SimWorld without suffering

[mohammed_beiruti]

If we took this principle to its natural conclusion, then I would be benevolent for letting a basket of venomous snakes out in a day care because otherwise they would be living in good health and wouldn't have any reason to help one another, right? So I'm a good person for dumping venomous snakes in the room so they have a real purpose and a real reason to help each other, right?

sorry, i didn't understand.

 

[Falvlun]

Did anybody in this thread even suggest that it might? Really, I'm curious. I haven't read all the posts in here yet so as far as I know you may actually have a reason for addressing all this, although I'm still stumped as to why you're addressing it to me.

I'd probably be one of the culprits. My apologies for sidetracking your own debate.

And I think it rather strange that some "justification" made up out of thin air, with no ability to prove, somehow makes an argument more logical than simply saying "I don't know how it works, but there is no reason why it's not possible".

 

[Falvlun]

However, causing harm without purpose is definitely not benevolent.

I have not argued that it is. Your original assertion was that "causing deliberate harm" is not compatible with benevolence, and that is not necessarily true.

The default position given a set of observations is one of neutral skepticism: there is no purpose apparent in the existence of suffering. If you're claiming that there is one, or even possibly is one, the onus of proof falls squarely onto you. If you can't justify the assertion but say it's possible anyway then you're guilty of special pleading. More on this below.

But it is possible, despite my not providing some imaginative, useless scenario.

Yes, the statement that God can do things that we haven't figured out is justifiable... but any statements that get more specific than that require justification. This is one of those circumstances.

How does that work?

If a set of items all can have quality X, then how is wrong to claim that this particular item could have quality X?

That's like saying "These apples could have worms in them. *pick up one apple* Therefore, this apple could have a worm in it." That's perfectly valid.

This is because in the PoE omnipotence is granted for the sake of argument, and it's granted within logical parameters. What you're suggesting flirts with being illogical by saying something contradictory and out of the norm without justification.

No, I'm saying something perfectly consistent with the concept of "omnibenevolence", just like you are saying something perfectly consistent with the concept of "omnipotence", despite the fact that you have no direct proof that it is possible to change physical laws.

The point of the PoE is that even if we grant omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence for the sake of the believer we encounter a contradiction. Your point just adds another premise "for the sake of argument," but it turns the whole argument into "for the sake of argument," which makes it nothing at all.

Demonstration:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnibenevolent
4) Suffering exists

Normally here we encounter the contradiction, but you suggest adding another premise:

5) But God is omnibenevolent, so suffering must have a reason

Anyone can outright reject this new premise because there's no justification. We grant (1) and (2) and (3) for the sake of argument because they're definitional... but (5) isn't just definitional. Does that make sense? We can reject it as unsupported because it requires support, whereas the definitions don't necessarily.

Five is only necessary if you don't take 3 at facevalue. It's superfluous.

Edit:
It would be like saying:
Demonstration:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnibenevolent
4) Evolution exists

Normally here we encounter the contradiction, but you suggest adding another premise:

5) But God is omnipotent, so evolution must have a reason

 

[Meow Mix]

Did anybody in this thread even suggest that it might? Really, I'm curious. I haven't read all the posts in here yet so as far as I know you may actually have a reason for addressing all this, although I'm still stumped as to why you're addressing it to me.

Isn't objecting to suffering as being necessarily bad linked to suggesting it may be somehow good?

The target audience? What? People who already agree with you?

People who already agree with the premises. The PoE is an argument that takes a set of characteristics provided by OTHER PEOPLE and demonstrates a contradiction in them.

The PoE isn't the source of the premise that "God wouldn't cause suffering unnecessarily," that premise came from various theists and theologians. It's not the PoE's job to defend that premise because all it does is take the characteristics offered by theologians and demonstrates a contradiction in them. That's it.

That's why I've been like every time you've asked me to defend the notion that suffering is "bad," or to defend that God wouldn't cause it needlessly: I don't have to, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the type of argument PoE is.

I haven't meant to ignore or dance around points because I feel that you're doing that to mine -- it seems for whatever reason we're just talking past each other. We'll get it figured out though if we stick to it, we might just have to break it down a little.

Please tell me at EXACTLY which point you disagree with this list:

1) Some theologians have defined omnipotence as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs.

2) Some theologians say that God is omnipotent.

3) Some theologians have defined omniscience as the state of absolutely knowing all potential and actual knowledge.

4) Some theologians say that God is omniscient.

