Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[Prophet]

What? What axioms have you proven wrong?
State them right here.

There are too many to name but I'm happy to give my favorite examples. I've demonstrated that your version of an all-loving God who is primarily concerned with suffering reduction above all things is actually not all-loving but instead he is a manipulative monster. You also seem pretty slow on the concept of how ability to help and harm correlate so much so that you give continuously give theories that an all-loving God would send us through existence decreeing that if we ever do invent scissors, they can only be sharp enough to cut construction paper. Your version of all-loving is not only manipulative and evil, but is fixing to raise coddled, dependent idiots as well.

Are you going to substantiate your stance to show that it is more than a preconception ?

Jesus called people who tie heavy loads to the backs of others which they weren't willing to lift themselves hypocrites. You cite no sources and now you feel you get to demand my own? That's funny.

If things unable to reason appear to simulate a decision-making process that means that what we call free will may be nothing more than an agglomerate of chemical reactions.

My own life supplies me with sufficient evidence every moment of free will. I'd suspect yours does for you as well.

What is wrong with limiting our ability to help?
Saying that it is stupid requires a justification.
I don't know want to know about the ability to harm at this moment. I am talking strictly about the ability to help right now.

Your justification for limiting our ability to help (which was harm reduction, which you don't want to talk about right now to make a point) is stupid in itself as it is a wash at best from the perspective of harm, at the cost of putting in the universe's first artificial barrier and limiting our freedom. Limiting our ability to help without getting any benefit of harm reduction (because we're strictly not talking about that right now to make your point) would be even more stupid as it would have NO justification.

I don't remember saying that sentence. Can you refer to the post I said that?

You never said it word for word but it's what you mean. What is the real difference between saying God should kill someone and saying God should go back in time and make it so they never existed?

Eradicate, like now? That doesn't sound like me. The existence of a mere moment where evil ( or suffering ) exists is sufficient to establish god is not omnimax. God would either preemptively not allow plasmodium to come into existence, or simply timely intervene so as malaria never happens.

Oh yes, here's what I'm talking about. Eradicate? That's too much blood on the hands. We prefer to leave our wetwork to natural disasters or time vortices, don't we? If I found a way to go back in time and did so with the intention of removing your existence by some interaction with your ancestors, would I truly be any less guilty of murder?

I think misquoting people to make your point is not exactly a good practice. Wouldn't you agree?

If I wanted a direct quote I would have gone back for one. As it stands, you argue that plasmodium (and I'd bet many other beings you are not peers with) have no consciousness. Morals are based upon empathy for other conscious beings. It follows that you'd have less of a moral problem with the eradication of plasmodium than Hitler did with the eradication of Jews. What you call a misquote is a dead ringer for the testimony you've already provided against yourself in your worldview.

How do slugs help each other?
You are unable to answer this question. That's why you don't answer it. Such a shame that you would rather prefer to waste your time and mine writting statements irrelevant to our debate.

LOL keep on goading. This is going to win you the victory for sure.

I am not sure I comprehend what you have said here. Can you rephrase it?

Even if you can say that God leaves all choices available at the same time as closing off a distant one generations down the road we might not know about (which is a mess in itself), now you must explain why God would do something stupid.

This covers the same ground as something I already said above: Your justification for limiting our ability to help is stupid in itself as it is a wash at best from the perspective of harm reduction, at the cost of putting in the universe's first artificial barrier and limiting our freedom. Limiting our ability to help without getting any benefit of harm reduction would be even more stupid as it would have NO justification.

How are they being put in chains?

Being "in chains" is a simple metaphor for having your freedom taken away.

By what means am I reaching the conclusion of what god would do?
I want to be certain you comprehend where I am coming from.

You are speaking of conclusions of what God would do by means of pure ignorance, based on feelings of love and concepts of goodness you've not yet fully explored within yourself.

I think you are completely clueless about the problem of evil.
Have you ever read about it? These statements make me think you don't know much about it.

Yeah, I must be a massive moron. The problem of evil is the topic of this thread, and I had no idea!

The problem of evil is dependent on axioms that I've been hard at work at destroying. You know, like your primitive concepts of omniscience (including future knowledge) and omnibenevolence (which is actually only benevolent to beings you relate to)?

I will explain to you something which is quite important to comprehend and address this problem: When we create logical arguments using words, these words mean what the one who proposes the argument means to say by them. It is usually easier to convey this meaning when there is a common usage of a word.

And I am happy to debate definitions.

In the problem of evil, the word 'omnibenevolence' means the infinite will to do good. 'Good' here is understood as it would be in many daily uses of this word, that means: to increase the well-being of individuals.

And to increase our well-being, you'd have us all be on level ground as microorganisms? How would this exchange of ideas ever happen in a universe that you are God over, where anything that could possibly harm us (like a sharp rock, a stupid argument, or evolution) is bubbled off and rendered inert forever? How would that be GOOD?

When you say that I have no comprehension of what omnibenevolence and omniscience are ( even though my statements so far are compatible with how those words are used in the problem of evil ), that means you are getting lost on the word being used, and ending up with merely a semantic disagreement on my usage which is completely irrelevant for this debate.

The problem of evil has enough problems of its own. When its concept of omnibenevolence is taken to its logical conclusion, it results in justifications for some very non-benevolent behavior. When its concept of omniscience (including future free will actions) is taken to its logical conclusion, it results in free will being a farce.

I am not having quite as much fun as you. Perhaps making empty claims and accusations might indeed make this a much more enjoyable experience.

It is, no doubt, easier to enjoy things you are good at. Maybe consider a new hobby.

 

[Koldo]

There are too many to name but I'm happy to give my favorite examples. I've demonstrated that your version of an all-loving God who is primarily concerned with suffering reduction above all things is actually not all-loving but instead he is a manipulative monster.

What? You have not shown that.

You also seem pretty slow on the concept of how ability to help and harm correlate so much so that you give continuously give theories that an all-loving God would send us through existence decreeing that if we ever do invent scissors, they can only be sharp enough to cut construction paper. Your version of all-loving is not only manipulative and evil, but is fixing to raise coddled, dependent idiots as well.

In what way is it evil, manipulative, and giving rise to dependent idiots?
Explain.

Jesus called people who tie heavy loads to the backs of others which they weren't willing to lift themselves hypocrites. You cite no sources and now you feel you get to demand my own? That's funny.

You said regarding my view, and I quote: "I would say you base this off of nothing but your preconceptions about what it is to be self-aware."

If you are going to denounce my view as nothing but a preconception, then I demand your view to be substantied as something more than a preconception. Otherwise, you are the hypocrite who accuses others of things that you yourself are guilty of.

My own life supplies me with sufficient evidence every moment of free will. I'd suspect yours does for you as well.

That's a typical statement for someone who hasn't read much about free will. I suggest you read about compatibilism and libertarian free will.

Your justification for limiting our ability to help (which was harm reduction, which you don't want to talk about right now to make a point) is stupid in itself. Limiting our ability to help without getting any benefit of harm reduction would be even more stupid as it would have NO justification.

Is there anything wrong with decreasing our ability to help in itself?
That's the question. You said that limiting our ability to help would be the consequence of the universe I suggested, speaking about it as if limiting our ability to help in itself is a bad thing ( even though harm would be reduced ). I want to comprehend why you consider limiting our ability to help, in itself, to be a problem.

You never said it word for word but it's what you mean. What is the real difference between saying God should kill someone and saying God should go back in time and make it so they never existed?

Ah, so you confess that you intentfully misquoted me.
I don't remember saying that god should go back in time to do anything. Are you going to attribute that to me as well?

Oh yes, here's what I'm talking about. Eradicate? That's too much blood on the hands. We like leave our wetwork to natural disasters or time vortices, don't we. It seems much more moral in your book to hire a hit man.

When I mentioned natural disasters I was talking about shaping environment. I have already explained this.

For instance, when we are talking about microorganisms, even changing the landscape can influence the path that evolution will take.

Curiously, since natural disasters already kill people, apparently god has hired many hitmen to do stuff...

