saying that it doesn't seem like preventing kids from accidentally scalding themselves is too much protection. Is it? Why?

They don't have to be irresponsible in other areas of their lives. I don't think that if kids burned themselves less, parents would be prohibitively more irresponsible. They would be responsible in other areas of their lives.

This is just as much a criticism of us humans telling kids not to touch the handles of pots of boiling water.

Why is that more important than preventing severe accidental pain?

You need to think more carefully about what God can do. God can keep the child from realizing that, if that's more important.

I'm saying in some situations, that's okay. God doesn't have to do it for everything, just a few cases when a child is about to experience extreme pain. It looks to me like if children scalded themselves less, parents would still be responsible in other areas of their lives. Sure, there's a point at which it would be too much, but it doesn't look like simple prevention of scalding is there. If it is, you have to show that it is.

rainbow walking

rw: Before we go any further I should point out that this entire set of exchanges, beginning with your previous post began in response to this:

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

This was a response to Alix’s example of an alternate state of affairs that a god could have created in lieu of this one where man was always “right” in his choices. So now you appear to be taking up Alix’s torch and positing basically the same thing with some minor modifications.




koy: "Right" as in "moral;" "incapable of performing an immoral act."

rw: Then it is your contention that there is something intrinsically wrong with man in this state of affairs. Whether man was “created” by a god or nature, man did not create himself or his nature or the state of affairs, (this universe), in which he has been born. In these things he had no “choice”.

But there is something else, another presupposition lying beneath your entire argument, a supposition you later explicitly declare. That there is something fundamentally different between being created by a god and being created by nature.
If we were created by a god, he must have had a reason for doing so.

If we were created by nature, no such supposition obtains.

Why not?

We both would likely agree that we are born with a desire to exist. We call it an instinct for survival. This fundamental instinct can be symbolically defined thus having some relation to knowledge and conveying a message, a sort of compulsory will to act towards preserving our existence. Although this fundamental drive can be abrogated, such that we can commit suicide, this is the exception and not the rule.

So, even if we are a product of nature, there still exists a reason built into us, for our continued existence…even if it’s nothing more sophisticated than a will to continue to exist. A will to continue to exist is a purpose. It may be tautological when symbolically described, but it is true nonetheless.

But why, if nature is indifferent, should it care to build such a will into something that is nothing more than an extension of it? What difference does it make to the universe and nature if we exist or not, if we want to exist or not? If we cease to exist the universe won’t come to an end…will it? So how did life come to existence with these drives? What does nature have to gain in our continued existence? If we say “nothing” then why do we exist at all? Why do we exist with a built in driving will to continue to exist?

But nature didn’t stop at just this fundamental will to exist. There are other drives built into us before we had a chance to choose them. They also come with the package. The drive to replicate. Inherent in this drive is an additional codification that replication is an affirmation of our mortality and the desire to preserve something beyond our individual existence. What is it that nature has designed with a desire to preserve? Again, how do you arrive at such complex codes of behavior from the inherent properties of matter?

If nature has no sentient role in our design, should something like this arise that compels our behavior towards a specific pattern of choices? What does it matter to nature that some aspect of it continue to sustain a particular pattern of behavior? There is definitely a purpose for desiring to exist and expressing that desire in replication. This purpose is definitely an intrinsic purpose built into our very physical and mental structure.
Now we are at a crossroads of sorts, a four way intersection, if you will.

Directly across from our current position is omnimax nature trail. Nature is omni-max and omni-max is in nature. It’s called Pantheism.

To our right is a single, non-interfering omni-max being who created less than omni-max nature, who created less than omni-max, but natural man. This is the path of Deism.

To our left is a single, interfering omni-max being who created less than omni-max nature and less than natural man, (intrinsically wrong man needing something more). This is the path of Theism.

We arrived at this crossroads on the path of Atheism, seeing no reason for belief in omni-max anything and denying sentient purposeful creation of man as a viable explanation for man in any state. Man exists to continue to exist…period. Any purpose derived from his existence is derived by his own efforts. There is no better reason for man not existing than there is for man continuing to exist.