5) Some theologians have defined omnibenevolence as the inability to cause purposeless suffering, that if there are two ways to accomplish a goal and one of them involves suffering where the other one doesn't, God would use the one WITHOUT suffering. In other words, God cannot be malevolent if God is omnibenevolent.

6) Some theologians say that God is omnibenevolent

7) Suffering is unpleasant to many people

8) If suffering is unpleasant to at least one person, that which actualized the suffering is malevolent if the suffering isn't necessary or serves a benevolent purpose.

9) Suffering exists.

10) There is no forthcoming evidence that suffering is serving a benevolent purpose or that it's necessary (Meow Mix's arguments have demonstrated it's logically possible, at least)

11) Therefore, there is a contradiction for those who believe the definitional premises 2, 4, and 6 simultaenously.

12) In order to solve the contradiction, they must either drop one of those attributes as they are defined, or justify the existence of a purpose (or the necessity) of suffering.

------------------------------

Okay! Please, point out exactly where you are disagreeing. It isn't necessary for me to defend that "suffering is bad," because that is already believed by the targets of the audience in their definition of omnibenevolence. This is why I've kept saying that if you don't believe that particular definition of omnibenevolence then the PoE does not apply to you whatsoever, and I can't understand why you'd be responding to it or asking questions about it that don't apply to it.

Rather, the better person to be asking "Why is suffering necessarily bad" are the original people who were defining God's omnibenevolent characteristic as essentially the inability to be malevolent.

Surely we can agree that it is malevolent to cause suffering when it could otherwise be prevented or the goal accomplished without it, though?

Now if you had a "target audience" in mind you should have mentioned that in your OP. You could have saved me a bunch of frustration.

But the premises were clearly stated... at least I think. Or in any case, it's usually common knowledge that PoE is solved by disbelieving any of its premises. What you've essentially been pointing at by asking how we know suffering is "bad" is basically dropping the "omnibenevolence" trait, because the term is meaningless if suffering isn't believed to be bad.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have not argued that it is. Your original assertion was that "causing deliberate harm" is not compatible with benevolence, and that is not necessarily true.

Ok, sure... I just didn't add the qualification that causing deliberate harm when it could otherwise be accomplished without harm (whatever's being attempted) is malevolent. Otherwise you're right, but as we'll see further down that doesn't get us very far.

But it is possible, despite my not providing some imaginative, useless scenario.

Not necessarily. See below.

How does that work?

If a set of items all can have quality X, then how is wrong to claim that this particular item could have quality X?

That's like saying "These apples could have worms in them. *pick up one apple* Therefore, this apple could have a worm in it." That's perfectly valid.

How do you know those apples could have worms in them? You wouldn't know that, and couldn't make that statement, unless you've seen it and therefore induced it, or otherwise read about it or heard about it and induced it. It's not an extraordinary claim, so you were pretty well within your bounds to accept it as a reasonable belief. There are no apparent contradictions with worms inhabiting apples, it doesn't break the norm of worms digging through things, and so on.

Now, what about stating "God could be causing suffering for some purpose." How does this statement work epistemically? It's more complicated, so we have to take a few things into perspective:

We have to know whether or not it's logically possible for suffering not to exist. This is why I've bothered with many of my posts to demonstrate thoroughly that indeed, it is (for many types of suffering, granted it may be impossible to have sentient beings without things like unrequited love).

Since suffering is logically possible not to exist in many respects, we can go ahead and write off the possibility that suffering is necessarily existent (except for the types I already mentioned that might be). So, we're left with the possibility that suffering exists for some "purpose."

Can we say that this is true? Yes, but it doesn't solve the problem of evil because it isn't justified. There are no indications of a purpose, so suggesting that there could be a purpose is wholly meaningless. It's the same as saying, "An unknowable being does an unknowable thing in an unknowable way," which is the same as saying "sdlgishkldjtsltee" or nothing at all.

Due to its noncognitivity, it's a non-response. It doesn't accomplish anything. And to suggest it with any force (such as to attempt to respond to the force of the PoE) is special pleading.

No, I'm saying something perfectly consistent with the concept of "omnibenevolence", just like you are saying something perfectly consistent with the concept of "omnipotence", despite the fact that you have no direct proof that it is possible to change physical laws.

Physical laws are contingent; it's logically possible that they could be different. That fulfills the definition of omnipotence being able to change them without contradiction. Whether or not there is a contradiction with an omnibenevolent being using suffering as a means to an end is far less clear, furthermore there are no forthcoming imaginable purposes for suffering that I haven't already addressed. The position that an omnipotent being can change physical laws is for the most part cognitive (just the mechanism is unknown), but your position on omnibenevolence and causing suffering is nearly entirely noncognitive.

