Koyaanisqatsi

Always glad to lend a hand .

Yes, but what is the qualitative difference then? Whether or not god exists would be entirely irrelevant to us; it would be the equivalent of no god existing; i.e., no god exists.

Why postulate the existence of a non-existant (for all intents and purposes) god? Because that therefore means we have a purpose? How? A non-existent god means that no purpose was instilled; merely that this being is what we call the big bang; it's the nuclear force, not the creator and necessary arbiter of our morallity.

You are saying this god doesn't "interfere" in our progress, while at the same time implying that it created our capacity for progress to begin with; but that is interference.

One can create the physical arena and remain non-interfering, but one cannot create the rules to follow in a moral sense (i.e., to make us better humans in the way we treat one another) and remain non-interfering.

The second there are rules is the second you have an interfering god setting up those rules for us to either follow or not follow; but it's still a form of interference. And to what end? That we become the greatest possible humans attainable in a moral sense? Why? What benefit does that obtain to a non-interfering god or to us?

You've already agreed, in essence, that no such interference is necessary. Humans created their own concepts of morality to self-apply and self-regulate through committee, jurisprudence, mythology and enforcement/punishment, which has resulted in our no god status quo.

So why then posit a non-existent (for all intents and purposes), non-interfering god, whose only contribution, apparently was to set evolution in motion with a big bang of proto-matter, in order to one day (billions of years later) provide for just one of trillions of species that so far grew out of that explosion (that we yet know of) an arena wherein the rules and regulations are set up so as to guide only us toward attaining the greatest possible moral status quo for ourselves; to better ourselves in a moral sense in the way we treat one another?

To put into more analogous terminology, what does the weak nuclear force care about how you and I treat one another?

The "best path" to what? Positing something no more significant to our existence than the weak nuclear force, caring about our moral terpitude?

Again, you're not remaining logically consistent with your own givens. If we have a non-interfering god, then we have no instilled rules or "paths" to follow and our morallity is precisely what it is, our own; made up by us for us.

Positing a non-interfering god is equivalent to positing that the electromagnetic force cares about how we treat one another (out of the trillions of other life forms).

For there to be purpose to our lives (to attain the greatest moral status quo possible), that we didn't create by ouselves/for ouselves, then there would have to be a god that programmed us in this manner; i.e., an interfering god who set billions of years of evolution into motion just so that one day we (out of trillions of others) would "awaken" to the path to righteousness (a term I know you're found of ).

What's more, there would have to be a reason to do this as well as, implicitly, some sort of reward for doing it.

You seem to be positing that the reason is for man's own good (which is not a reason, other than to man) and that the reward is that we will have earned it.

But earned what? No wars? No stealing? No killing? No coveting thy neighbor's wife?

Earned it compared to what? Wars? Stealing? Killing? Coveting thy neighbor's wife?

These are what we made up as good for us (however often they are broken), but let's say there comes a time (somehow) when we finally end all wars and end all stealing, etc., etc., etc.

What then? Does god then start interfering? No need to. Does god reveal himself and say we all win something off of the top shelf? What top shelf, if god is the equivalent of electromagnetism?

Again, you make it seem as if there is a purpose to what we experience, yet desperately try to remove any trace of a source for that purpose, without removing the purpose.

You want to eat your cake and have it, too. But it can't be done. Either there is no god and purpose is what you make of it, or there is a god as you posit that renders the purpose contrived and therefore, ultimately, meaningless.

If a mouse in the wild navigates rough terrain to hunt for food and is successful, then that's an achievement for the mouse. The mouse becomes better at surviving and has found food on its own so it won't have to steal (that day) from other mice; etc. Self-sufficient, self-determined, self-purpose (to explode the analogy).

If a mouse in a cage, however, is placed into a maze by a "higher being" (i.e., scientist) and it navigates to where the cheese was placed, then that's a pointless experiment for the mouse, wherein the mouse is ultimately irrelevant (and eventually injected with some horrible carcinogen and left to die from another indifferent experiment being inflicted upon the mouse by a "higher being"). Yes, the mouse gets food, but it's all provided for it. Not self-sufficient, self-determined, no self-purpose; just a mouse in a cage performing tricks for a "higher being." It wouldn't teach the mouse anything other than undue reliance on the "higher being."

I'm afraid you're trying to imply the former through positing the latter.

No better path for what? Justifying a god that doesn't exist?

What god? There is no god. You have posited no god.

You have posited a logically inconsistent, ultimately non-existent (for all intents and purposes) construct that at best could be described as an initial force of nature of some kind; the spark that ignited the big bang, let's say, that somehow also programmed into just one of trillions of as yet non-existent species to emerge billions of years later to seek to treat each other better than they currently are.

Do you see both the logical inconsistency in that as well as the absurdity of such a construct?

Well, again, there's an example of you obtaining the mouse in the wild while positing the mouse in the maze. History, experience and valuation to a mouse in the maze would be pointless to the mouse itself, other than it would result in cheese.

Well, not quite .

But his "greatest good" could simply be imposed by an omnimax god. There would have to be reason, which you claim is the earned vs. unearned.

While we recognize what "earned" vs. "unearned" means to us in regard to our natural survival-oriented existence, it would be utterly meaningless to a god of any construction (other than the punishing god of the bible).

Why? Why would any god, not just your god, who is not interested in punishment for non-compliance, care about whether or not one species out of trillions attained their "greatest state"?

You keep claiming this is what your god wants. Why? To what end? What possible difference would it make to either the god or to us? What if we never attain our "greatest state?"

In other words, what obtains from any of this? You seem to think that man's "greatest state" is justification in and of itself; a sufficiently desireable state that your god wants us to attain. Why and/or how, if, again, we're taking your god concept? How and/or why does something the equivalence of the strong nuclear force, for example, instantiate any of this?