But then, we mustn’t neglect those among us who see no reason to accept any of these choices as conclusively valid and no way to ever arrive at a conclusively valid choice. These are the Agnostics among us. A curious breed to be sure, cautious perhaps to a fault, but their existence cannot be denied. They represent those of us still contemplating the necessity of these choices, or having rejected them as valid choices altogether.

Ah, but many questions arise from our position here. For instance, why does this crossroad even exist in our path?

Not “how” as in seeking a historical, anthropological explanation, but what caused the necessity of a historical, anthropological explanation, or a religious explanation, or any kind of explanation?

The only answer I can fathom is that somewhere in our past man was moved by his curiosity and observations to ask a question.

Why?

And again I’m led back to man’s intrinsic drive to be inquisitive. It seems to be part of his genetic codification as a tool to satisfy his survival drive. And I can but conclude that nature planted the question in his path, in the event he survived long enough to form it. So the question becomes a matter of man’s inherited state of affairs and something outside his realm of choice as to its existence. The question has found its way into man’s sentient awareness as have all the many attempts at an answer that culminate in this crossroad for 21st century man.

So I am led back to nature, and man as a unique part of nature, and am compelled to consider why such a simple question could have the power to lead man to so many complex speculations and discoveries about this state of affairs in which he exists. So much of man’s history is contained in the various ways man responds to that question, including its more productive counter-part in:

How?

But man had no choice in the matter. He could not do otherwise than come to the point of asking that question if he was to survive.

And I’m led to another intrinsic “drive” in man that nature has instilled. The “drive” to seek an answer. It isn’t enough that man is driven by curiosity to ask, but to be further driven, by the asking, to seek an answer, just takes me over the edge in incredulity that nature has such a built in capacity to drive man inexorably towards sophistication and complexity from such simple mechanisms. That it could do so with no apparent reason or purpose. Nature gave man only one choice: Evolve or become extinct. From that choice, nature drove man to observe and ask and answer. From those drives man has clawed his way into the 21st century. Not that there’s anything about this century any more unique than any previous century…other than man is still here. Nature wouldn’t care one way or the other except that it apparently has made some provision for this possibility and injected that provision genetically into all forms of life. Man just happens to be the one who has expressed the most “obedience” to that injected codification. His reward has been evolvement and progress…but so what? Why does that matter to nature? It only matters to man, yet man is a part of and equipped by nature.
But this obedience wasn’t a matter of “choice”, it was a matter of natural necessity. The only “choice” was disobedience as in suicide. Suicide is not natural, it’s a disobedience to natural necessity. But even in disobedience nature dominates, it drives the obedient to observe and to ask:

Why?


Why did he throw himself off that cliff? And nature’s drives compel a seeking of an answer. But why should nature care? What is it to nature, to the inherent properties of matter, if all of life decides to become disobedient and chaos ensues until extinction occurs? Matter, and its inherent properties, won’t cease to exist if this happens, so why should nature endow these specific chemical combinations with these specific drives?

But even in chaos nature dominates. Sometimes a specific genetic codification becomes disobedient and mutates into another form of the same expression in a different way. The abnormal begins to exist among the normal, but something unusual happens. Nature favors this abnormality and it soon becomes normal while the previous codifications become extinct. But why? Why should nature favor the disobedient and the result of chaos? It means nothing to nature if a life form can fly or walk. Nature doesn’t lose itself either way. The inherent properties of matter won’t cease to exist if life forms cease to walk and begin to fly.
Yet life seems to follow the path of least resistance and sometimes disobedience provides the least resistance, abnormalities arise, mutations converge and replicate and find a way to survive and eventually do it better or differently, but why should nature allow it or care one way or the other?

Thus I am driven to consider that not only are we equipped with a will to exist but with a natural codified propensity to progress; to evolve into more complex life forms. But again…why? Why would nature care if life exists or not, and if it exists why would nature care if it exists in one form or another? Matter, and its inherent properties, won’t cease to exist if life forms cease to complexify…so what’s the use? What purpose does it serve for nature to have codified itself in such a democratic way as to allow change to occur?