Five is only necessary if you don't take 3 at facevalue. It's superfluous.

Edit:
It would be like saying:
Demonstration:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnibenevolent
4) Evolution exists

Normally here we encounter the contradiction, but you suggest adding another premise:

5) But God is omnipotent, so evolution must have a reason

Taking the premises at face value is what the PoE is for. If you don't accept the premises of the PoE then it simply doesn't apply to you.

Also, (4) doesn't produce a contradiction, so I'm not understanding your counterargument.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, sure... I just didn't add the qualification that causing deliberate harm when it could otherwise be accomplished without harm (whatever's being attempted) is malevolent.

Unless using deliberate harm is the only beneficial means, in which case using other means is malevolent.

Harm (in the context of damage) is not necessarily the antithesis of benevolence. It's all relative.

 

[Quagmire]

Isn't objecting to suffering as being necessarily bad linked to suggesting it may be somehow good?

"May be somehow"? Sure. That doesn't exactly sound like a positive assertion to me.

"May be, somehow" is just an acknowledgment of finite perception. That doesn't need to be defended.

People who already agree with the premises. The PoE is an argument that takes a set of characteristics provided by OTHER PEOPLE and demonstrates a contradiction in them.

The PoE isn't the source of the premise that "God wouldn't cause suffering unnecessarily," that premise came from various theists and theologians. It's not the PoE's job to defend that premise because all it does is take the characteristics offered by theologians and demonstrates a contradiction in them. That's it.

That's why I've been like every time you've asked me to defend the notion that suffering is "bad," or to defend that God wouldn't cause it needlessly: I don't have to, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the type of argument PoE is.

I haven't meant to ignore or dance around points because I feel that you're doing that to mine -- it seems for whatever reason we're just talking past each other. We'll get it figured out though if we stick to it, we might just have to break it down a little.

Please tell me at EXACTLY which point you disagree with this list:

1) Some theologians have defined omnipotence as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs.

2) Some theologians say that God is omnipotent.

3) Some theologians have defined omniscience as the state of absolutely knowing all potential and actual knowledge.

4) Some theologians say that God is omniscient.

5) Some theologians have defined omnibenevolence as the inability to cause purposeless suffering, that if there are two ways to accomplish a goal and one of them involves suffering where the other one doesn't, God would use the one WITHOUT suffering. In other words, God cannot be malevolent if God is omnibenevolent.

6) Some theologians say that God is omnibenevolent

7) Suffering is unpleasant to many people

8) If suffering is unpleasant to at least one person, that which actualized the suffering is malevolent if the suffering isn't necessary or serves a benevolent purpose.

9) Suffering exists.

10) There is no forthcoming evidence that suffering is serving a benevolent purpose or that it's necessary (Meow Mix's arguments have demonstrated it's logically possible, at least)

11) Therefore, there is a contradiction for those who believe the definitional premises 2, 4, and 6 simultaenously.

12) In order to solve the contradiction, they must either drop one of those attributes as they are defined, or justify the existence of a purpose (or the necessity) of suffering.

------------------------------

Okay! Please, point out exactly where you are disagreeing. It isn't necessary for me to defend that "suffering is bad," because that is already believed by the targets of the audience in their definition of omnibenevolence. This is why I've kept saying that if you don't believe that particular definition of omnibenevolence then the PoE does not apply to you whatsoever, and I can't understand why you'd be responding to it or asking questions about it that don't apply to it.

I'm sorry but this all strikes me as back peddling: for one thing, you posted it in GENERAL Religious Debates. Now you're saying "some theologians".

For another thing, we're not debating history here: what the people who first came up with the PoE believed is a moot point so discussing it within those confines or trying to imply that the purpose of this debate, all along, has been to determine what a certain "target audience" believes and whether or not the PoE functions within the parameters of those beliefs is ridiculous.

This thread was presented to a general audience, therefore, each and every premise that the PoE is based on is open for scrutiny.

Rather, the better person to be asking "Why is suffering necessarily bad" are the original people who were defining God's omnibenevolent characteristic as essentially the inability to be malevolent.

Why is that? Sounds like they'd be the least likely people to actually view suffering as fundamentally "bad", so asking them would be pretty much pointless.

Surely we can agree that it is malevolent to cause suffering when it could otherwise be prevented or the goal accomplished without it, though?

Not if suffering actually is part of the goal.

But the premises were clearly stated... at least I think. Or in any case, it's usually common knowledge that PoE is solved by disbelieving any of its premises.