If I wanted a direct quote I would have gone back for one. As it stands, you argue that plasmodium (and I'd bet many other beings you are not peers with) have no consciousness. Morals are based upon empathy for other conscious beings. It follows that you'd have as much of a moral problem with the eradication of plasmodium as Hitler did with the eradication of Jews.

That's correct. I also don't feel one bit of remorse when my body massacres the Influenza virus either. Do you? How I feel towards anyone or anything has no bearing on the argument though.

LOL keep on goading. This is going to win you the victory for sure.

I insist:
How do slugs help each other?

Being "in chains" is a simple metaphor for having your freedom taken away.

Thanks for stating the obvious.
Now, how are they put in chains?

You are speaking of conclusions of what God would do by means of pure ignorance, based on feelings of love you've not yet fully explored.

In what way is it pure ignorance?

Yeah, I must be a massive moron. The problem of evil is the topic of this thread, and I had no idea!

The problem of evil is dependent on axioms that I've been hard at work at destroying. You know, like your primitive concepts of omniscience (including future knowledge) and omnibenevolence (which is actually only benevolent to beings you relate to)?

So, is it your endeavor to debate over the problem of evil on semantic grounds? Is that it ?

And I am happy to debate definitions.

This is, as you like to call it, stupid.
What matters is the meaning being conveyed by the use of the words, not the word itself. To debate over the word itself is just fruitless.

And to increase our well-being, you'd have us all be on level ground as microorganisms? How would this exchange of ideas ever happen in a universe that you are God over, where anything that could possibly harm us (like a sharp rock, a stupid argument, or evolution) is bubbled off and rendered inert forever? How would that be GOOD?

The existence of only microorganisms was just one possibility out of many. Why would this exchange of ideas be significant ?

The problem of evil has enough problems of its own. When its concept of omnibenevolence is taken to its logical conclusion, it results in some very non-benevolent behavior. When its concept of omniscience (including future free will actions) is taken to its logical conclusion, it results in free will being a farce.

First, I would argue free will doesn't exist at all, so that is irrelevant. Second, you have yet to show that omnibenevolence if taken to its logical conclusion results in some very non-benevolent behavior. Third, if omnibenevolence and omniscience indeed can't exist at all, that is not a problem to the 'problem of evil'.

It is, no doubt, easier to enjoy things you are good at. Maybe consider a new hobby.

I am certain that deluding yourself into believing that you are good at something also works perfectly well considering your case.

 

[Prophet]

I'm out with my puppies for the next few hours, but out of sheer curiosity for what you'll do with it, my freshly googled research featuring microbes exhibiting altruism, complex environment manipulation, and the ability to make decisions by vote:

http://tamar.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Trends-published.pdf

Intelligent bacteria?

Microbial cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Prophet]

What? You have not shown that

In what way is it evil, manipulative, and giving rise to dependent idiots?
Explain.

Your version of a how a perfectly good and loving God would raise his children doesn't match up at all about what we know of quality parents, and, instead, much more closely resembles how Paris Hilton and her friends were raised... to be entitled, spoiled, miserable brats who get bailed out in every jam. Do you foresee Paris Hilton and her friends becoming good society? No? Then maybe you actually don't know what perfectly loving means.

You said regarding my view, and I quote: "I would say you base this off of nothing but your preconceptions about what it is to be self-aware."

If you are going to denounce my view as nothing but a preconception, then I demand your view to be substantied as something more than a preconception. Otherwise, you are the hypocrite who accuses others of things that you yourself are guilty of.

A lot of reasoning to go along with my preconceptions actually. But you got some citing in my last post, lot of good it will do you...

That's a typical statement for someone who hasn't read much about free will. I suggest you read about compatibilism and libertarian free will.

Oh, if only I were as well-read as you...

Is there anything wrong with decreasing our ability to help in itself?
That's the question. You said that limiting our ability to help would be the consequence of the universe I suggested, speaking about it as if limiting our ability to help in itself is a bad thing ( even though harm would be reduced ). I want to comprehend why you consider limiting our ability to help, in itself, to be a problem.

A benevolent father would raise his son to master his abilities, cultivate independence, wisdom, and freedom from fear. A slavedriver, on the other hand, would raise his slave to doubt his abilities, cultivate dependance, ignorance, and eternal fearfulness.

Limiting our ability to harm and help is an affront to freedom and an impediment to any possibility that we may, as beings, learn to master advanced abilities and achieve anything more than a lifetime in blind slavery. The being you describe as an all-loving God more closely resembles a slavedriver (or possibly a pet owner) than a loving father.

Ah, so you confess that you intentfully misquoted me.
I don't remember saying that god should go back in time to do anything. Are you going to attribute that to me as well?

No. You forcefully misread me again. I am saying that I have your worldview exactly. I am saying that you may as well say the things I put in quotes for you word for word because your own testimony has told us all that this is exactly how you think.

When I mentioned natural disasters I was talking about shaping environment. I have already explained this.

For instance, when we are talking about microorganisms, even changing the landscape can influence the path that evolution will take.

You explained? More like equivocated when pressed to a weak position where you have God performing fruitless endeavors like making sure none of us ever rise above the level of insect hopefully to remove hierarchies and disease and when that fails to produce the intended results, you'll predictably equivocate some more, all the while convincing yourself that your position is becoming stronger.

Curiously, since natural disasters already kill people, apparently god has hired many hitmen to do stuff...

Do you have any evidence or solid reasoning that suggests God has EVER taken part in ANY natural disaster?

That's correct. I also don't feel one bit of remorse when my body massacres the Influenza virus either. Do you? How I feel towards anyone or anything has no bearing on the argument though.

And our free wills are just illusions right? If I don't have a free will than I'm just as much a nonentity to you as an influenza virus. So you couldn't really feel empathy for me because I'm just this unconscious stupid robot that does as programmed. And your free will is an illusion too, so if you killed me, you couldn't be held responsible as you had no choice. I'd know all of that advanced moral gymnastics if I was more well-read like you.

I insist:
How do slugs help each other?

I will look up information about slugs once you make a claim. Are you claiming that slugs do not help each other?

Thanks for stating the obvious.
Now, how are they put in chains?

As I recall, by unnatural rules placed upon nature by your version of an all-loving God.

In what way is it pure ignorance?

I get the strong impression you don't know what it is to love anyone, so you substitute a strong desire to protect in its place.

So, is it your endeavor to debate over the problem of evil on semantic grounds? Is that it ?

Considerably less semantic than you saying its not murder to intentionally kill with a natural disaster.

This is, as you like to call it, stupid.
What matters is the meaning being conveyed by the use of the words, not the word itself. To debate over the word itself is just fruitless.

Yeah, and I debate that you often forcefully convey the wrong meaning to your advantage. If you believe debating words is meaningless, I suggest you read some general philosophy. Plato? Maybe some Voltaire? At least my reading recommendation to you wouldn't be a total waste of time like what you suggested for me.

The existence of only microorganisms was just one possibility out of many. Why would this exchange of ideas be significant ?

Well I don't think this particular exchange of ideas in itself is significant, but the fact we can exchange ideas is quite significant to me.

First, I would argue free will doesn't exist at all, so that is irrelevant. Second, you have yet to show that omnibenevolence if taken to its logical conclusion results in some very non-benevolent behavior. Third, if omnibenevolence and omniscience indeed can't exist at all, that is not a problem to the 'problem of evil'.

First, you didn't argue that free will doesn't exist. You just told me to read about it. Second, YOUR VERSION of omnibenevolence taken to its logical conclusion will not rest until it has taken from all beings all free will choices with moral significance and we are all a deaf, dumb, and blind primordial soup. Maybe that sounds great to you. And third, if your version of omnibenevolence which prevents harm with no bound and if your version of omniscience which has knowledge of the universe that presupposes our free will choices can be demonstrated to be stupid, then the problem of evil is nonexistent. Suffering no longer needs to be explained. It is a precondition for free will and love.

I am certain that deluding yourself into believing that you are good at something also works perfectly well considering your case.

Oh, you are so butch.

 

[Koldo]

I'm out with my puppies for the next few hours, but out of sheer curiosity for what you'll do with it, my freshly googled research featuring microbes exhibiting altruism, complex environment manipulation, and the ability to make decisions by vote:

http://tamar.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Trends-published.pdf

Intelligent bacteria?