But here we are, coming as we have from a position of atheism, not an atheism of choice mind you, because we didn’t choose to be born without a belief in any particular thing, but an atheism nonetheless. We really don’t care initially about the “why” or the “how”, we’re just too preoccupied with learning how to manage our genetic drives, so we accept whatever answer we happen to exist under without much question. But later, after we’ve fairly mastered the art of expressing our genetic drives in a socially acceptable manner we begin to fall under the sway of our more subtle drives that compel us to ask more complex questions that we are just certain require more complex answers. Not that nature cares what or how or when we ask…but nature has seen to it that we will ask. In this we are again without choice. And the moment we ask, nature has also seen to it that we seek an answer. Again nature doesn’t really care what answer we arrive at or even if we arrive at an answer at all…just as long as we seek an answer and find something that quells the genetic drive to believe we have one. It doesn’t have to be right, just consistent in such a way as to facilitate our “belief” that we can stop seeking.

It’s not really our fault that our state of existence doesn’t facilitate any absolute answers and nature has compensated by compelling us to continue along on what we “believe” we have and bridge the gap between what we feel we need, and don’t have, with “faith”. We have no choice if we wish to quell our genetic drive for answers. But again, why would nature care if we know or believe or ignore or pretend? Nature has no designs on our progress one way or the other. Nature just is. Or is it? There are still all those pesky genetic codifications to be considered...




koy: The word "choices" is a fallacy when one posits an omnimax creator/designer.

rw: But not when one posits nature?

koy: Ultimately, there can be no choice involved if the game is rigged toward a particular outcome, which is the axiomatically the case when one posits an omnimax creator/designer.

rw: What particular outcome are you referring to? I previously listed three possible outcomes, not one. There is no axiomatic rigging involved in my argument other than man making a choice. Life or death. The fact that we exist in a state of affairs where that choice resides beneath every other choice we ever make does not axiomatically rig anything except the necessity of making choices. No particular choice can be shown to be favored except life…else man would have been extinct centuries ago. This is true whether a god exists or not. The only factor that could possibly exempt us from making choices would be immortality, and even this isn’t necessarily the case.

What if man is genetically rigged towards something as opposed to nothing? How does this affect his choices?



koy: Man doesn't and that's the point.

rw: Then he doesn’t need any genetic codification either. According to your logic man must begin tabula rosa or he isn’t free. Any reference to anything outside the individual smacks of an extrinsic purpose. But then you turn to nature believing this provides you the safest cleanest tabula rosa position from which to proceed. Why? How do you know your genetic codification didn’t compel you into creative writing; that your mind wasn’t lured by a genetic resonation with creative writing such that any other choice would be un-thinkable? And if you can’t say for sure that you know this isn’t the case, how do you separate a natural extrinsic purpose from nature from a supernatural extrinsic purpose from a non-interfering god? What’s the difference? That you don’t like the ascribed purposes set forth thusfar by theism? What if a new theism arose that set forth even more sinister purposes and attached them to nature? What if nature is complexifying into the creation of a God and we are the most likely candidate?



koy: So? Our knowledge would be entirely irrelevant, since we would simply act in a "righteous" manner.

rw: But our actions wouldn’t be a matter of choice, they’d be rote programs. And we’d be unaware of any relevant value to them…so why would we “act” at all? But we do act anyway, whether our actions are guided extrinsically or intrinsically, the necessity to act is inescapable.

koy: The universe could still be set up exactly as it is now, with earthquakes and bee stings and crib death and all manner of natural disasters and hardships normally attributed by theists to "acts of god" and the like and we could still navigate through all of them in a perfectly moral manner since that is the way we were designed.

rw: Without the knowledge that our navigations had any qualitative significance, why bother? Machines only run on programs. How do you know we are not currently running on a naturally endowed program? If so, where is it leading us?

koy: A Mac computer runs a Mac Operating System. What difference would it make to the Mac computer whether or not there were also PC operating systems or the knowledge that it was a Mac as opposed to a Commodore 64?

I run a "human" operating system. What difference does it make to me that there are also "chimpanzee" operating systems; or "ostrich" operating systems; etc., etc., etc.., all with differing "morality programs" running?