So, we're mice in your god's maze so that your god can learn benevolence? How does your god have omni benevolence, let alone regular old benevelonce, when it had no history of events relating to compassion?

No, it's misconstrued, considering that god (not yours) is alleged to have always existed as omnimax and not learned omnimax as a result of placing us in his maze. If benevolence and knowledge do not have to have a history to exist for this god, then it is possible this god can remove the same qualification for us. But you are not positing this god; you are positing an effectively non-existent, non-interfering equivalent of something like gravity, that could not and would not care what we do or don't do.

Once again, you're describing our experience as a necessary result of no omnimax god existing; not just no omnimax god interfering.

And logically inconsistent, as well as, you'll forgive me, absurd, as far as I can see. A non-interfering god that is the equivalent of a chemical catalyst for all intents and purposes, that somehow has programmed into the unfolding of billions of years of evolution a moral compass (thereby, arguably, interfering), to be triggered by just one of the trillions of species that obtain, in order for that one species to (hopefully) attain their "greatest moral state" with one another, for no reason (other than the implication that we somehow matter and that our greatest moral state is significant).

Why would this matter and how would this be significant, given the god you're positing?

We don't mean anything to the universe. We don't mean anything to fish or fowl or insect or cow, other than as predators to be avoided at all costs. We only matter to ourselves.

So why do we matter (and how would we matter) to the god you're positing? I do believe I've asked you this before....

The god of the bible? Or your god construct? The god of the bible is described as perfect, but that wasn't my point. My point was that god, being omnimax could simply create us as our greatest possible good. Just as god requires no history to be benevolent or have knowledge, he could instantiate the same conditions in all of us. That we haven't "earned" it implies that god is not omnimax in the slightest. To "earn" something is to, as you put it, progress over time and history; something that doesn't apply to an omnimax god.

If it doesn't apply to an omnimax god, then there is no reason to think that such a being would even know what it means in order to set it up for us.

Start with a god concept and then show how this world results from it. For example, if your god is omnibenevolent, then for us to learn benevolence over time, so would your god; thus your god's omnibenevelonce was learned over time (and history). That's where it came up with the knowledge of why learning something over time (and history) is how one achieves benevolence.

If our benevolence status quo comes as a result of time and history, then god's benevolence status quo came as a result of time and history. If we are to care about humans because we are human, then your god has to care about humans because it was once human. See what I mean? Logically consistent.

By removing evil. Your question is, how do humans know they are behaving in a "good" (moral) manner if they don't have evil to compare it to?

Who cares, if the goal is morality? Again there's your "earned/unearned" fallacy.

Unless your god likewise had to survive through "good and evil" prior to becoming whatever god it is you're positing, then the same logic that says, "God is just good" says, "Man is just good."

If god doesn't have to learn it, then we don't have to learn it.

Unless, again, you are positing a god that is using us for some sort of experiment, in which case we're right back to being nothing more relelvant than mice in a maze.

Same must apply to your god, then. Fine by me, but just remain logically consistent.

Again, apply this to your god concept and then unfold from there, but reallize you're once again just positing a god concept that is little more than a more intelligent (not omnimax) extraterrestrial human from some other more advanced planet, who somehow has the ability to implant his own idea of morality for the possible purpose of teaching the soon-to-be-new kids on the block how to behave in polite, intergalactic society.

Accept that this does not obtain from your approach yet.

rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alix Nenuphar
rw:

Your statement:


Appears to be illogical. If I may?

To repeat:

P1: God created the world.

P2: The world contains unecessary suffering.

P3: God cannot create unecessary suffering.

C1: Therefore either P1, P2, or P3 is false.

You are currently arguing that P1, P2, and P3 are all true. Whether you introduce a metapath (for which I would appreciate a definition) or not, the logic above is correct.

You cannot accept P1, P2, AND P3 without a logical contradiction.

rw: First , a definition: In the initial argument I called it the best of all possible paths to the best of all possible worlds. Later, during the course of defending the argument, I reduced it to meta-path.


The meta-path is both a physical description of the evolution of this universe in general and man and his ecosystem in particular converged into a mental description of man's specific history from beginning to the present. It is this state of affairs, as they are, in which man exists, with no apparent intervention by a God.

In the initial argument I also implied that man's moral progress kept abreast of his science during the progression but I have to concede that this just isn't the case. Man's moral progress lags centuries behind his science. But there is probable cause for this. That being man's ecosystem. Man exists on a small planet with limited resources that naturally compel him to compete for their acquisition to ensure his survival. Additionally, his ecosystem also appears to be actively struggling against man as it continues to produce, evolutionally, viruses and diseases that prey upon man as a limited resource for their existence as well. All of these pressures on man's existence create an environment conducive to science and constrictive to morality.

Thus man's greatest good, his salvation, appears to lie in his science. If and when man develops a means to advance into the universe, where resources are un-limited, and worlds exist free of the evolutionary pressures inherent in this one, man's moral progress will attain. But a considerable degree of moral progress lies ahead before man can begin the determined drive towards these goals. Consequently, many of the causes of suffering specific to this planet will no longer be a problem for a man able to find better worlds.

Now, as an aside, let me point out some perhaps not so obvious implications.

