God the Programmer

[Thief]

I've never once seen an answer that wasn't blatantly fallacious or non sequitor.



There are contradictions as in logical contradictions, as in such a god can't exist.



Why? Because that's the definition of benevolence. If you had a child that didn't know you existed would you press a red button to fire missiles at them? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Poor analogies.

I would probably allow things to run their course.
And maybe my children will find the error of their ways...on their own.

If not...they have the scribes and prophets...as do you.

 

[logician]

Even so...
you have this world to deal with.

The discussion of theology should be aimed at dealing with the next world.

Think you can take your numbers with you?

There is no next world, when you die, by definition, you are dead, that is the way of evolution, and life.

 

[Meow Mix]

Poor analogies.

I would probably allow things to run their course.
And maybe my children will find the error of their ways...on their own.

If not...they have the scribes and prophets...as do you.

I think this discussion is over if you can't engage in it.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Even if so, some possible worlds are clearly better than others.

After actually reading through this entire thread perhaps this is as good as any other comment to reply to.

How can you be sure that this world with it's current suffering (which is a subjective condition by the way) is not a better world than one without the possibility of suffering in it? I suppose another way of asking the question is how do you know that this is not the better world to create in order to get to an outcome you intend to achieve? How do you know that the possibility of suffering is not a necessary (all be it unfortunate and unpleasant) part of the over all program to achieve a greater specific purpose?

I would also note that you already have stated that some type of suffering is necessary or at the least plays a useful purpose in this present world - that being to warn us of danger so we would not suffer even worse hurt or suffering (hand on a hot stove I think is the example you used - pg. 4 of this thread).

 

[Meow Mix]

After actually reading through this entire thread perhaps this is as good as any other comment to reply to.

Yeah it can get really confusing when there's a billion pages I totally understand. I often start threads and then people take them in their own direction and I can't keep up with 'em so I just basically abandon them if they're uninteresting. That's actually only happened once or twice though. Most of the people on this board bring up good food for thought even if it wasn't in the direction I was going. That's why I <3 RF

How can you be sure that this world with it's current suffering (which is a subjective condition by the way) is not a better world than one without the possibility of suffering in it? I suppose another way of asking the question is how do you know that this is not the better world to create in order to get to an outcome you intend to achieve? How do you know that the possibility of suffering is not a necessary (all be it unfortunate and unpleasant) part of the over all program to achieve a greater specific purpose?

This is the fallacy of special pleading. "Yes it appears evil that person X is suffering, but we shouldn't question the torturer (or the allowerer of the torture) because maybe there is some inexplicable reason that makes it actually good!" It's a metaphysical "possibility" but it's not a rational belief to actually stand behind.

Someone could retort that maybe all the things that seem good to us are actually inexplicably evil and it would have just as much evidence/justification as the former assertion. It's a stalemate. Also, it's simply fallacious; don't even know why I feel compelled to say anything beyond "it's a fallacy." Maybe I feel compelled because special pleading is such a common fallacy amongst theists I speak with.

I would also note that you already have stated that some type of suffering is necessary or at the least plays a useful purpose in this present world - that being to warn us of danger so we would not suffer even worse hurt or suffering (hand on a hot stove I think is the example you used - pg. 4 of this thread).

Yes, in a world where it's possible to be harmed it most certainly is a good thing to have a feeling of pain to remind us that we don't want whatever's happening to be happening.

However, it's entirely reasonable to imagine a possible world which God could have created -- supposing He exists, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and is benevolent -- in which there is either greatly reduced suffering or no suffering.

I likened it to programming: let's say that I'm a programmer who controls the world of some sim people. Would I be malevolent or benevolent for coding into the programming for tornadoes to destroy some of their houses and kill some of their children?

 

[Reptillian]

I likened it to programming: let's say that I'm a programmer who controls the world of some sim people. Would I be malevolent or benevolent for coding into the programming for tornadoes to destroy some of their houses and kill some of their children?

Thats assuming tornadoes aren't a necessary consequence of other vital parts of the program interacting. As a physicist you've undoubtedly seen how extremely different physical phenomena can follow similar laws. Extreme complexity can arise from very simple things interacting. Delete tidal waves and you may end up having to get rid of light...delete tornadoes and water might not drain from sinks...delete forest fires and chemicals might not disperse properly in water.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Quote:
How can you be sure that this world with it's current suffering (which is a subjective condition by the way) is not a better world than one without the possibility of suffering in it? I suppose another way of asking the question is how do you know that this is not the better world to create in order to get to an outcome you intend to achieve? How do you know that the possibility of suffering is not a necessary (all be it unfortunate and unpleasant) part of the over all program to achieve a greater specific purpose?

This is the fallacy of special pleading. "Yes it appears evil that person X is suffering, but we shouldn't question the torturer (or the allowerer of the torture) because maybe there is some inexplicable reason that makes it actually good!"

Ah, but is that the question(s) I posed? First, I never stated anywhere that the suffering we see and experience ourselves today is good. I actually stated, as seen above, that the suffering experienced today is both "unfortunate and unpleasant."