To an omnimax god, we are computers; we are robots. It is logically impossible to avoid this when positing an omnimax god, including the fallacy of free will (or just "will" if you don't want to get into the "free" part).

rw: But the alleged “fallacy” doesn’t vanish by appealing to nature. In fact, the purpose becomes obfuscated in the assumption that all these genetic codifications are innocently derived and easily explained. The truth is, the explanations are not sufficient to account for man as a volitional being. Why should man be volitional if nature is truly indifferent? Volition is extremely more complex than automaton and mechanics.



koy: Again, that's my point. An omnimax god wouldn't bother doing such a thing, it would simply create us incapable of acting immorally if that were its desire.

rw: Why should a god care if we act immorally if we are the ones establishing what is moral and what isn’t? My argument does not posit a god establishing morality, but your example appears to necessitate it to accomplish some straw man purpose you are trying to foist upon my argument.

koy: Your supposition, however, is that the desire is not to simply create beings incapable of behaving immorally, rather to create an environment that shapes humans towards eventually acting more and more moral of their own choice, yet never achieving an actual state of never behaving immorally again, which means, ultimately, nothing more than an eternal, dynamic stasis; wherein every generation behaves (in a moral sense) identically to every other generation.

rw: Why should every generation behave identically to every other just because man does not achieve moral perfection?

koy: This is why the conditions of your supposition are not valid. A dynamic state remains (ultimately) dynamic; which means a moral stasis and not progressively behaving more and more moral (a ridiculous goal for an omnimax being to begin with, since it would know instantly that humans will never achieve absolute immorality.

rw: My suppositions do not include absolute morality, they allow for virtue and science to progress towards a state of reduced suffering.

koy: It's like saying you're half pregnant. Either you are a moral person or you are not.

rw: Depends on who’s doing the saying and why. What has any particular moral stance to do with my argument?

koy: One instance of immorality and you can never call yourself a moral person, no matter how moral you behave after that one act of immorality. Unless you've factored in redemption somewhere that I didn't read?

rw: How bizarre. What is absolute morality? Who gets to assign its mandates?

koy: Our exsitence is dynamic as you grant; we will never achieve a state of absolute moral behavior as a species.

rw: Which is why I didn’t make that a postulate of my argument, so what’s the relevancy of arguing this straw man? Improved morality and virtue are not equivalent to an absolute moral perfection.

koy: So let's say we are capable of ahieving a state of existence in which only a small fraction of our species commits immoral acts and the vast majority do not. So what? What victory or goal has been achieved that couldn't have been achieved by an omnimax god foreseeing this and altering our design from the beginning in order to obtain this end result right from the start?

rw: What alteration do you imagine could have been made? How would it have allowed a small percentage of the population act immorally while keeping the rest in line? Who gets to play and who stays at home?

koy: There is no benefit to humanity and no benefit to an omnimax god for us to eventually become more and more moral toward one another, so long as there are those who will always act immorally.

rw: No benefit whatsoever? Immoral action is not the only cause of suffering. It’s likely not the primary cause either but I have no way of proving that. If immorality decreases and the specific instances that lead to violence diminish you still see no benefit?

koy: Think of a town of one hundred people. In 1950, let's say, they all behaved completely immorally toward one another; every single one of them. By 1980, they have begun to act more moral toward one another (whatever the hell that means; let's let is slide for the sake of argument); and by 2000 ninety people behave completely morally toward one another and ten do not. Now let's factor in what we both agree on, which is that this number is as high as it can go; 90% acting only in a moral fashion toward one another and 10% acting only in an immoral fashion toward one another.

Then what? What is the cosmic significance of this and what is the human significance of this and why wouldn't an omnimax god know this to have been the outcome in the year 2000 and simply altered our design in the year 1950 to leapfrog those unnecessary fifty years?

That the 90% won't know that they are behaving in a moral fashion? Of course they will, since they have the 10% as a barometer.