Microbial cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are you trying to state exactly by presenting these sources?
That microoganisms thinking on the well-being of others venture themselves into sucidal tasks to save their fellows ? That microorganisms reason about possible actions and their consequences and then cast votes as if in an democracy to decide what course of action to take ?

I don't know what exactly you expect to be substantiated by these sources.

 

[Koldo]

Your version of a how a perfectly good and loving God would raise his children doesn't match up at all about what we know of quality parents, and, instead, much more closely resembles how Paris Hilton and her friends were raised... to be entitled, spoiled, miserable brats who get bailed out in every jam. Do you foresee Paris Hilton and her friends becoming good society? No? Then maybe you actually don't know what perfectly loving means.

I never said god would raise living beings into spoiled, miserable brats. I don't know where you are getting that from.

A lot of reasoning to go along with my preconceptions actually. But you got some citing in my last post, lot of good it will do you...

In what way is your view substantied by your last post?

Oh, if only I were as well-read as you...

Indeed.

A benevolent father would raise his son to master his abilities, cultivate independence, wisdom, and freedom from fear. A slavedriver, on the other hand, would raise his slave to doubt his abilities, cultivate dependance, ignorance, and eternal fearfulness.

Limiting our ability to harm and help is an affront to freedom and an impediment to any possibility that we may, as beings, learn to master advanced abilities and achieve anything more than a lifetime in blind slavery. The being you describe as an all-loving God more closely resembles a slavedriver (or possibly a pet owner) than a loving father.

In what way is limiting our ability to help an affront to freedom and an impediment to any possibility that we may, as beings, learn to master advanced abilities and achieve anything more than a lifetime in blind slavery ?

I want to know the reasoning behind such statement.

No. You forcefully misread me again. I am saying that I have your worldview exactly. I am saying that you may as well say the things I put in quotes for you word for word because your own testimony has told us all that this is exactly how you think.

You said: "You never said it word for word but it's what you mean.".
That's a confession that you misquoted me. You think that you understand what I am saying and then go ahead to misrepresent me by attributing to me a sentence that I haven't said.

You explained? More like equivocated when pressed to a weak position where you have God performing fruitless endeavors like making sure none of us ever rise above the level of insect hopefully to remove hierarchies and disease and when that fails to produce the intended results, you'll predictably equivocate some more, all the while convincing yourself that your position is becoming stronger.

Considering this, it appears you didn't comprehend what I was talking about all this time when I mentioned the natural disasters. If that was the case, I might have clarified it for you if required. I have never felt the need to expand on this subject since our debate has become extremely long already.

Do you have any evidence or solid reasoning that suggests God has EVER taken part in ANY natural disaster?

The perfect creation of a perfect designer will do as intended and planned by the designer. If god created the universe, then by extension he created the natural disasters.

And our free wills are just illusions right? If I don't have a free will than I'm just as much a nonentity to you as an influenza virus. So you couldn't really feel empathy for me because I'm just this unconscious stupid robot that does as programmed. And your free will is an illusion too, so if you killed me, you couldn't be held responsible as you had no choice. I'd know all of that advanced moral gymnastics if I was more well-read like you.

I have never said you are an unconscious stupid robot, even though I did say free will doesn't exist. Whether free will is necessary for moral responsibility is a subject of much debate which goes beyond the scope of this topic.

I will look up information about slugs once you make a claim. Are you claiming that slugs do not help each other?

I am claiming there are beings whose ability to help is extremely limited already. If, however, I can show one living being that can't intentfully help others then your argument becomes invalid ( the one about god not creating the world differently so as not to limit our ability to help ).
So I picked the first being that came across my mind that could fit that situation, and asked you to explain how it helps others.

As I recall, by unnatural rules placed upon nature by your version of an all-loving God.

If laws of nature are sufficient to chain people, then we all are chained already. Or do you arbitrarily discriminate between laws of nature?

I get the strong impression you don't know what it is to love anyone, so you substitute a strong desire to protect in its place.

I get the strong impression you are even more clueless than I first thought.

Considerably less semantic than you saying its not murder to intentionally kill with a natural disaster.

Are you going to misrepresent what I have said, once again?

Yeah, and I debate that you often forcefully convey the wrong meaning to your advantage. If you believe debating words is meaningless, I suggest you read some general philosophy. Plato? Maybe some Voltaire? At least my reading recommendation to you wouldn't be a total waste of time like what you suggested for me.

Wrong meaning? Don't make me laugh, please.
Voltaire?! Have you ever read 'Candide, ou l'Optimisme' ? Does the name 'Pangloss' mean anything to you? Voltaire makes a satire out of the notion this is the best of all possible worlds. I can't believe you mentioned him.

Well I don't think this particular exchange of ideas in itself is significant, but the fact we can exchange ideas is quite significant to me.

Why?

First, you didn't argue that free will doesn't exist. You just told me to read about it.

I said: I would argue free will doesn't exist.
I didn't say that I argued that free will doesn't exist.

Second, YOUR VERSION of omnibenevolence taken to its logical conclusion will not rest until it has taken from all beings all free will choices with moral significance and we are all a deaf, dumb, and blind primordial soup. Maybe that sounds great to you.

For instance, another possible world would be a world where we are invulnerable to anything at all. So we are definitely not deaf, dumb and blind in a primordial soup on that world. A world with only microorganisms was just one example. I think I had made that clear, hadn't I ?

And third, if your version of omnibenevolence which prevents harm with no bound and if your version of omniscience which has knowledge of the universe that presupposes our free will choices can be demonstrated to be stupid, then the problem of evil is nonexistent. Suffering no longer needs to be explained. It is a precondition for free will and love.

Indeed, if omnibenevolence and omniscience are logically contradictory in themselves then the problem of evil is nonexistent, since omnibenevolence and omniscience don't exist. If those don't exist, suffering doesn't need to be explained.

 

[Prophet]

I never said god would raise living beings into spoiled, miserable brats. I don't know where you are getting that from.

We know the experiences of humans best. As such, when applicable, such as when considering the motives of deity, we should first consider how comparable things would be experienced from a human point of view. When human parents reduce harm without bound, their children become spoiled, miserable brats in spite of receiving perfect love by your definitions as you say an all-loving God would reduce harm without bound. It stands to reason that what you think is all-loving, perfectly loving, omnibenevolent behavior is actually flawed. It is an indictment on you that you do not consider the full implications of your own ideas.

In what way is your view substantied by your last post?

The sources I cite feature single-celled organisms putting on cooperative traits we have traditionally thought only the domain of "higher" animals like altruism and voting.

In what way is limiting our ability to help an affront to freedom and an impediment to any possibility that we may, as beings, learn to master advanced abilities and achieve anything more than a lifetime in blind slavery ?

I want to know the reasoning behind such statement.

You're saying a perfectly loving God would make us all into microbes and decree that we could never be anything more than that. You've experienced life as a human and you seriously have NO concept of how that would be constricting?

You said: "You never said it word for word but it's what you mean.".
That's a confession that you misquoted me. You think that you understand what I am saying and then go ahead to misrepresent me by attributing to me a sentence that I haven't said.

Again, if I wanted to direct quote, I know how to do that for you and I've displayed these abilities. I confess nothing. My only goal was to convey what you REALLY mean. It is an still an indictment on you that you do not consider the full implications of your own ideas.

Considering this, it appears you didn't comprehend what I was talking about all this time when I mentioned the natural disasters. If that was the case, I might have clarified it for you if required. I have never felt the need to expand on this subject since our debate has become extremely long already.

First, you tried to say if God used a natural disaster to do his murdering for him that that is all well and good. When I challenged the morality of "hiring a hit man" to do God's murdering for him, you equivocated to something like "he would've foreseen future suffering and preemptively wiped baddies from existence". When I challenged your position again on grounds that I would be guilty of murder if I went back in time with the intention of wiping your existence even by seemingly harmless reactions with your ancestors based on my motives, you formed this amalgamation of a view where you think combining both scenarios at the same time wins the argument. Here God uses both a natural disaster and a time vortex at the same time to "shape evolution" which is nothing more than a euphemism for mass murder.