Secondly, I have posted the relevant section above again, with different emphasis. I said..."the possibility of"... recall that, according to Christianity, God did not create the world as it currently is now. Yes, He did create the possibility for the current world, but not the necessity. Yes, I know, God is also claimed to be omniscient (all-knowing) and thus would have known what would eventually happen, and yes, the Bible does teach this as well. But it still is the case (according to Christianity) that He did not directly bring the world as it now is into existence. So again:

"...How do you know that the possibility of suffering is not a necessary (all be it unfortunate and unpleasant) part of the over all program to achieve a greater specific purpose?"

Yes, I do not know anyone who would disagree that an all powerful god could create a world with no possibility of suffering of any kind. But again, without going into a discussion of what type of world that would actually be like (not as good of one as you may or may not think), how can you really know that in order to achieve the better end/purpose ("better" of course being realative to a creator god's standard and not ours) that the possibilty of the current world was not an unavoidable possibility to reach that end? Perhaps we are at a point, already, in the conversation where it must be said that no matter what position one takes on this particular issue it will have to be accepted ultimately as a matter of faith and not of reasoning through the issue alone (see Basis for Belief Thread pg. 3 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/104105-basis-belief-3.html).

It's a metaphysical "possibility" but it's not a rational belief to actually stand behind

why is it not reasonable to hold to such a view?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thats assuming tornadoes aren't a necessary consequence of other vital parts of the program interacting. As a physicist you've undoubtedly seen how extremely different physical phenomena can follow similar laws. Extreme complexity can arise from very simple things interacting. Delete tidal waves and you may end up having to get rid of light...delete tornadoes and water might not drain from sinks...delete forest fires and chemicals might not disperse properly in water.

Not true, think of it in terms of programming. It's pretty simple to program a world that has all other working mechanisms besides those of tornado generation; even if we have to manually correct other things after removing the capacity for tornadoes. Or you could simply leave everyhting the way it is and add a few simple lines that abort a tornado if it begins to form.

 

[Meow Mix]

Quote:
How can you be sure that this world with it's current suffering (which is a subjective condition by the way) is not a better world than one without the possibility of suffering in it? I suppose another way of asking the question is how do you know that this is not the better world to create in order to get to an outcome you intend to achieve? How do you know that the possibility of suffering is not a necessary (all be it unfortunate and unpleasant) part of the over all program to achieve a greater specific purpose?

It isn't my job to justify that suffering is somehow necessary to achieve a greater purpose.

My job as a skeptic is simply to show:

1) An omnipotent/omniscient being can actualize any logically possible state of affairs
2) Logical possibility simply entails not having contradictions
3) There are no apparent contradictions with suffering being an impossible state of affairs in a world

That's it. My job ends there by demonstrating that it's as far as we know not contradictory to have a state of affairs where suffering isn't possible and that such a world would be ultimately desirable.

If you want to argue that for some reason suffering "must" exist to have the best possible world, the ball of evidence is in your court at that point. Special pleading fallacy happens when you say "Well it simply could be the case, inexplicably" without any explanation.

Ah, but is that the question(s) I posed? First, I never stated anywhere that the suffering we see and experience ourselves today is good. I actually stated, as seen above, that the suffering experienced today is both "unfortunate and unpleasant."

Secondly, I have posted the relevant section above again, with different emphasis. I said..."the possibility of"... recall that, according to Christianity, God did not create the world as it currently is now. Yes, He did create the possibility for the current world, but not the necessity. Yes, I know, God is also claimed to be omniscient (all-knowing) and thus would have known what would eventually happen, and yes, the Bible does teach this as well. But it still is the case (according to Christianity) that He did not directly bring the world as it now is into existence. So again:

Then in what way did suffering come into existence?

If you say "sin" caused it, then that just begs many questions. For instance, I started a thread detailing how specifically a certain organism evades the immune system to torture human beings while reproducing. That specificity didn't come from nowhere. Saying that we caused it to happen somehow by sinning doesn't explain why it's so specifically able to penetrate our defenses -- where did that specificity come from?

If it was created, then God is malevolent. If it evolved (but God exists, and could intervene, but didn't) then God is negligent/malevolent.

why is it not reasonable to hold to such a view?

Because it's not reasonable by definition to hold a view that's "justified" (i.e., not justified) by a fallacy.

 

[Reptillian]

Not true, think of it in terms of programming. It's pretty simple to program a world that has all other working mechanisms besides those of tornado generation; even if we have to manually correct other things after removing the capacity for tornadoes. Or you could simply leave everyhting the way it is and add a few simple lines that abort a tornado if it begins to form.