If the above is true, then the obvious solution lies in man cooperating as a species to facilitate the investment of his limited resources towards the acquisition of the science necessary to his escape from these conditions. It is not likely that man will ever resolve all of these issues while confined to this one planet. Current events tell us that man, as a species, has not yet arrived at this obvious and logical conclusion. It is difficult, ( an under-statement to be sure), for any individual man actively involved in the struggle for his existence, to realize the greater significance of human progression and the means of achieving it. Man does not have a collective vision thus his cooperative faculties remain largely untapped as a resource. His economy of labors are still focused primarily on the individual and his needs and/or his institutional needs. Capitalism is a viable means for the acquisition of his natural resources but a great deal of these acquired resources are squandered on the development of competitive technologies such as military weaponry and intelligence gathering tools. While capitalism does facilitate the aggressiveness needed to acquire the limited resources it also produces an atmosphere of competition that is not conducive to their utilization towards man’s escape from his condition on this planet. It ultimately devolves into small groups of collective resources that serve the private aims of the group. Socialism facilitates a more equitable distribution of the resources necessary to man’s immediate condition but it provides no incentive for the aggressiveness required for their acquisition and application to his greater problem of imprisonment on this planet, thus it ultimately devolves into a complacency that leads to dictatorial control. All other previously attempted forms of cooperation have focused on either the superiority of a specific race, (Fascism) or a specific institution such as the State, (Communism), or a specific religious expression, (Theocracy) that fail miserably in addressing man’s struggle for existence and greater good.

But the greatest hurdle for historical man has been his misunderstanding of his plight as a species. Without a vision the people perish is a true statement regardless of its source. The cooperation necessary to man’s acquisition of his greatest good will not ensue until man comes to grips with who his true enemies are: confinement to one planet and inevitable physical death. These are the sources of all evil and suffering that pock mark the trail of man’s history. To date, none of man’s politics or economics or philosophies or religions have accurately identified man’s enemies and his science has only vaguely began to focus on them. Man’s fledgling space and biological programs are viewed by the populace as an interesting aside to the business of daily life. Many still advocate their deconstruction to allocate their resources into other, what they perceive to be, more pressing areas of man’s existence. Man, as a species, appears to be clueless to the possibilities of world cooperation. How could he be cognizant of such possibilities when they’ve never been presented in context with the problems inherent in his existence on this planet? It is hard for any man to view his planet, the sole source of his existence, as his confining task master. To him it is a beautiful place full of splendor and wonders to be explored. And this is true. But it is also a limited resource that produces destructive competition, violent natural catastrophes, genetic monsters that consume the flesh from his bones from the inside out, and mass starvation. These problems cannot be resolved by his politics or his science until they are identified, confronted and mass cooperation ensues. And the resolution is not to be found within the confines of this planet.

Now it might be argued that the meta-path, in light of these conditions, cannot possibly be the best path to man’s greater good. But to do so is to ignore the other postulates of the argument. If man’s scientific explanation of evolution is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then man must have environmental pressures to ensure his evolution. These would be valid objections were it not for the fact that man absolutely requires pressure to advance. Were his existence equalized to his ecosystem man would coast along in stasis until his ecosystem drastically changed with extinction becoming an imminent possibility. So the meta-path, while appearing cruel, is the facilitating factor of man’s motivation to advance, thus we have a progressive history that is not at all pretty but progressive nonetheless, especially in the area of science.

Now to address P2. There is nothing contained within the concept of the meta-path that dictates any specific degree of pain and suffering. It only dictates that pain and suffering are necessary to man’s evolution. The extent of pain and suffering experienced is contingent on man’s comprehension of their causes and his reaction to them. Thus a great deal of pain and suffering is unnecessary to man’s evolution, especially when he comes to the realization that his planet and his mortality are the primary sources. Once he knows this, from that point forward any pain and suffering incurred is necessary to confirm his decision and drive to consolidate his efforts towards a full and final resolution. Humanity fully cooperating and fully aware of why it is cooperating will not take as long as you might think to arrive at its greatest good.

Now, just in case any lurking Christian theist is following this discussion and thinking my argument, diffusing PoE, will support your religious convictions, allow me to remind you that there exists in your primary document, (the bible), a myth called the Tower of Babel, in which man was of one mind and tongue actively pursuing the escape from this planet in building a tower into heaven. According to this myth your god came down and frustrated their efforts. Such a being as this cannot possibly be benevolent…anything but. Such a being as this is nothing more than a prison warden, unworthy of anything but contempt.





Alix: Your meta-path concept is unclear, but I believe that what you are stating is that a timewise development of certain characteristics is a good in and of itself and that any suffering or pain occasioned by that timewise development is therefore necessary to achieve the higher good.

rw: Only the argument doesn't require unnecessary suffering to achieve the desired greater good. The time could be shortened and the suffering reduced by man if and when he comes to understand the cooperative requirements this would entail. Man’s current politic and religion stand in his way.

Alix: In which case, you are actually arguing that there is no unecessary evil or suffering in the world; i.e. P2 is false.

rw: I am arguing that there needn’t be, why, and what it will take to reduce it. My argument does not excuse the unnecessary evil and suffering in the world by blaming God. God is not necessary to man’s acquisition of his greatest good, the concept of God’s attributes are. Man need only hold to the concept of greatest benevolence, highest degree of knowledge, and most prolific expression of power along his evolutionary journey because these reflect the ideals of his greatest good. If a God is needed for their association, fine, but in the proper context without religion. The ideals are to be held in the highest regard. The creature allegedly possessing them need not be. And if such a creature exists with these attributes he would have no reason to desire anything but the best for man and would know that only man, and man alone, can achieve it. That any shortcut will not end in a perceived greatest good for man but only a continuance of his self destruction on a greater scale. A man who has not learned to live with himself and his neighbors; to express that knowledge in the most benevolent fashion, is not worthy or ready for extended life or access to unlimited resources. He would only use them to his own extinction. What other way is there for a man to learn these virtues than in a cooperative life and death struggle for his own greatest good?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Yes, no, and somewhat, respectively.

Huh? Because, as I've already argued, one is obligated to prevent intense suffering even if others' choices could have prevented it. One is obligated to help the child who's under attack by bees, right?

Remember, I'm saying we could be better at self-improvement. We would self-improve more based on the same stimulus. Unless you want to argue that everyone must always have the same ability to self-improve.