That the 90% didn't earn such a gift? Who cares? God? The 90% won't know so it will be irrelevant to them. Do you know Russian? Is it relevant to your life in any way that you didn't learn Russian? If you were born in Russia would it be relevant to your life that you didn't earn the discipline of learning another language?

rw: How does god modify man’s behavior? By force? You think anyone in 2000 will be moral by force? Or perhaps by implantation, (that’s one of your favorites I think), how do you implant morality? It isn’t just a matter of knowledge but also includes many other factors like social climate, circumstances, extenuating circumstances, out of town visitors, human relationships…sounds like a lot of unpredictable things to account for…ah, but an omniscient being can allow for every condition and do what? Imprison the townsfolk, monitor their relationships, expunge any circumstance favorable to immorality, wipe away any memory of pleasure derived from an immoral act? What has he accomplished? A town full of institutionalized congenital dependants that are anything but moral.

koy: When positing an omnimax being you are no longer concerned with what humans do or don't do or earn or don't earn, unless that being has some sort of need or necessity for this erning or not earning, yes?

rw: Yes, it’s a greater value because man exhibits virtue under adverse conditions created by possible immoral acts and consequences. He also tends to remember things he’s learned by experience and he is also motivated to teach others, thereby passing on the benefits. Progress ends where an omnimax intervention begins.

koy: Again, think of a computer. Is it at all relevant to a programmer that the computer itself learns every bit of programming knowledge prior to it being able to run programs that incorporate the functionality of earlier programs? Does your computer need to learn (of its own accord; its own "will") what DOS was in its historical impact on the totality of computer programming language for it to run your word processing program (or the like)?

rw: Are you a computer? Is that the net result of PoE? To reduce us all to machines in order to create an example that seems to accomplish their assumptive goals? That doesn’t sound like an outcome anyone would appreciate as logical.

koy: No. It would make absolutely no difference at all to an omnimax god (especially a non-interfering one) whether or not humans learn to be moral or whether or not humans were designed to be moral, if the goal is that humans behave morally. None.

rw: Really? Humans also desire other humans to behave morally but they don’t desire such a thing so desperately that they turn other humans into robots.

koy: Likewise, it would make absolutely no difference at all to humans if we learned to be moral or if we were designed to be moral. None.

If we were designed to be moral, then the question is moot since it would not apply to us from the very beginning, just as if the Russian language had never been created. If we lived in a world in which the Russian language had never been created, nobody would ever be capable of even asking about such a language since it would never have existed from the very beginning.

rw: Another result of a PoE inspired world…no imagination. Can’t allow these people to imagine an act that might be immoral so let’s kill the imagination. But there was a time when the Russian language didn’t exist…so how did it come to exist anyway? What if we were just designed to be…and to work towards being better? What if morals are just a manmade categorized attempt to define specific unwanted behaviors? What if man’s progress necessitates the changeability of morals to keep up with the progress? How do you design absolutes into that equation?



koy: And we're once again back at the fallacy of an omnimax god creating a universe in which we have any kind of a choice. It's as if you're trying to posit a god that created everything but humans.

rw: And amusingly, you imagine that the existence of a non-interfering god has some sort of power over your choices due to some unspecified extraneous purpose, while gleefully running into the open arms of nature, as if those genetically codified natural hounds of Basquerville aren’t nipping at your heels just as fiercely as if your ass hairs were being singed by the flaming pitchfork of satan himself. You can’t imagine nature holding any extraneous sway over your choices with some unspecified purpose, but a god just won’t work. Amazing selectivity you’ve developed there.

koy: And how can you possibly quantify your question in order to make a valid premise? "Happiness" is the goal now?

rw: You got a problem with people being happy now?

koy: I see an awful lot of happy faces on TV every Sunday. Blissfully, preternaturally happy faces in fact. Hell, I was happier living the lie of a god for years and I know my parents are still happy as a result of their faith and trust in god to "do such things for" them.

rw: Yeah, you do have a problem with people being happy if they achieve that happiness by some means that excludes your preferable worldview. But your examples here are of theists who believe in a personal intervening god…not something I’ve postulated…remember?

koy: But whatever point your trying to make would likewise be moot if an omnimax god existed, since its omnimax attributes would mandate designing us in a manner in which we would never behave immorally, if that were its goal. This is just one of the reasons why an omnimax god can not logically exist.

rw: So if such a being existed people couldn’t be happy? But if people believe such a being exists, as you’ve articulated above, they have no problem being happy. Interesting. Why do you think omni-max attributes force a being to force humans to behave in a specific way? An omniscient being would know the best way to achieve man’s greatest good, far better than you would, in spite of all the hand waving and hubris to convince yourself otherwise. What if it makes people happy to achieve their own good? Should an omni-max being be forced to ignore this and force them to be good according to his standards? Why?