Once again, working from unknown to known, what do we think of people in earth's history who have taken it upon themselves to "shape evolution"? Would you characterize them as benevolent, or instead do they not invariably go down as history's most reviled monsters?

But please do expand.

The perfect creation of a perfect designer will do as intended and planned by the designer. If god created the universe, then by extension he created the natural disasters.

It seems like you might be attempting to attribute ID arguments to me. I think those people are crazy. I believe natural disasters are a natural phenomenon of a free universe. It is arguable to me that God created natural disasters. It is not arguable to me that God would ever use or guide one, however.

I have never said you are an unconscious stupid robot, even though I did say free will doesn't exist. Whether free will is necessary for moral responsibility is a subject of much debate which goes beyond the scope of this topic.

Well, I'm happy to leave that for another day if you are.

I am claiming there are beings whose ability to help is extremely limited already. If, however, I can show one living being that can't intentfully help others then your argument becomes invalid ( the one about god not creating the world differently so as not to limit our ability to help ).
So I picked the first being that came across my mind that could fit that situation, and asked you to explain how it helps others.

Most slugs reproduce sexually which requires cooperation. Some species of slug are actually colonies of single-celled amoebae that come together in times of less plentiful food to form a spore column in which many of the amoebae sacrifice themselves so that others might be dispersed to a place with more food.

If laws of nature are sufficient to chain people, then we all are chained already. Or do you arbitrarily discriminate between laws of nature?

I do differentiate between laws of nature and laws of God. Laws of nature are the ones that all physical objects are subject to. These are not laws in the legal sense, but rather a description of what physical objects do. Physical objects cannot choose to not follow this law. A stone cannot choose to not fall. These laws are as chains.

Law of God is the one that all aware beings are subject to. This not law in the obligation sense, but rather a description of what self-aware beings ought to do. Self-aware beings can choose to not follow this law. We can deceive, murder, steal and cheat. Love, by nature, is completely optional.

Are you going to misrepresent what I have said, once again?

Please demonstrate that one of my representations of your worldview is not accurate. It can be on your concept of love, freedom, empathy for others, time vortices/travel, preemptive murder for pre crime, etc.

Wrong meaning? Don't make me laugh, please.
Voltaire?! Have you ever read 'Candide, ou l'Optimisme' ? Does the name 'Pangloss' mean anything to you? Voltaire makes a satire out of the notion this is the best of all possible worlds. I can't believe you mentioned him.

Thanks, I actually have it here. I mentioned him as I'd much rather be debating someone who understands definitions to be important. I invite you to make points as eloquently as Voltaire at any time, granted you understand anything he says other than his agreeing with you.

Why?

Ask yourself as you are continuing this debate despite your apparent lack of enjoyment.

I said: I would argue free will doesn't exist.
I didn't say that I argued that free will doesn't exist.

I'm not standing in your way.

For instance, another possible world would be a world where we are invulnerable to anything at all. So we are definitely not deaf, dumb and blind in a primordial soup on that world. A world with only microorganisms was just one example. I think I had made that clear, hadn't I ?

If all lifeforms are invulnerable from the start in a universe in which you are God, you will still have a universe with only microorganisms because they would never have any reason to evolve. Try again.

Indeed, if omnibenevolence and omniscience are logically contradictory in themselves then the problem of evil is nonexistent, since omnibenevolence and omniscience don't exist. If those don't exist, suffering doesn't need to be explained.

At least we agree once. What you called semantic grounds earlier you seem to be now admitting to be the crux.

 

[Koldo]

When human parents reduce harm without bound, their children become spoiled, miserable brats. You said an all-loving God would reduce harm without bound. It is an indictment on you that you do not consider the full implications of your own ideas.

You have to show that reducing harm without bounds must necessarily turn children into spoiled and miserable brats. How are you going to do that?

The sources I cite feature single-celled organisms putting on cooperative traits we have traditionally thought only the domain of "higher" animals like altruism and voting.

And? How does that help your case?

You're saying a perfectly loving God would make us all into microbes and decree that we could never be anything more than that. You've experienced life as a human and you seriously have NO concept of how that would be constricting?

Individuals DO NOT become anything more. Not in the sense you are using the word 'more'. That proposed world would be the same world as ours, but without evolution. Actually, it is entirely possible for a world such as that to exist at this very moment. A world where all living organisms can't evolve into multicellular forms, for example.

Again, if I wanted to direct quote, I know how to do that for you and I've displayed these abilities. I confess nothing. My only goal was to convey what you REALLY mean. It is an still an indictment on you that you do not consider the full implications of your own ideas.

You can't convey what I really mean by misquoting me.

First, you tried to say if God used a natural disaster to do his murdering for him that that is all well and good.

When did I say that?

When I challenged the morality of "hiring a hit man" to do God's murdering for him, you equivocated to something like "he would've foreseen future suffering and preemptively wiped baddies from existence". When I challenged your position again on grounds that I would be guilty of murder if I went back in time with the intention of wiping your existence even by seemingly harmless reactions with your ancestors based on my motives, you formed this amalgamation of a view where you think combining both scenarios at the same time wins the argument. Here God uses both a natural disaster and a time vortex at the same time to "shape evolution" which is nothing more than a euphemism for mass murder.

I have never mentioned any time vortex. It is you who insist on that notion. If preventing people from being born is mass murder, then all of us are mass murdererers. There is no going back in time. It is all about doing it right here, right now.

What do we think of people in earth's history who have taken it upon themselves to "shape evolution"? Would you characterize them as benevolent, or instead do they not invariably go down as history's most reviled monsters?

But please do expand.

We are all shaping evolution. All the time.

It seems like you might be attempting to attribute ID arguments to me. I think those people are crazy. I believe natural disasters are a natural phenomenon of a free universe. It is arguable to me that God created natural disasters. It is not arguable to me that God would ever use or guide one, however.

By design, he is using them. He doesn't need to directly guide them, if by design he set them up. It is just the difference between being killed by a gunshot and being killed by a time bomb.

Most slugs reproduce sexually which requires cooperation.

Reproduction is not a form of help.

Some species of slug are actually colonies of single-celled amoebae that come together in times of less plentiful food to form a spore column in which many of the amoebae sacrifice themselves so that others might be dispersed to a place with more food.

Those are clearly not the slugs I was talking about.
We may talk more about this behaviour if you want to though.

I do differentiate between laws of nature and laws of God. Laws of nature are the ones that all physical objects are subject to. These are not laws in the legal sense, but rather a description of what physical objects do. Physical objects cannot choose to not follow this law. A stone cannot choose to not fall. These laws are as chains.

Law of God is the one that all aware beings are subject to. This not law in the obligation sense, but rather a description of what self-aware beings ought to do. Self-aware beings can choose to not follow this law. We can deceive, murder, steal and cheat. Love, by nature, is completely optional.

That means we are all chained either way.
Changing the laws of nature means we would just be chaging "our" chains for another.

Please demonstrate that one of my representations of your worldview is not accurate. It can be on your concept of love, freedom, empathy for others, time vortices/travel, preemptive murder for pre crime, etc.

The mere mention of time travel...

Thanks, I actually have it here. I mentioned him as I'd much rather be debating someone who understands definitions to be important. I invite you to make points as eloquently as Voltaire at any time, granted you understand anything he says other than his agreeing with you.

You should do well read that book. Just to avoid becoming like Pangloss.
If you prefer debating with people that will take your views as nothing more than satire material, I might know some people who can do just that. I don't think you would like it as much you think you would.

I consider definitions to be important, otherwise we can't make ourselves understood. It is just that I don't mistake a finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.

Ask yourself as you are continuing this debate despite your apparent lack of enjoyment.

Because I feel bored every once in a while on a frequent basis, and things such as this make time pass more quickly until I find something that interests me more.

If all lifeforms are invulnerable from the start in a universe in which you are God, you will still have a universe with only microorganisms because they would never have any reason to evolve. Try again.

Actually, on that possible universe, lifeforms wouldn't start as microorganisms.