I don't think you're paying attention. The "good" in question is learning not to tip boiling water on oneself. Do you think it's better for the toddler to learn that herself, or for me to teach it to the toddler?

Let's call the guy who earned his degree at a medical school Dr. Hibbert, and the guy who conferred it upon himself Dr. Nick. If I were just given that much information, I would definitely choose Dr. Hibbert. But if I were guaranteed that each of them was equally good at surgery, I wouldn't care. It wouldn't matter to me if Dr. Hibbert got his knowledge through study and Dr. Nick got it through watching "Trauma" and "E.R." As long as each was equally good at surgery, it wouldn't matter.

rainbow walking

Rw: But that’s essentially what I’m saying Koy, in arguing that God doesn’t interfere in man’s progress I’m positing the exact same scenario as if God doesn’t exist. Only I’m arguing that this needn’t be the case just because he acts as if he doesn’t exist.



Koy: Yes, but what is the qualitative difference then?

rw: The argument itself. The explanation of why this could be the case.

Koy: Whether or not god exists would be entirely irrelevant to us; it would be the equivalent of no god existing; i.e., no god exists.

rw: If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If that were all I was saying this discussion would have never ensued.

Koy: Why postulate the existence of a non-existant (for all intents and purposes) god?

rw: Because “non-existent” hasn’t been proven…or effectively established by PoE. That is the intent and purpose of this argument. The appearance of “non-existent” flows from non-interference. It can’t be avoided so I incorporate it into the argument.

Koy: Because that therefore means we have a purpose? How? A non-existent god means that no purpose was instilled; merely that this being is what we call the big bang; it's the nuclear force, not the creator and necessary arbiter of our morality.

rw: I established that purpose in the argument. Are you equivocating the god of PoE with a pantheistic version?

koy: You are saying this god doesn't "interfere" in our progress, while at the same time implying that it created our capacity for progress to begin with; but that is interference.

rw: Only if you can show that man would have existed or progressed without that initial act. The only interference I’m defending against is addressing man’s suffering. This is not to be confused with doing nothing at all.

Koy: One can create the physical arena and remain non-interfering, but one cannot create the rules to follow in a moral sense (i.e., to make us better humans in the way we treat one another) and remain non-interfering.

rw: I haven’t postulated such rules were specifically created by God, only that they naturally emerge from man’s progressive journey thru history.

Koy: The second there are rules is the second you have an interfering god setting up those rules for us to either follow or not follow; but it's still a form of interference.

rw:Okay, if you want to call it interfering…makes no never mind to me. But PoE is arguing that he doesn’t interfere to alleviate suffering, something a tad more specific than this philosophical departure you’ve embarked on…yes? I’ve simply agreed, he doesn’t, (shrug), so why does that mean he doesn’t exist? People in China are dying from SARS. I care enough to follow the news on it but I don’t interfere. Does that mean I don’t exist? I have my reasons for not interfering. People die everyday of something. Does that mean God is obligated to install eternal life?


Koy: And to what end? That we become the greatest possible humans attainable in a moral sense?

rw: My argument covers a considerable bit more to this attainment than just a moral sense.

Koy: Why?

rw: Why should we become better human beings? Is that a sincere question?

Koy: What benefit does that obtain to a non-interfering god or to us?

rw: How would becoming better people benefit us? That should be self explanatory. I’ve already ascribed the benefit derived by God in my defense of the argument: that being the satisfaction of seeing man attain his greatest good. If that isn’t enough then the burden rests upon you to argue why.

Koy: You've already agreed, in essence, that no such interference is necessary. Humans created their own concepts of morality to self-apply and self-regulate through committee, jurisprudence, mythology and enforcement/punishment, which has resulted in our no god status quo.

rw: According to the constraints of the meta-path they could arrive at no others.

Koy: So why then posit a non-existent (for all intents and purposes), non-interfering god, whose only contribution, apparently was to set evolution in motion with a big bang of proto-matter, in order to one day (billions of years later) provide for just one of trillions of species that so far grew out of that explosion (that we yet know of) an arena wherein the rules and regulations are set up so as to guide only us toward attaining the greatest possible moral status quo for ourselves; to better ourselves in a moral sense in the way we treat one another?

rw: I can see you’re going to take that non-existent tag out of context. But it is nice of you to throw in the “for all intents and purposes” disclaimer. You’re basically just complaining now that god doesn’t interfere. The rest of the hyperbole sounds like you’re trying to steer us down a cosmological path. I’m arguing within the framework of PoE.

Koy: To put into more analogous terminology, what does the weak nuclear force care about how you and I treat one another?

rw: The weak nuclear force has never been described as omni-max. I notice all thru this response you attempt to redefine this god by associating it with other natural phenomena. PoE has already established the parameters of the argument and we should strive to work from those parameters. The meta-path I describe covers all of these natural phenomena so it isn’t necessary to confuse the terms.

Rw: It does appear to be the best path without negating man’s will or ending up with simpletons or robots.



Koy: The "best path" to what? Positing something no more significant to our existence than the weak nuclear force, caring about our moral terpitude?

rw: The best path to man’s greatest good which includes much more than moral turpitude. And such a being’s significance to our existence is irrelevant to whether such a being exists.

Koy: Again, you're not remaining logically consistent with your own givens. If we have a non-interfering god, then we have no instilled rules or "paths" to follow and our morallity is precisely what it is, our own; made up by us for us.

rw: Covered by the meta-path. This path evolved just as naturally as man such that interference wasn’t necessary. Such norms as we have are a direct consequent of the meta-path. They are our own because they are a necessary extension of our historical journey. Without this history we’d have no such norms and, consequently, without these norms we’d have no history. My argument assumes these norms exist and represent a fair depiction of how we ascribe value.