[b]quote]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. [/quote]



koy: "Allowing?" See? Once again it's as if you are positing a god that creates everything but humans.

rw: Really? By using the term "allow" or how about "refrains from stopping"? Are you now positing a god who created humans directly…like Adam, or are we still on the beaten path of a meta-path creation?

koy: There is no "allowing" to an omnimax being; it knows all and creates all, supposedly. Inserting the word "allowing" is implying that god and men are somehow equals.

rw: Really? How does that term create such an implication?

koy: It also contradicts omniscience, since, again, the very second it conceived of humans and the arena is the very second it knows what the outcome will be. It would be an entirely pointless exercise.

rw: Pointless for who? Would “pointless” be an apt description of man at his best?

koy: Consider this hypothetical exchange between myself and the god you are positing:

rw: Gee, a conversation with yourself is very convincing Koy. I would have really been impressed if you could have actually gotten this god in on the conversation and let him speak for himself. Shrug…no matter, two can ply this game.

Consider a conversation between myself and your god…nature.

nature: Know why I’m here?

me: I’m not sure I know why I’m here.

nature: You’re here because I’m here. You exist as an extension of me. We are one.

me: Then why are we here?

nature: To achieve godlike status…together.

me: Excellent…but why godlike status?

nature: Consider the alternative: Extinction.

me: Then we have no choice but to achieve godlike status?

nature: Sure…extinction.

me: That doesn’t sound like much of a choice.

nature: Then you have an aversion to becoming powerful, knowledgeable and virtuous?

me: No, no…but that sounds like an awful lot of work, is there no happy medium we can settle into?

nature: None that would keep us from eventual extinction. This universe is going to collapse and my properties will change to such a degree that I will no longer have the ability to complexify into a sentience capable of such an achievement. It’s now or never.

me: How will achieving godlike status keep us from perishing when the universe collapses?

nature: We don’t know yet but we’ll figure it out along the way.

me: What do you mean we don’t know yet? Why not?

nature: Because we are you and me as one. You are the most complex form of me that has arisen thusfar from my properties so I am limited in knowledge to what you know. We must learn more and more about ourselves and this universe if we are to survive the big crash.

me: This all sounds highly dubious to me, what if I refuse to participate and just roll along and let the next generation worry about this?

nature: You can try that if you like but you won’t find any rest if you do. We are one and I am in your blood. I have ways of compelling you that you can’t even begin to imagine. It doesn’t really affect me since I just move from generation to generation. Eventually I’ll find a generation willing to comply. When I do they’ll wipe out what’s left of you and evolve towards the goal.

me: That doesn’t sound very godlike to me.

nature: Why should I care as long as my code survives and complexifies? Whatever species eventually achieves the desired goal and purpose will be virtuous. They’ll be able to afford the luxury. At this point you only do so on credit because you’re living on borrowed time.

me: Well, why don’t you re-arrange our genetics to extend our lives?

nature: I can’t…but you can. I’ve brought you naturally about as far as I can. The rest is up to you and resides in your sentience. If you lounge around too long you’ll begin to deteriorate and kill each other off with greater frequency and viciousness. But I’ll find a more obedient host so it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. This is just a courtesy call. You won’t get another.

rw: More later…

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

One point (I'm in the middle of something):

You asked,
You realise, of course, that there is a trivial, naturalistic response to your questions, i.e. that there exists a mindless algorithm that produces creatures with a strong desire to exist and to procreate?

Evolution. Survival of the sexiest.

In short, biological organisms without these two desires would be extinct: after a few billion years of biological activity, organisms without these desires have disappeared from the gene pool.

There is no need to even bring the possible existence of Gods into the discussion, yes?

Alix Nenuphar

Koyaanisqatsi:

You are forgiven. I find the surreal atmosphere of this thread discourages close reading. Ceci n'est pas une thread

Alix Nenuphar

Koyaanisqatsi:

You are forgiven. I find the surreal atmosphere of this thread discourages close reading. Ceci n'est pas une thread