At least we agree once. What you called semantic grounds earlier you seem to be now admitting to be the crux.

The crux? No. It is only the crux to those unaware of what the problem of evil proposes and who mistakenly assume that whoever reads it is free to intrepret the words as they deem fit.

 

[Prophet]

You have to show that reducing harm without bounds must necessarily turn children into spoiled and miserable brats. How are you going to do that?

No explanation will ever suffice for Koldo. For anyone else reading, as it stands I gave a rationale, based on an idea that perfect love may not be exactly as Koldo says it is, which, in action, is seeking to protect its object above all things. Again, I work from known to unknown, starting with parents who seek protection for their children above all things, sheltering them from anything that could ever hurt them and unconditionally showing them preferential treatment. What I see is that parents who love in this manner invariably raise selfish monsters.

I, myself, am no proponent of punishment, but somewhere along the line, a child has to learn that if you play in mud you get dirty. Paris Hilton never learned that because her parents were much too busy praising her to ever let her deal with the consequences of her actions to notice the miserable mess she is making of her life. What do we think happens to Paris Hilton after her parents who cleaned up after her entire life pass away? Has this "love" she has been given prepared her in any way for life on her own?

No, it hasn't. Paris Hilton is likely doomed to live out her life like a blind person, in constant pain from running into metaphorical walls in her mind, each of her instincts completely unsharpened by life experiences. With her awareness subjugated by selfishness, she identifies with her body alone. Her awareness exists only to satisfy the needs of her body.

Paris Hilton is a slave.

And? How does that help your case?

Again we work from known to unknown. We know that our own conscious experiences at least give us the illusion that we have free will. Animals also give us evidence through their own actions (like altruism, complex environmental manipulation, sharing) that they are also conscious, leading most to infer they also have free wills.

As it turns out, microbes are capable of altruism. Microbes are capable of intelligent environmental manipulation. Microbes are capable of sharing. And Koldo thinks this doesn't help my case. Koldo won't be satisfied until we find some experimental way to warp human consciousness into a microbe and study microbe experiences first hand. Unfortunately, science hasn't reached that level yet.

Fortunately, reasoning will always be able to reach into places science yet cannot. As it stands, Koldo has no more evidence for believing that non-human animals are conscious than he does for microbes.

Individuals DO NOT become anything more. Not in the sense you are using the word 'more'. That proposed world would be the same world as ours, but without evolution. Actually, it is entirely possible for a world such as that to exist at this very moment. A world where all living organisms can't evolve into multicellular forms, for example.

And the only advantage that this universe would have is that suffering isn't possible... an advantage I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate to be a dubious goal of deity.

You can't convey what I really mean by misquoting me.

Koldo can go ahead and prove what I put in quotes to be a mischaracterization of him anytime he wants, but it seems wants to shout over and over that it wasn't an exact quote instead, which may lead many a neutral bystander to believe that my characterization of his opinion was accurate.

When did I say that?

That was actually Koldo's predecessor, ruffen, who he came to defend who said that "God would eradicate malaria." Koldo merely continued the debate by equivocating to a position where God would have never allowed the conditions for malaria to arise in the first place...

I have never mentioned any time vortex. It is you who insist on that notion. If preventing people from being born is mass murder, then all of us are mass murdererers. There is no going back in time. It is all about doing it right here, right now.

At this point I protested that disallowing the conditions for malaria to arise would also disallow the conditions for many great things about our universe such as love, evolution, and intelligent life in favor of a sterile world.

I have never acted with intent to wipe anyone I know out of existence. If I did, I would be a murderer. Much like Koldo's version of an all-loving God.

We are all shaping evolution. All the time.

Yes, but are we intentfully wiping other beings out of existence all of the time like murderer God?

By design, he is using them. He doesn't need to directly guide them, if by design he set them up. It is just the difference between being killed by a gunshot and being killed by a time bomb.

As long as there have been human societies, murder has always been known to be evil. The charge of murder has always been based on intent. If God exists, He is the cause of our sense of morality. If the cause our our sense of morality is allowed to intentionally murder, than murder would cease to offend us.

Reproduction is not a form of help.

It is certainly cooperation. It it help to the offspring if the parents hide their eggs rather than just placing them where ever.

Those are clearly not the slugs I was talking about.
We may talk more about this behaviour if you want to though.

It not clear that Koldo was talking about one type of slug or another. He just kept on pressing me for research on slugs helping each other. As it stands today, the social behavior of slugs isn't exactly a hotbed a research. Most studies of slugs today are done from the perspective of agriculture, as they can become pests.

That means we are all chained either way.
Changing the laws of nature means we would just be chaging "our" chains for another.

Yes, but to what end will we change the laws? To eliminate suffering? Why? Will eliminating suffering have nothing but positive effects on us, or have I actually pointed out quite a few negative effects such as unfair treatment and spoiled kids?

The mere mention of time travel...

...makes me hot and sweaty.

You should do well read that book. Just to avoid becoming like Pangloss.
If you prefer debating with people that will take your views as nothing more than satire material, I might know some people who can do just that. I don't think you would like it as much you think you would.

I've already read Candide a few times (including once today as a refresher) and I found it delightful. Very light reading for something so sarcastic. Please do let me know if I put up any satirical arguments like those of Pangloss and I will be happy to prove I have not.

I consider definitions to be important, otherwise we can't make ourselves understood. It is just that I don't mistake a finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.

If you believe this, debating definitions becomes then, much more than a matter of semantics.

Because I feel bored every once in a while on a frequent basis, and things such as this make time pass more quickly until I find something that interests me more.

Ditto.

Actually, on that possible universe, lifeforms wouldn't start as microorganisms.

Yes, we'd all pop into existence as invulnerable, impenetrable, yet impotent immortals who get no significant choices about anything. That doesn't sound much better than model train universe.

The crux? No. It is only the crux to those unaware of what the problem of evil proposes and who mistakenly assume that whoever reads it is free to intrepret the words as they deem fit.

You accused me of arguing semantics when I was debating that the concepts of omniscience and omnibenevolence held by writer of "the problem of evil" and Koldo were stupid and NEEDED to be stupid for the problem to exist.

What Koldo and the problem of evil believes all-loving to mean reducing harm without bound, resulting in children like Paris Hilton who blindly harm themselves. What Koldo and the problem of evil believe to be omniscience includes a knowledge of the future that presupposes our free will to make choices:

The problem of evil goes like this: If God is all-powerful he can stop harm. If God is all-knowing he knows about all harm that will come to pass in the future. If God is all-loving he, thus, must stop all harm.

However, God being all-powerful in this manner means we have no power to make free will choices, as this version of God should wipe the bad ones out. God being all-knowing into the future presupposing our free will choices means the same thing. We no longer make our free choices because we were free to... we now make them because God knew we were going to make them. And I've said my piece on Koldo's version of all-loving too many times to count...

 

[Koldo]

No explanation will ever suffice for Koldo. For anyone else reading, as it stands I gave a rationale, based on an idea that perfect love may not be exactly as Koldo says it is, which, in action, is seeking to protect its object above all things. Again, I work from known to unknown, starting with parents who seek protection for their children above all things, sheltering them from anything that could ever hurt them and unconditionally showing them preferential treatment. What I see is that parents who love in this manner invariably raise selfish monsters.

I, myself, am no proponent of punishment, but somewhere along the line, a child has to learn that if you play in mud you get dirty. Paris Hilton never learned that because her parents were much too busy praising her to ever let her deal with the consequences of her actions to notice the miserable mess she is making of her life. What do we think happens to Paris Hilton after her parents who cleaned up after her entire life pass away? Has this "love" she has been given prepared her in any way for life on her own?

No, it hasn't. Paris Hilton is likely doomed to live out her life like a blind person, in constant pain from running into metaphorical walls in her mind, each of her instincts completely unsharpened by life experiences. With her awareness subjugated by selfishness, she identifies with her body alone. Her awareness exists only to satisfy the needs of her body.

Paris Hilton is a slave.

If you can't show that reducing reducing harm without bounds must necessarily turn children into spoiled and miserable brats, you are just wasting your time elaborating a reply to this point.