Personally, as a slightly less than omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent being, if I were to endeavor to create a sentient mechanical being or an artificial reality I probably wouldn't even concern myself with individual events or specific programming. I'd probably attempt to model the mind/world in terms of cellular automata. I'd attempt to define the cells and their interactions in ways that would produce the greatest amount of complex behavior. Hopefully complex stable reproducing patterns similar to life and thought would emerge. I think the real world is probably a lot like this. Laws probably just "fall out" as consequences of simple things interacting in complex ways. In this sort of world, (one created by an imperfect me) changing an event would be difficult without altering the fundamental programming...i.e. the definitions of cells, the initial conditions, the boundary conditions, or the nature of the cells' interactions. Since I'm a limited creator, if I made such a large chaotic cellular automata universe that managed to have recognizable individuals and patterns, I wouldn't feel it was ethical to change the program since that would have consequences to the beings that I couldn't predict in advance.

YouTube - Elvis - If I Can Dream + Lyrics

 

[Meow Mix]

Personally, as a slightly less than omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent being, if I were to endeavor to create a sentient mechanical being or an artificial reality I probably wouldn't even concern myself with individual events or specific programming. I'd probably attempt to model the mind/world in terms of cellular automata. I'd attempt to define the cells and their interactions in ways that would produce the greatest amount of complex behavior. Hopefully complex stable reproducing patterns similar to life and thought would emerge. I think the real world is probably a lot like this. Laws probably just "fall out" as consequences of simple things interacting in complex ways. In this sort of world, (one created by an imperfect me) changing an event would be difficult without altering the fundamental programming...i.e. the definitions of cells, the initial conditions, the boundary conditions, or the nature of the cells' interactions. Since I'm a limited creator, if I made such a large chaotic cellular automata universe that managed to have recognizable individuals and patterns, I wouldn't feel it was ethical to change the program since that would have consequences to the beings that I couldn't predict in advance.

[youtube]OhUDyBwJhto[/youtube]
YouTube - Elvis - If I Can Dream + Lyrics

God isn't typically posited as not being omnipotent, though. Hence Epicurus's famous adage "If he is willing but unable, then he is impotent."

You could still reasonably fix a problem by just adding more code even as a fallible being though. Just make your code look for a specific condition -- i.e., low pressure, wind speed picking up to the hundreds of miles an hour, etc., and just add a "killswitch." Done.

 

[Reptillian]

God isn't typically posited as not being omnipotent, though. Hence Epicurus's famous adage "If he is willing but unable, then he is impotent."

You could still reasonably fix a problem by just adding more code even as a fallible being though. Just make your code look for a specific condition -- i.e., low pressure, wind speed picking up to the hundreds of miles an hour, etc., and just add a "killswitch." Done.

Yeah, then there is the problem of whether an impotent imperfect God is worthy of devotion or worship.

The problem is that in my cellular automata (CA) universe, a killswitch for something recognizably harmful to the patterns I associate with sentient beings wouldn't be so easy to program. Smaller versions of the harmful patterns might even be present within the beings themselves as part of their internal processes...so the killswitch might kill the beings too. Thats kind of what I was getting at a few pages back in this thread.

I'd also be worried that the patterns I perceived as harmful might be part of some larger pattern for a more complex being. As a limited being myself, I wouldn't feel comfortable ethically playing around with a CA universe containing beings...even if I did create it in the first place. If only I could communicate with the beings and get their input...but communication would require changing the program a little. Hence my dilemma as an imperfect creator.

 

[PolyHedral]

The problem is that in my cellular automata (CA) universe, a killswitch for something recognizably harmful to the patterns I associate with sentient beings wouldn't be so easy to program.

While this is true, remember that you have an infinite amount of in-universe time in which to perfect your algorithm.

 

[logician]

One cannot posit a programmer unless we were preordained. We weren't, we are an evolutionary sideshow, an unlikely event outside the third standard deviation on the bell curve. We were not an intentional part of any program.

 

[PolyHedral]

One cannot posit a programmer unless we were preordained.

Yes you can. There is a field known as "evolutionary algorithms".

 

[logician]

Yes you can. There is a field known as "evolutionary algorithms".

As a programmer, for a program to be usuable, it's output must be reproducible. Such a thing is not possible in a chaotic/random universe/multiverse, i.e it could not have been "programmed", because there was no way to control the output.

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course there is; Just make sure you write the down the random number generator seeds. If you know those, and the starting conditions, the program will run exactly as before. (since the only time you want the computer to be truly random is when you don't want to be able to re-run the program.)

 

[Meow Mix]

One cannot posit a programmer unless we were preordained. We weren't, we are an evolutionary sideshow, an unlikely event outside the third standard deviation on the bell curve. We were not an intentional part of any program.

Also, I'm not positing that we are living in a program; just that it's a convenient way to conceptualize how a God can actualize any logically possible state of affairs.

Edit: on the other hand, if a god exists, what is the difference between "the universe" and "a program that God wrote?" Other than logic and other incorrigibles, it is indeed metaphysically exactly like a program... Except not represented on a screen, really.

 

[logician]

Of course there is; Just make sure you write the down the random number generator seeds. If you know those, and the starting conditions, the program will run exactly as before. (since the only time you want the computer to be truly random is when you don't want to be able to re-run the program.)

The only way this could work is for the program model to be as large as the universe, not a very efficient program.

 

[PolyHedral]

What do you mean? Physical size has very little relation to data storage.

Except not represented on a screen, really.

How would you know?