Disbelieving implies choosing not to accept as true. I haven't been trying to explain what I believe (except for those few lines where I said "here's what I believe". and I only posted those so you would stop telling me what I believe) I've been trying to get you to explain why you, or anyone else who considers the PoE logical, believes that suffering is inherently bad.

You presented an argument, I'm merely asking you to defend it. What I personally believe is (for the umpteenth time) a moot point for the sake of this discussion.

What you've essentially been pointing at by asking how we know suffering is "bad" is basically dropping the "omnibenevolence" trait, because the term is meaningless if suffering isn't believed to be bad.

No it isn't. One doesn't have anything to to with the other. If anything, not classifying suffering as inherently bad makes the Omni-Benevolence trait more defensible.

 

[Quagmire]

I'd probably be one of the culprits. My apologies for sidetracking your own debate.

No probs, Falvlun. For one thing, it's not mine. For another, this doesn't explain why MM decided to call me on it.

And I think it rather strange that some "justification" made up out of thin air, with no ability to prove, somehow makes an argument more logical than simply saying "I don't know how it works, but there is no reason why it's not possible".

Exactly.

 

[Quagmire]

The problem with the Problem of Evil; It presumes a lot, and it overlooks a lot.

For one thing, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then each and every atom and molecule that makes up the Universe belongs to Him. They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

If anything, it's damn nice of Him to let us borrow a few for a while. If He's omnipotent, He didn't have to do that. I don't see what more proof of benevolence anyone could ask for.

The fact that Life comes with suffering and the risk of suffering doesn't negate that. It might if Life were nothing but suffering, all the the time (and unfortunately, it seems to be so for some people. Or at least, you would think so to hear them talking about it) but it isn't.

Being given Life and then objecting because there's suffering involved is like having someone let you live in their house for free and then complaining about the wall paper.

 

[PolyHedral]

They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

Objection! Parents are still held responsible for negligence.

 

[Quagmire]

Objection! Parents are still held responsible for negligence.

Think you're missing the point, PolyHedral: for one thing, parents don't own their children's bodies, they're merely responsible for them.

For another thing, it would still need to be demonstrated that the fact of suffering equates to negligence on God's part.

Anyway, if He's neglecting anything He's neglecting to give us everything we want the way we want it. That's actually a sign of a good parent.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem with the Problem of Evil; It presumes a lot, and it overlooks a lot.

The point of propositional logic is either you presume the propositions or you don't.

Of course the PoE is a moot point if we don't presume its propositions. There's no reason to even begin the first premise -- omnipotence -- if we're going to bother justifying any of it. This is what I don't think you're "getting," and why we keep talking past each other.

You want me to defend the propositions, but they're not my propositions. You're not getting that the PoE simply takes propositions made by others and simply demonstrates they contradict or at best lead to severe problems. I expect we'll continue to talk past each other on this though, so we may be at the point where we say "Good day to you" and meet up under another subject.

For one thing, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then each and every atom and molecule that makes up the Universe belongs to Him. They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

If might makes right, then that sure is the case.

If anything, it's damn nice of Him to let us borrow a few for a while. If He's omnipotent, He didn't have to do that. I don't see what more proof of benevolence anyone could ask for.

If I were able to create artificial intelligent life and then tortured them, would it be benevolent of me to let them borrow computing space for a while, as I gleefully caused them unimaginable pain?

The fact that Life comes with suffering and the risk of suffering doesn't negate that. It might if Life were nothing but suffering, all the the time (and unfortunately, it seems to be so for some people. Or at least, you would think so to hear them talking about it) but it isn't.

Being given Life and then objecting because there's suffering involved is like having someone let you live in their house for free and then complaining about the wall paper.

Again, the PoE isn't about whining about suffering. It's really not. It's just demonstrating a contradiction in a set of propositions.

I agree that suffering is part of our world and that all we can do is make the best of it, roll with the punches, take the bad with the good.

 

[Quagmire]

The point of propositional logic is either you presume the propositions or you don't.

Of course the PoE is a moot point if we don't presume its propositions. There's no reason to even begin the first premise -- omnipotence -- if we're going to bother justifying any of it. This is what I don't think you're "getting," and why we keep talking past each other.

Ah. OK. But maybe in the future you should add a disclaimer to all your OPs that says :"Warning: this isn't what I believe. This actually has nothing to do with me. I'm merely trying to show you what people who believe this believe. If you want to debate anyone about it, you'll have to look up one of those people".

TYou want me to defend the propositions, but they're not my propositions.