Again we work from known to unknown. We know that our own conscious experiences at least give us the illusion that we have free will. Animals also give us evidence through their own actions (like altruism, complex environmental manipulation, sharing) that they are also conscious, leading most to infer they also have free wills.

Most? What do you mean by 'most'?
Those actions can happen without any free will at all.

As it turns out, microbes are capable of altruism. Microbes are capable of intelligent environmental manipulation. Microbes are capable of sharing. And Koldo thinks this doesn't help my case. Koldo won't be satisfied until we find some experimental way to warp human consciousness into a microbe and study microbe experiences first hand. Unfortunately, science hasn't reached that level yet.

Fortunately, reasoning will always be able to reach into places science yet cannot. As it stands, Koldo has no more evidence for believing that non-human animals are conscious than he does for microbes.

Are microbes capable of thinking of the well-being of other microbes when they engage in behaviour that is beneficial to others? If not, than that is not the same we see in humans.

And the only advantage that this universe would have is that suffering isn't possible... an advantage I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate to be a dubious goal of deity.

An omnibenevolent deity wants to reduce suffering as much as possible. It has as its aim the utmost well-being of all living things.

Koldo can go ahead and prove what I put in quotes to be a mischaracterization of him anytime he wants, but it seems wants to shout over and over that it wasn't an exact quote instead, which may lead many a neutral bystander to believe that my characterization of his opinion was accurate.

When you quote someone, the burden is yours to make sure you are properly expressing what that person said. It is easy to beat a strawman you have built yourself.

That was actually Koldo's predecessor, ruffen, who he came to defend who said that "God would eradicate malaria." Koldo merely continued the debate by equivocating to a position where God would have never allowed the conditions for malaria to arise in the first place...

I think any reader should be aware by now you love to misrepresent what people say.

At this point I protested that disallowing the conditions for malaria to arise would also disallow the conditions for many great things about our universe such as love, evolution, and intelligent life in favor of a sterile world.

For starters, evolution is not a great thing. Evolution just is. Period.
Since you believe microorganisms have free will, then it is entirely possible for them to love and have intelligence.

I have never acted with intent to wipe anyone I know out of existence. If I did, I would be a murderer. Much like Koldo's version of an all-loving God.

God wouldn't act with the intent to wipe anyone out of existence if done as I proposed.

Yes, but are we intentfully wiping other beings out of existence all of the time like murderer God?

Actually, we are. All of the time we are ingesting medication to kill microorganisms, killing animals to eat their meat, destroying trees, squashing bugs...

As long as there have been human societies, murder has always been known to be evil. The charge of murder has always been based on intent. If God exists, He is the cause of our sense of morality. If the cause our our sense of morality is allowed to intentionally murder, than murder would cease to offend us.

A god who has no sense of morality could give rise to animals who do have a sense of morality. Curiously, the word 'murder' typically only applies to an act done by humans to other humans. If another animal kills humans, we don't call it murder. If humans kill other animals, we don't call it murder either. And there are circumstances where to many of us an act is not murder to our eyes, but it is someone else.

It is certainly cooperation. It it help to the offspring if the parents hide their eggs rather than just placing them where ever.

Evolution benefits those who engage in behaviour that makes either themselves or their kin live longer. If you see slugs hiding their eggs on a frequent basis it is because this is done out of an instinct.

Yes, but to what end will we change the laws? To eliminate suffering? Why? Will eliminating suffering have nothing but positive effects on us, or have I actually pointed out quite a few negative effects such as unfair treatment and spoiled kids?

We are talking about this on other points of our debate.

I've already read Candide a few times (including once today as a refresher) and I found it delightful. Very light reading for something so sarcastic. Please do let me know if I put up any satirical arguments like those of Pangloss and I will be happy to prove I have not.

What do you mean by satirical arguments from Plangloss?
Pangloss really means what he says. Plangloss is like a caricature of people who hold views like yours.

If you believe this, debating definitions becomes then, much more than a matter of semantics.

Not at all. Debating definitions is debating semantics.

Yes, we'd all pop into existence as invulnerable, impenetrable, yet impotent immortals who get no significant choices about anything. That doesn't sound much better than model train universe.

Not significant in what way? That sounds like a value judgement which is not granted.

You accused me of arguing semantics when I was debating that the concepts of omniscience and omnibenevolence held by writer of "the problem of evil" and Koldo were stupid and NEEDED to be stupid for the problem to exist.

Actually, there is nothing to debate when you call it 'stupid'. That is not an argument. The act of arguing semantics happens when you say that omniscience and omnibenevolence must be understood differently, not when you call them 'stupid'.

What Koldo and the problem of evil believes all-loving to mean reducing harm without bound, resulting in children like Paris Hilton who blindly harm themselves. What Koldo and the problem of evil believe to be omniscience includes a knowledge of the future that presupposes our free will to make choices:

The problem of evil goes like this: If God is all-powerful he can stop harm. If God is all-knowing he knows about all harm that will come to pass in the future. If God is all-loving he, thus, must stop all harm.

However, God being all-powerful in this manner means we have no power to make free will choices, as this version of God should wipe the bad ones out. God being all-knowing into the future presupposing our free will choices means the same thing. We no longer make our free choices because we were free to... we now make them because God knew we were going to make them. And I've said my piece on Koldo's version of
all-loving too many times to count...

How do you make choices? If given alternative 'A' and 'B', how do you choose between them?

 

[Prophet]

If you can't show that reducing reducing harm without bounds must necessarily turn children into spoiled and miserable brats, you are just wasting your time elaborating a reply to this point.

I am able to consider the possibility that I am just wasting my time, but that is all a matter of perspective. Were my motives aimed at changing Koldo's opinion, I would be the first to agree that I am, indeed, just wasting my time for a simple reason: Koldo has demonstrated that there is no reasoning or evidence I could ever show him that would ever cause him to question his views.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to follow my illustrations that reducing harm without bounds is a critically flawed philosophy for parenting. Koldo refuses even to consider that reducing harm without bounds might not be the same as perfect love.

Koldo does not seem to notice that every time I cross-examine his concepts of a universe sans suffering, I force him to equivocate to a universe with yet another condition that removes yet more options for conscious life to make meaningful free choices. Were I willing to question in the same demonstrably fruitless manner for all eternity, I could get him to equivocate to a universe where all beings are senseless, powerless, mindless creatures who are all stored in solitary confinement.

For Koldo, all of this does not matter at all. No matter how awful Koldo's own images of a world without suffering become (an all microbe universe to remove hierarchies and an all invulnerable being universe to remove meaningful social choices are just a few of the great heights Koldo's ridiculous version of utopia has already reached), Koldo refuses to even consider that the free universe we live in might be better than those.

Koldo mocked me earlier for referring to Voltaire, proudly claiming that I need to read Candide in which Voltaire obviously sided with him over me. From a perspective such as his, Koldo could never comprehend how I could enjoy reading something that disagrees with me. It is that way with all people who live their lives to further an agenda rather than to search for the truth. Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Koldo lacks this mark. My mere asking of him to entertain the thought that any ideas that I’m putting forth might be true has been invariably met with one response: denial.

Rather than debating me, Koldo repeatedly denies that what I say has anything to do with the topic. There has been no scenario we can relate to presented by Koldo where reducing harm without bound could be demonstrated to be the same as perfect love. That would at least comprise an honest attempt. As it stands, I find his agenda-driven debate style of denial to be intellectually dishonest.

In contrast, in my own arguments against Koldo, I DO consider the implications of a universe according to him. I consider thoughts like "what if reducing harm really was the same as good" placing me in many situations where I can illustrate how his version of perfect love does not match up with the world around us.

Koldo has no such examples to give. Koldo has no examples of happy, well-adjusted children who have been sheltered from harm to overbearing lengths. Koldo has nothing in my estimation but a worldview so fragile that the mere thought of considering that he is not right arouses within him irrational fear most reserve for their own annihilation.

Most? What do you mean by 'most'?
Those actions can happen without any free will at all.

By most, I mean people who are looking from a perspective that is not agenda-driven. It is possible that I am being overly optimistic.