Koy: Positing a non-interfering god is equivalent to positing that the electromagnetic force cares about how we treat one another (out of the trillions of other life forms).

rw: Okay by me if you want to declare the electro-magnetic forces to be equivalent. Of course, if you do, PoE fails to obtain immediately, unless you wish to argue these forces don’t exist either because they don’t interfere with how we treat one another.


Koy: For there to be purpose to our lives (to attain the greatest moral status quo possible), that we didn't create by ouselves/for ouselves, then there would have to be a god that programmed us in this manner; i.e., an interfering god who set billions of years of evolution into motion just so that one day we (out of trillions of others) would "awaken" to the path to righteousness (a term I know you're found of ).

rw: This is true.

Koy: What's more, there would have to be a reason to do this as well as, implicitly, some sort of reward for doing it.

rw: I’m with you so far.

Koy: You seem to be positing that the reason is for man's own good (which is not a reason, other than to man) and that the reward is that we will have earned it.

rw: Man’s greatest good would serve as a reason for both man and God. Why would such a being need another reason? And why is earning it so bad?

Koy: But earned what? No wars? No stealing? No killing? No coveting thy neighbor's wife?

Earned it compared to what? Wars? Stealing? Killing? Coveting thy neighbor's wife?

These are what we made up as good for us (however often they are broken), but let's say there comes a time (somehow) when we finally end all wars and end all stealing, etc., etc., etc.

rw: I thought earlier you were arguing that God built these things into our history?

Koy: What then? Does god then start interfering? No need to. Does god reveal himself and say we all win something off of the top shelf? What top shelf, if god is the equivalent of electromagnetism?

rw: I’m not obligated by PoE to speculate on such things. If God is equivalent to electro-magnetism PoE fails immediately. Want to concede the argument now?

Koy: Again, you make it seem as if there is a purpose to what we experience, yet desperately try to remove any trace of a source for that purpose, without removing the purpose.

rw: I’m not removing any source of anything but interference in man’s suffering and pain.

Koy: You want to eat your cake and have it, too. But it can't be done. Either there is no god and purpose is what you make of it, or there is a god as you posit that renders the purpose contrived and therefore, ultimately, meaningless.

rw: Then man’s greatest good, as described in my argument, is ultimately meaningless? What I have described centers around historical man in the aggregate and not any single individual so don’t worry Koy, you don’t have to make a difference.

Koy: If a mouse in the wild navigates rough terrain to hunt for food and is successful, then that's an achievement for the mouse. The mouse becomes better at surviving and has found food on its own so it won't have to steal (that day) from other mice; etc. Self-sufficient, self-determined, self-purpose (to explode the analogy).

If a mouse in a cage, however, is placed into a maze by a "higher being" (i.e., scientist) and it navigates to where the cheese was placed, then that's a pointless experiment for the mouse, wherein the mouse is ultimately irrelevant (and eventually injected with some horrible carcinogen and left to die from another indifferent experiment being inflicted upon the mouse by a "higher being"). Yes, the mouse gets food, but it's all provided for it. Not self-sufficient, self-determined, no self-purpose; just a mouse in a cage performing tricks for a "higher being." It wouldn't teach the mouse anything other than undue reliance on the "higher being."

rw: Our universe in no way resembles the mouse in a maze so your analogy fails there immediately. But the conclusions drawn from the comparison are:

The universe, (meta-path), is nothing more than a maze if such a god exists.

So, if the mouse doesn’t navigate the rough terrain it steals its food and thus learns it’s better to steal than navigate rough terrain.

But if the mouse does navigate the rough terrain and is successful it’s a pointless experience for the mouse.

I'm afraid you're trying to imply the former through positing the latter.

rw: I’ve heard no better path described.



Koy: No better path for what? Justifying a god that doesn't exist?

rw: If that happens to be one of the ancillary results, (shrug), who cares? As long as man realizes his greatest good.


rw: All I’m hearing are blanket assertions that God is omnipotent over and over when I’ve conceded that point from the outset. But omnipotence isn’t the only attribute and even it has logical limitations. His attributes must be able to work in concert without logical contradiction. You can’t assert his omnipotence will enable him to do something even if his omniscience has determined not to do it…see what I mean?



Koy: What god? There is no god. You have posited no god.

rw: I haven’t? Then what’s all this discussion about? You have assumed a god just by entering this discussion because that’s what a proponent of PoE has to do. The burden is now on you to show that your assumption is wrong…that there is no god.

Koy: You have posited a logically inconsistent, ultimately non-existent (for all intents and purposes) construct that at best could be described as an initial force of nature of some kind; the spark that ignited the big bang, let's say, that somehow also programmed into just one of trillions of as yet non-existent species to emerge billions of years later to seek to treat each other better than they currently are.


Do you see both the logical inconsistency in that as well as the absurdity of such a construct?

rw: I do appreciate you equivocating my argument with a force of nature. That is something we can all agree likely exists so your help in bringing my argument closer to fruition is much appreciated. I wish I had thought of that.


rw: I have given a fair defense of my position against every example and against claims that his omnipotence should automatically, of its own volition, make things different. I’ve defended why this won’t work and demonstrated the logic but still getting hammered with the omnipotence thing. Somebody needs to tell me how God can by-pass the meta-path and create a man without a history, no experience, no base of valuation, and this be a better man than one who has earned his place in line. It just isn’t logical and I await a convincing argument to the contrary.



Koy: Well, again, there's an example of you obtaining the mouse in the wild while positing the mouse in the maze. History, experience and valuation to a mouse in the maze would be pointless to the mouse itself, other than it would result in cheese.

rw: Only our universe is a rather strange way to depict a maze.