Ah. OK: my points aren't actually my points either then. I'm sure other people have come up with the points I'm trying to make before me. Ok then, from now on I'll just make points and not try to defend their validity either. I'll make a statement and if anyone questions what I'm saying I'll just say, "Hey, don't look at me, I'm sure all this has been said before. Find out who said it first and go argue with him. I'm just the messenger".

You're not getting that the PoE simply takes propositions made by others and simply demonstrates they contradict or at best lead to severe problems.

Yes I get it. Just because I'm not accepting this excuse doesn't mean I don;t understand the excuse.

You presented an argument (In GENERAL Religious Debates) and tried to bolster it with the PoE.

You didn't create a thread that said "Assuming that we all agree to this list of premises in the POE, lets see if the PoE works".

I expect we'll continue to talk past each other on this though,

I expect we will any time I try to tell you something you don't already agree with.

so we may be at the point where we say "Good day to you" and meet up under another subject.

No, I doubt I'll bother after this.

If might makes right, then that sure is the case.

Who the hell said anything about "might"? Oh wait a minute, that doesn't matter. If you can't argue against what's being said, pretend the other person said something you can argue with, right?

If I were able to create artificial intelligent life and then tortured them, would it be benevolent of me to let them borrow computing space for a while, as I gleefully caused them unimaginable pain?

Do you really see Life that way and do you really picture yourself as that helpless in it?

Again, the PoE isn't about whining about suffering.

It actually is. Without the whining factor, it falls apart.

It's really not.

It really is.

It's just demonstrating a contradiction in a set of propositions.

And you were using it to demonstrate what?

I agree that suffering is part of our world and that all we can do is make the best of it, roll with the punches, take the bad with the good.

This isn't a thread about how to deal with suffering. This is a thread that tries to use the fact of suffering to make determinations about someone's character.

 

[Meow Mix]

Quagmire, I'm not trying to bust your chops or be your enemy or anything. We're just not getting anywhere here because we're talking past each other. Each of us is accusing the other of being the one that's the cause of the confusion.

So let's just chill out, shake hands, crack open a beer and relax. You said you didn't want to even bother meeting up under other threads but I hope that was just a spur of the moment. I like you, and maybe we can return to this at another time but for right now I don't even understand where you're coming from or what you think the problem is that I haven't already addressed.

Honestly part of the problem I'm having is laziness and the difficulty in going through a post that's spliced with a bunch of quotes -- this is something that I used to do until I realized how hard it is to respond to such posts. I have to open another browser so I can look at the original post to see what I was saying that you were responding to, since there's a response after every sentence...

Maybe this would be easier if we had a one on one because then I could just scroll down to the recent history part and see exactly what you're responding to.

Do you want to try that? That way we can start fresh, know exactly what each other are talking about, and get this business done right?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

One on one with Meow Mix....

...
...
...

Meeeeeooooowwwww!

 

[Meow Mix]

One on one with Meow Mix....

...
...
...

Meeeeeooooowwwww!

You worried I'm cheating on you? I'll be right over to ours in a second

 

[Quagmire]

Just so I am completely clear. You don't consider pain and destruction an evil act? Any pain and any destruction is in no way evil? The whole of all known pain and all known destruction, none of it can be considered evil?

Blackdog, tell me something: when someone says "Good morning" to you do you think they're saying that every morning that's ever been or ever will be is/was/and will be good in every possible way?

Just curious.

Also, I believe the premise behinds Meows entire post was directed at and focused around the POE. How wasn't it?

I'll go and read the OP again.

 

[Willamena]

The problem with the Problem of Evil; It presumes a lot, and it overlooks a lot.

For one thing, if God is the Creator of the Universe, then each and every atom and molecule that makes up the Universe belongs to Him. They're His, He can do whatever He wants with them and nobody has a right to call Him on any of it.

If anything, it's damn nice of Him to let us borrow a few for a while. If He's omnipotent, He didn't have to do that. I don't see what more proof of benevolence anyone could ask for.

The fact that Life comes with suffering and the risk of suffering doesn't negate that. It might if Life were nothing but suffering, all the the time (and unfortunately, it seems to be so for some people. Or at least, you would think so to hear them talking about it) but it isn't.

Being given Life and then objecting because there's suffering involved is like having someone let you live in their house for free and then complaining about the wall paper.

Best argument against the Problem of Suffering I've heard yet.

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe this would be easier if we had a one on one because then I could just scroll down to the recent history part and see exactly what you're responding to.

Do you want to try that? That way we can start fresh, know exactly what each other are talking about, and get this business done right?

Sure, why not.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sure, why not.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/one-one-debates/106390-quagmire-meow-poe.html#post2221311