Are microbes capable of thinking of the well-being of other microbes when they engage in behaviour that is beneficial to others? If not, than that is not the same we see in humans.

Here Koldo performs a rhetorician's tactic commonly known as "moving the goalposts", in this particular instance moving the goalposts beyond a place science could ever reach with observations, effectively asking me to read a microbe's mind and show him the evidence. He has done this no less than twice prior. This is not a fair request.

An omnibenevolent deity wants to reduce suffering as much as possible. It has as its aim the utmost well-being of all living things.

Who here would choose to accept an eternity as a microbe blindly swimming amongst peers? Or as an invulnerable immortal with no ability to make meaningful choices? Were a human to follow this "godly" example of perfect love, he'd surely keep his children caged at the very least.

When you quote someone, the burden is yours to make sure you are properly expressing what that person said. It is easy to beat a strawman you have built yourself.

I think any reader should be aware by now you love to misrepresent what people say.

Apparently, Koldo’s greatest victory during this debate was won when I made an informal quote of him which wasn’t accurate word for word. In case any of you haven’t noticed my title, I will confess to all of you that I debate here almost exclusively stoned out of my mind. When I quoted him, I very well may have thought he actually typed it word for word, but honestly, I don’t think so.

Again, I know how to quote people. I’ve done it every post here. Over and over in this thread, Koldo performs a victory dance over my “confession” that I misquoted him, skimming over the part that says that my misquote of him is actually an accurate statement of the implications of his worldview. He hasn’t even tried to give debate against my characterization of him.

Koldo doesn’t truly have any moral qualms with people misrepresenting others as he pretends when he accuses me of misquoting him. He pays lip service to the ideal of accurately representing others in debate when he accuses me of misquoting him, but when it comes his turn to represent my argument, he goes the further sin of actually changing the spirit and meaning of my words which is most important, not just the words themselves which should be secondary.

Koldo appears to embrace the letter of the law while spitting on its spirit.

 

[chinu]

So, how does one get out of this mess? How do believers solve these questions and still believe?

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist. That would give a satisfactory answer to all questions.

Actually.. In the beginning YOU yourself created a game for yourself to play, but before stepping into this game there was a question in YOUR mind.

Q: How can such game give true enjoyment until you forget that you are the creator of this game ? Thus.. you turned this game into an illusion-game. Which means that you will forget everything, your power, your rank, your place, your status, after jumping into this game.

But again an another new question got arise, Q: As You will forget everything about yourself after jumping into this game, than who will pull you out when you will get tired after playing a lot ? Thus, by giving all of yours powers you created a CLONE of yourself and gave him the duty to pull you out.

Now, asked the clone; Sir, how will i come to know that you are really tired of this game ? YOU said; when i'll cry and beg in front of you to take me out of this game like as you have created me, rather than i created you.

And finally by saying this YOU jumped into this game.

GOD is that CLONE

 

[ruffen]

Actually.. In the beginning YOU yourself created a game for yourself to play, but before stepping into this game there was a question in YOUR mind.

Q: How can such game give true enjoyment until you forget that you are the creator of this game ? Thus.. you turned this game into an illusion-game. Which means that you will forget everything, your power, your rank, your place, your status, after jumping into this game.

But again an another new question got arise, Q: As You will forget everything about yourself after jumping into this game, than who will pull you out when you will get tired after playing a lot ? Thus, by giving all of yours powers you created a CLONE of yourself and gave him the duty to pull you out.

Now, asked the clone; Sir, how will i come to know that you are really tired of this game ? YOU said; when i'll cry and beg in front of you to take me out of this game like as you have created me, rather than i created you.

And finally by saying this YOU jumped into this game.

GOD is that CLONE

Eh... what?

 

[chinu]

Eh... what?

Don't understood ?

 

[Koldo]

I am able to consider the possibility that I am just wasting my time, but that is all a matter of perspective. Were my motives aimed at changing Koldo's opinion, I would be the first to agree that I am, indeed, just wasting my time for a simple reason: Koldo has demonstrated that there is no reasoning or evidence I could ever show him that would ever cause him to question his views.

Actually, I change my views every once in a while. For example, I used to believe in free will like you until I read more on the subject.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to follow my illustrations that reducing harm without bounds is a critically flawed philosophy for parenting. Koldo refuses even to consider that reducing harm without bounds might not be the same as perfect love.

That's because evidence that applies to human parenting doesn't apply to god. Why? Because god is omnipotent. The only way you can argument that god can't do something is by showing there is a logical contradiction on him doing it.

( Not to mention that is already weak evidence for human parenting itself since you are only picking specific cases, and not evaluating the whole. It's not like it matters for this debate though. )

Koldo does not seem to notice that every time I cross-examine his concepts of a universe sans suffering, I force him to equivocate to a universe with yet another condition that removes yet more options for conscious life to make meaningful free choices. Were I willing to question in the same demonstrably fruitless manner for all eternity, I could get him to equivocate to a universe where all beings are senseless, powerless, mindless creatures who are all stored in solitary confinement.

Meaningful free choices?
What is the word 'meaningful' supposed to mean on this context?
Whatever you want?

For Koldo, all of this does not matter at all. No matter how awful Koldo's own images of a world without suffering become (an all microbe universe to remove hierarchies and an all invulnerable being universe to remove meaningful social choices are just a few of the great heights Koldo's ridiculous version of utopia has already reached), Koldo refuses to even consider that the free universe we live in might be better than those.

The sum of your arguments is to call what I say 'stupid'.
This is a perfect example of what you have been doing so far. I doubt that is a compelling argument to anyone.

Koldo mocked me earlier for referring to Voltaire, proudly claiming that I need to read Candide in which Voltaire obviously sided with him over me. From a perspective such as his, Koldo could never comprehend how I could enjoy reading something that disagrees with me. It is that way with all people who live their lives to further an agenda rather than to search for the truth. Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Koldo lacks this mark. My mere asking of him to entertain the thought that any ideas that I’m putting forth might be true has been invariably met with one response: denial.

Voltaire doesn't just disagree with you.
He wrote an entire book, not argumenting, but MOCKING people who think this might be the best of all possible worlds ( that god could have created ).

Rather than debating me, Koldo repeatedly denies that what I say has anything to do with the topic. There has been no scenario we can relate to presented by Koldo where reducing harm without bound could be demonstrated to be the same as perfect love. That would at least comprise an honest attempt. As it stands, I find his agenda-driven debate style of denial to be intellectually dishonest.

In contrast, in my own arguments against Koldo, I DO consider the implications of a universe according to him. I consider thoughts like "what if reducing harm really was the same as good" placing me in many situations where I can illustrate how his version of perfect love does not match up with the world around us.

Koldo has no such examples to give. Koldo has no examples of happy, well-adjusted children who have been sheltered from harm to overbearing lengths. Koldo has nothing in my estimation but a worldview so fragile that the mere thought of considering that he is not right arouses within him irrational fear most reserve for their own annihilation.

Evidence is not required for this specific point.
For instance, I don't need to show a weapon that can "explode" a planet like Earth to say that god has the power to do that.

By most, I mean people who are looking from a perspective that is not agenda-driven. It is possible that I am being overly optimistic.

It must be easy to think like that. The majority of those who agree with you aren't agenda-driven, while the majority of those who disagree with you are agenda-driven, right?

Here Koldo performs a rhetorician's tactic commonly known as "moving the goalposts", in this particular instance moving the goalposts beyond a place science could ever reach with observations, effectively asking me to read a microbe's mind and show him the evidence. He has done this no less than twice prior. This is not a fair request.

You want to substantiate your assertion that microorganisms can and do help each other. With that aim, you pointed at, among other things, altruism. Since, there is altruism among microorganism, then they do help each other...Or at least that is what you assert. But unless you can substantiate that this altruism is the same ( or extremely similar ) to the one exhibited by humans, then your evidence falls flat.

For instance, I can show how antivirus software helps the operational system by protecting it against viruses. However, since it is not doing it out of thinking on the well-being of the operational system, then it is not the same action we see on human beings. The word 'help' has a widely different meaning depending on the context, as you can see.