Koy: But his "greatest good" could simply be imposed by an omnimax god. There would have to be reason, which you claim is the earned vs. unearned.

rw: Well, I’m kinda glad you brought that up Koy. To date, I’ve been sitting back and just letting the proponents of PoE use God’s attributes right and left whenever their reasoning skills failed them. “But God is omnipotent, he can do anything!”, you declare. Okay, fine by me. But if you get to use God’s attributes then by-god so do I. You want an interfering God? Something you can sink your teeth into? I shall now tailor my argument to include the proposition that God does in indeed intervene to reduce pain and suffering and evil. That every scientific and political advance man currently enjoys came by way of divine revelation plopped into the minds of arrogant men who believe they invented or discovered the knowledge of these things themselves. That every time, grasping, grabbing murdering, raping, child molesting, genocidal man lifted his head up out of his own filth long enough to ask “why”, God was there to supply him with a little more of the puzzle. He did so because he’s omni-benevolent and he was able to do so because he’s omnipotent. That when or if man ever does actually reach his greatest good it’ll be because an omni-max being was working in the background providing him with the knowledge needed to make the connections. Oh, man will think he did it himself, and only God will know the difference.

Remember, God is omnipotent.

Koy: While we recognize what "earned" vs. "unearned" means to us in regard to our natural survival-oriented existence, it would be utterly meaningless to a god of any construction (other than the punishing god of the bible).

rw: Omniscience says otherwise.

rw: Those values are identical to God’s but to a lesser degree.



Koy: Why? Why would any god, not just your god, who is not interested in punishment for non-compliance, care about whether or not one species out of trillions attained their "greatest state"?

rw: More assumed speculation. First identify where in my argument I’ve stated that we are one out of trillions. Or where I’ve implied we are the only one out of trillions. I’ve already ascribed a purpose sufficient to meet the challenge.

Koy: You keep claiming this is what your god wants. Why? To what end? What possible difference would it make to either the god or to us? What if we never attain our "greatest state?"

rw: If we fail to attain we cease to exist. Omni-benevolence is why.

Koy: In other words, what obtains from any of this? You seem to think that man's "greatest state" is justification in and of itself; a sufficiently desireable state that your god wants us to attain. Why and/or how, if, again, we're taking your god concept? How and/or why does something the equivalence of the strong nuclear force, for example, instantiate any of this?

rw: Why do you keep equivocating this being with nature? Does nature possess these attributes? Are we arguing a pantheistic being? My argument does not have god instantiating man’s greatest good but man earning it. Why existence and not nothing?

rw: How does one have benevolence when one has no history of events relating to compassion?



Koy: So, we're mice in your god's maze so that your god can learn benevolence? How does your god have omni benevolence, let alone regular old benevelonce, when it had no history of events relating to compassion?

rw: And what makes you assume that? If such a being is eternal seems to me he would have quite an extensive history. What that history might be I wouldn’t think of speculating. But why do I have to explain god’s attributes when it’s PoE wielding them? Maybe you better ask yourself that question.

rw: How does one have the capacity to do almost anything God can do when one has no history of doing anything? How does one have knowledge without a history of experience? You see the logic and what needs to be described by my opponents to break that logic? It’s unbreakable.



Koy: No, it's misconstrued, considering that god (not yours) is alleged to have always existed as omnimax and not learned omnimax as a result of placing us in his maze. If benevolence and knowledge do not have to have a history to exist for this god, then it is possible this god can remove the same qualification for us. But you are not positing this god; you are positing an effectively non-existent, non-interfering equivalent of something like gravity, that could not and would not care what we do or don't do.

rw: That’s not my position nor my argument. My argument, as a response to PoE, must necessarily work from the same attributes. Is gravity omni-max? Are you arguing something different from PoE? I’d say you are. You keep pushing us towards a pantheistic version. These comparisons are all natural…like Wheaties. How does one “learn” onimax? Is it taught somewhere? Stanford or Yale maybe?

Koy: Once again, you're describing our experience as a necessary result of no omnimax god existing; not just no omnimax god interfering.

rw: And the proponents of PoE are arguing that our experience is that we live in a world of terrible tragedy and suffering brought about by our apparent lack of experience. They always point to diseases for which we have no cure, catastrophes from which we have no protection, evil from which we can’t seem to contain. So just how reliable is our experience? So how then do we depend on our apparently limited and faulty experience to declare such a being doesn’t exist? If our experience is so bad that we can’t contain the evil and suffering around us, how is it that our experience suddenly gets much better when discussing the possible existence of such a being?


P1 Our experience doesn’t allow us to contain suffering

P2 Our experience doesn’t allow that an omni-max being has contained our suffering

P3 Our experience doesn’t allow that omni-max being exists because he hasn’t done what we haven’t done.

P4 Thus our experience is that pain and suffering is omni-max.
That’s no more absurd than PoE.



Koy: And logically inconsistent, as well as, you'll forgive me, absurd, as far as I can see. A non-interfering god that is the equivalent of a chemical catalyst for all intents and purposes, that somehow has programmed into the unfolding of billions of years of evolution a moral compass (thereby, arguably, interfering), to be triggered by just one of the trillions of species that obtain, in order for that one species to (hopefully) attain their "greatest moral state" with one another, for no reason (other than the implication that we somehow matter and that our greatest moral state is significant).

rw: Absurd? Why do you find my calling a spade a spade absurd? What is the difference between saying a god is non-existent (for all intent and practical purposes) and saying a non-interfering god? There is no difference. The non-existence is implied in PoE through-out so I’m just granting the claim and then arguing a logically possible set of reasons for the non-interference. For some reason you find this absurd. If it is so absurd why has it generated so much scholarly criticism? Apparently some folks don’t agree with you. Seems to me an argument that’s patently absurd would have just been ignored by folks like Thomas, Alix, Wyz, Marz, SRB, Doc and anyone else I didn’t intentionally mean to omit.

Koy: Why would this matter and how would this be significant, given the god you're positing?

rw: That’s covered in the OP.

Koy: We don't mean anything to the universe.

rw: So, who cares. We mean something to one another and to our pets thus the concept of meaning something to somebody is a valid concept.

Koy: We don't mean anything to fish or fowl or insect or cow, other than as predators to be avoided at all costs. We only matter to ourselves.

rw: I matter to my pets. My dogs would fight for me, maybe even to the death. My pets mean something to me. I care about my eco-system also. Meaning something carries much further than just to ourselves.

Koy: So why do we matter (and how would we matter) to the god you're positing? I do believe I've asked you this before....

rw: Omni-benevolence. Shall I define it?



Koy: The god of the bible?

rw: No.

Koy: Or your god construct?

rw: PoE’s God construct.

Koy: The god of the bible is described as perfect, but that wasn't my point. My point was that god, being omnimax could simply create us as our greatest possible good.

rw: I’ve already defended this speculation several times. I’m not going over it again.

Koy: Just as god requires no history to be benevolent or have knowledge, he could instantiate the same conditions in all of us.

rw: Nope! History has zilch to do with it. Man’s choices are what determine his history. You’ve abrogated man’s role in his greater good to by-pass the suffering and wind up with a robot or a simpleton. No doubt God could do this but what’s the point?

Koy: That we haven't "earned" it implies that god is not omnimax in the slightest.

rw: That we haven’t earned it yet implies only that we still have a ways to go…and that is all.

Koy: To "earn" something is to, as you put it, progress over time and history; something that doesn't apply to an omnimax god.

rw: Straw man

Koy: If it doesn't apply to an omnimax god, then there is no reason to think that such a being would even know what it means in order to set it up for us.

rw: Omniscience.

Koy: Start with a god concept and then show how this world results from it. For example, if your god is omnibenevolent, then for us to learn benevolence over time, so would your god; thus your god's omnibenevelonce was learned over time (and history). That's where it came up with the knowledge of why learning something over time (and history) is how one achieves benevolence.

If our benevolence status quo comes as a result of time and history, then god's benevolence status quo came as a result of time and history. If we are to care about humans because we are human, then your god has to care about humans because it was once human. See what I mean? Logically consistent.

rw: No, I think you made an illogical jump from humans caring about humans to god having to be human to care about humans. I care about my horses but that doesn’t mean I had to be a horse to do so. But the other aspect of your argument is interesting. I suppose it wouldn’t matter how god came upon his attributes as long as we agree what they are and mean. PoE assumes them to present its argument so I’m only obligated to those attributes as they are used in PoE for my argument.



Koy:By removing evil.

rw: What do you mean by “removing”?

Koy: Your question is, how do humans know they are behaving in a "good" (moral) manner if they don't have evil to compare it to?

rw: No, my question is, how will humans know to make the moral choice without good and evil.

Koy: Who cares, if the goal is morality? Again there's your "earned/unearned" fallacy.

rw: I see no fallacy except the one you’ve been laboring to produce for several pages now. You have shifted the focus of your response from the CP dealing with suffering to the Traditional PoE that postulates a state of affairs sans evil. So…
Why don’t you describe such a world to me sans evil and how it works. I need some details about the people, how they live, why they live, what they do for a living…otherwise, I’m afraid you’ve just made another unsupported assertion.

Koy: Unless your god likewise had to survive through "good and evil" prior to becoming whatever god it is you're positing, then the same logic that says, "God is just good" says, "Man is just good."

rw: Is that like “man is just able to split atoms so dogs are just able to split atoms”?

Koy: If god doesn't have to learn it, then we don't have to learn it.

rw: Really? And how did you learn this? Were you born with this knowledge? So when did benevolence get to be a matter of learning? What happened to it being a matter of choice…the will? How does one transmit experience along with learning? And why should the same process apply to God? Because you say so? Just because man has to accumulate his experiences the hard way doesn’t mean God does. But then, it doesn’t really matter. PoE has already established these attributes and we all assume they have logical positioning until our arguments are negated.


Koy: Unless, again, you are positing a god that is using us for some sort of experiment, in which case we're right back to being nothing more relevant than mice in a maze.

rw:Funny, I don’t feel like a mouse in a maze, but then, this universe is quite a maze.

rw: How do you understand good and evil without experiencing it?



Koy: Same must apply to your god, then. Fine by me, but just remain logically consistent.

rw: You mean the god of PoE? Why should we assume this god hasn’t experienced it?

rw: How does perfection attain without normative value?



Koy: Again, apply this to your god concept and then unfold from there, but reallize you're once again just positing a god concept that is little more than a more intelligent (not omnimax) extraterrestrial human from some other more advanced planet, who somehow has the ability to implant his own idea of morality for the possible purpose of teaching the soon-to-be-new kids on the block how to behave in polite, intergalactic society.

rw: Unresponsive.



Rw: I haven’t incorporated freewill in my argument…only man’s will. Whether it’s free or not is irrelevant. As long as he has choices, meaning availability of both good and evil, that’s all the rope I need to hang PoE out to dry.



Koy: Accept that this does not obtain from your approach yet.

rw: Has from where I’m sitting. At any rate, I'm enjoying the intellectual challenge. It's interesting to me that I can still argue from this position without the conviction that I use to have as a theist. Perhaps I'm just more accustomed to taking this side of the argument, (shrug), I often wonder why more atheists don't try it...perhaps for the same reason I do. I guess if you feel there's something more at stake in these discussions you tend to gravitate towards restricting yourself to one side of the fence but it is enlightening when you get beyond that and explore both worldviews as antagonist and protagonist. This side of the issue is definetly the more tedious side to maintain so it takes a great deal more work and imagination. Thanks for your input Koy, it has been enlightening, as always.

Have a great day
John

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,



Thomas: Yes, no, and somewhat, respectively.

rw: So you support the idea of a fetus being destroyed if it serves the greater good of the mother?

And you support the idea of a person being incarcerated for the duration of their life as opposed to being executed, with a subsequent end to their misery?