Who here would choose to accept an eternity as a microbe blindly swimming amongst peers? Or as an invulnerable immortal with no ability to make meaningful choices? Were a human to follow this "godly" example of perfect love, he'd surely keep his children caged at the very least.

There you go again with that word: meaningful. Apparently, going left or right is already meaningful enough when it comes down to certain microorganisms in your point of view.

You have completely arbitrary standards on what is acceptable. For instance, you have no problem with a world with only microorganisms as long as it has the potential to go "beyond" that. Even if that never happens. And you also get to determine what is 'meaningul' according to your convenience on this debate.

Regarding the cage part, I have already written about in the past on this topic in a reply to you:
"When you mention putting a human being a leash you are talking about putting a restriction on what human beings can experience. Good and bad things alike. But the same can't be said about being free from diseases for example. You are just preventing bad things from happening by preventing diseases. Otherwise, putting a leash on a human being would be comparable to vaccination. Which doesn't happen to be the case, right?".

Apparently, Koldo’s greatest victory during this debate was won when I made an informal quote of him which wasn’t accurate word for word. In case any of you haven’t noticed my title, I will confess to all of you that I debate here almost exclusively stoned out of my mind. When I quoted him, I very well may have thought he actually typed it word for word, but honestly, I don’t think so.

Again, I know how to quote people. I’ve done it every post here. Over and over in this thread, Koldo performs a victory dance over my “confession” that I misquoted him, skimming over the part that says that my misquote of him is actually an accurate statement of the implications of his worldview. He hasn’t even tried to give debate against my characterization of him.

Koldo doesn’t truly have any moral qualms with people misrepresenting others as he pretends when he accuses me of misquoting him. He pays lip service to the ideal of accurately representing others in debate when he accuses me of misquoting him, but when it comes his turn to represent my argument, he goes the further sin of actually changing the spirit and meaning of my words which is most important, not just the words themselves which should be secondary.

Koldo appears to embrace the letter of the law while spitting on its spirit.

You used a misquote of what I have said to build a strawman and burn it down. I don't need to defend myself from an accusation if the accuser hasn't shown from where specifically he draws his conclusions regarding me. I have already explained my reasoning through all these posts and that suffices for now.

Also, please, do refrain from speaking of me in the third person when replying to my posts. That's inelegant and possibly against the forum rules.

 

[ruffen]

Don't understood ?

I know what each of the words mean, but I'm struggling to make sense of the sentences yes. :help:

 

[Prophet]

In an informal debate, a common rhetorical technique to add the appearance of strength to one's argument is to constantly interrupt one's opponent to keep them from finishing their point, and, thus, securing for themselves the appearance of a stronger position which has only to address part of their opponent's argument.

In a written forum like this, the option of verbally shouting one's opponent is taken from such rhetoricians. The quote below is the commencement of Koldo responding to a long rant of mine against him piecemeal. In accordance with the style, Koldo takes me out of context at every opportunity.

Actually, I change my views every once in a while. For example, I used to believe in free will like you until I read more on the subject.

Here Koldo omits the context of agenda. Koldo is speaking of a prior change of mind to defend against charges I levy that he is closed minded to views which are unfriendly to his agenda. For this to be actual evidence that he is open minded to views contradictory to his agenda, he would need to demonstrate that changing his opinion on free will was painful. I suspect it was not. I further suspect that his change of opinion was actually brought about and affected by his agenda.

That's because evidence that applies to human parenting doesn't apply to god. Why? Because god is omnipotent. The only way you can argument that god can't do something is by showing there is a logical contradiction on him doing it.

Perhaps evidence that applies to humans doesn't apply to God, but certainly if God is the cause of love, goodness, altruism, etc. in the face of a brutal universe that rewards selfishness, than examples of love, goodness, altruism, etc. that He would set would be our standard, or perfection. The standard which Koldo's theoretical all-loving God establishes is that loving is the same as reducing harm. When humans attempt to raise children under Koldo's philosophy of love, they usually end up with sheltered imbeciles with a large dose of learned helplessness.

Jesus Christ had a different standard for perfect love:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

By contrast, Jesus says that loving perfectly is about seeing your enemies as your friends and showing no preferential treatment. Jesus says that good fortune and bad rain down upon the just and unjust alike as a godly example of perfection for us to follow. When humans attempt to raise children to treat all with perfect equanimity, they may well end up with a child of clear sight who is profoundly affected by the suffering of those who would spit on him. A child perfectly raised under Jesus' standard love may well end up history's next great freedom fighter.

Children resulting from applying Koldo's standard for perfect love to humans:

Children resulting from applying Jesus' standard for perfect love to humans:

Who wins?

 

[Koldo]

In an informal debate, a common rhetorical technique to add the appearance of strength to one's argument is to constantly interrupt one's opponent to keep them from finishing their point, and, thus, securing for themselves the appearance of a stronger position which has only to address part of their opponent's argument.

Since you have made many statements in your long rhetoric, I had to address them sepately to properly reply to your post. Else, it might have sounded like an acceptance of the many points you were making.

In a written forum like this, the option of verbally shouting one's opponent is taken from such rhetoricians. The quote below is the commencement of Koldo responding to a long rant of mine against him piecemeal. In accordance with the style, Koldo takes me out of context at every opportunity.

I am not taking you out of context at all. Most of those quotes I have replied to deal with separated subjects.

Here Koldo omits the context of agenda. Koldo is speaking of a prior change of mind to defend against charges I levy that he is closed minded to views which are unfriendly to his agenda. For this to be actual evidence that he is open minded to views contradictory to his agenda, he would need to demonstrate that changing his opinion on free will was painful. I suspect it was not. I further suspect that his change of opinion was actually brought about and affected by his agenda.

That was just a commentary on my part. I don't need to address any personal attack.

Perhaps evidence that applies to humans doesn't apply to God, but certainly if God is the cause of love, goodness, altruism, etc. in the face of a brutal universe that rewards selfishness, than examples of love, goodness, altruism, etc. that He would set would be our standard, or perfection. The standard which Koldo's theoretical all-loving God establishes is that loving is the same as reducing harm. When humans attempt to raise children under Koldo's philosophy of love, they usually end up with sheltered imbeciles with a large dose of learned helplessness.

Jesus Christ had a different standard for perfect love:

By contrast, Jesus says that loving perfectly is about seeing your enemies as your friends and showing no preferential treatment. Jesus says that good fortune and bad rain down upon the just and unjust alike as a godly example of perfection for us to follow. When humans attempt to raise children to treat all with perfect equanimity, they may well end up with a child of clear sight who is profoundly affected by the suffering of those who would spit on him. A child perfectly raised under Jesus' standard love may well end up history's next great freedom fighter.

Children resulting from applying Koldo's standard for perfect love to humans:

Children resulting from applying Jesus' standard for perfect love to humans:

Who wins?

Once again referring to humans, as if humans were comparable to god.
As if humans could possibly prevent all harm possible. As if god could not do any better than humans.

 

[Cardboard]

I know what each of the words mean, but I'm struggling to make sense of the sentences yes. :help:

I am guessing, basically the "you are god" conclusion, is what I am getting out of it.

Always kind of liked that idea, not necessarily the way he put it but, the idea that this whole universe is only one playground that we as gods have placed ourselves in for fun, and when we are done / die, we return to the "q- continuum" and then start over when we are bored again. Fun idea.

 

[Prophet]

Since you have made many statements in your long rhetoric, I had to address them sepately to properly reply to your post. Else, it might have sounded like an acceptance of the many points you were making.

For Koldo's interruptions of me to be justified in an informal debate, Koldo should demonstrate where I have committed the sin of non sequitur. If I was making many separate statements that did not add up to a single argument, this would be a golden opportunity for Koldo to demonstrate that my argument to be flawed.

Since Koldo has nothing like this to demonstrate, Koldo's charge against me of filibustering is empty, like much of what Koldo says in general. I reiterate my original charge that Koldo unfairly takes the advantageous position of responding single points of my argument on a line-item basis which is free to ignore the context of the entire argument adding the appearance of strength of Koldo's argument where there is none.