And you support the war in Iraq, somewhat?

Am I then to infer from this that you hold that it's alright for man to inflict pain and suffering if it serves some greater good but God is to be held accountable if he does nothing and his inaction serves some greater good as well?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

No. You're begging the question egregiously. I don't think God is serving any greater good by his inaction. You have to provide some reasons to think God is serving a greater good by his inaction, if you want to avoid the evidential problem of evil.

I've already pointed out the following moral principle, the Principle of Intervention, with the "kid attacked by bees" analogy:

(PI) One has an obligation to intervene to prevent gratuitous suffering, even if other people could have prevented it.

And this moral principle, the Principle of Equality, with the "kid about to pour boiling water on her head" analogy:

(PE) An unearned good is sometimes better than an earned good.

So you have to give me some reasons to doubt (PI) and (PE).

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,

1. You failed to answer my question. The reason I asked the question is because it goes towards establishing that the concept of immediate pain and suffering for a greater good is a viable concept. It's demonstrated in abortion, capital punishment/life imprisonment, and war. It's also demonstrated in childbirth and surgery.

2. As to P1 I've already responded to many of such similar examples so that you should know my response by now. An omniscient being would know more than you about the eventual consequences of interference so that immediate action is considered unwarranted.

3. As to PE the same argument applies from P1. An accident that results in a learning process has value. Are you advocating God follow people around all their lives and become an omni-max safety man?

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,
Just to follow up on our previous exchange, you continually submitting all these examples as part of your CP doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of my argument. My argument applies to any and all examples you can imagine derived from this state of affairs. It applies this way because it's based on the same epistemology as your your own.

The only way you can break the argument from this angle is to address the concept of immediate pain and suffering serving a greater good. But this concept or rule or whatever you want to call it is an intricate part of your rational epistemology and is reflected in the law, government, medicine, and many other areas of life dealing with ethics and morals.

For instance, if we carry your reasoning against god out to its conclusion we have to concede that locking up a rapist does not serve the greater good of the community. Thus, to be benevolent, we must exonerate him and turn him loose on society to rape again.

If I may suggest, perhaps a change of tactics would be in order as I am running out of time and don't see any need in continually responding to examples that fail to address my argument in any meaningful way. Look beneath the surface for the rational connections and see if you can find another approach.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I answered the question. I said "no." Read my post again.

I know that suffering for a greater good is a "viable concept." What we've been asking you to give us is some reason to think all the suffering on the planet is necessary for a greater good.

These aren't cases of suffering that's necessary for a greater good, because an omnipotent being could secure all the goals without using suffering. Do you understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions?

You've so far failed to provide even one example of suffering that's necessary for a greater good, so why should I think all of them are? All of the examples you've tried to provide (for example, the ones above), I've shown not to be necessary for a greater good, if an omnipotent being exists. (Unless you can provide reasons to deny (PI) or (PE)...)

Only if intervention would preclude some greater good, which you have yet to show. You're still begging the question. The question is not "Suppose I saw a kid attacked by bees and I knew that the bees served a greater good -- should I intervene?" The question is "Suppose I saw a kid attacked by bees. Should I intervene?" The answer the latter is clearly "Yes." Thus, I have supported (PI). To deny (PI), you must deny that we should help anyone who's suffering.

No. I've never advocated that. And I've never claimed that an accident that results in a learning process never has value. You're not engaging my posts. You seem to think I'm claiming that no accident that results in a learning process has value. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that sometimes, learning from an accident is worse than just being taught immediately, and I've proven it with my "pot of boiling water" example. So I've supported (PE). To deny (PE), you must decide that it's better to let kids pour boiling water on their heads so they learn not to do that in the future.

rainbow walking

I can see this is coming down to a case of I can't possibly be right because if I were, you'd be wrong.

But, just for the record, let's recap:

I have submitted a logically sound argument. I say it's sound because it has withstood the criticisms launched thusfar.

In that argument I have postulated a logically possible reason why God doesn't interfere. I have also used that logic to defend against a number of examples designed to over-turn the logic. In every case I have extrapolated out some very logically possible consequences to man's greater good were God to interfere in those specific examples.

In every case Thomas, and all others resorting to this tactic, have been forced to incur "sufficiency" and "necessity" to defend their position and in every case they have been further forced to appeal to omnipotence to rescue thier examples from the bright glaring spotlight of my logic.

What Thomas has failed to do in every case is recognize that I have already conceded omnipotence to him. That God could do these things...but he won't allow himself to do them and I point Thomas right back to the soundness of my argument as justification for why.

In every case Thomas ignores God's omniscience and continues to argue that God's omnipotence will make it happen somehow.

Unfortunately for Thomas he fails to realize the contradictions incurred in his defense of CP when he does this. If he postulates omnipotence can over-come God's willfull omniscience he incurs a logical contradiction in his CP and it fails to obtain.

I have pointed this out to him on several occasions to no avail. My very sound argument forces Thomas to bridge the gap between sufficiency and necessity with omnipotence which incurs a logical contradiction to both God's attributes and my very sound argument. My very sound argument places the burden back on Thomas to show why God's inteference doesn't incur a detriment to man's greater good. In every case where Thomas has tried to do this my defense has compelled him to introduce omnipotence to support his argument. Thus Thomas appears without recourse but to appeal to a contradiction in every case and my very sound argument proves its soundness.

In addition Thomas seems not to be cognizant of the attribute of omni-benevolence which is a term denoting all-caring. This means God cares for all of mankind from start to finish and is quite concerned that man realize his own greatest good. Thomas's examples focus on individual cases that require God to decide between the good of one or a million and the good of ALL as pertains to his omni-benevolence. This is another false dichotomy Thomas introduces into his assumptions about God's responsibilities incurred by omni-benevolence.

Regardless of how it's presented PoE is a flop.