SimWorld without suffering

[Willamena]

It trumps OMNIbenevolence, yes.

Does omnimalevolence trump omnibenevolence? Surely if "God" is malevolent at all, it is omnimalevolent.

Omnibenevolence is essentially the same as "not-malevolence."

Though usually PoE just says "benevolence" it's actually short for "omnibenevolence."

Not Epicurus's POE. But no matter.

The reason why PoE sticks around though is because most are unwilling to drop any of those characteristics.

I rather think it sticks around because its proponents are unwilling to drop "God's" characteristics.

 

[Meow Mix]

Although I agree with alot of what you have to say, I think the main problem is that people often believe that God is like humans. The Universe/God has laws. Without these laws nothing could exist. So in the sense of someone getting ran over by the truck; The truck had to follow the same laws at all time. To make exceptions would be chaotic. It might seem like a small thing to change, but the laws are setup to keep all things in balance. Not to mention, one human death to a infinite Universe/God means very little. Just a thought...

Well, I understand and appreciate your point but disagree.

I do think one human death in an infinite universe means a lot, but that is because I have a subjective value for sentient, feeling life. I can't rationally explain that value besides through some kind of categorical or hypothetical imperative... nothing really set in stone.

Also, it isn't a big deal to set up laws such that they cause no physical harm to sentient life. It does sound chaotic but it is in principle predictable: for instance, if any time a sharp edge would cut a sentient being's skin it lost its inertia, that would just be one more law scientists could add to the book of stuff they observe about the universe.

It's sort of like a chess analogy I like. Richard Feynman compared studying physics to someone (who doesn't know the rules of chess) watching people play chess in a park.

They'll figure out the most obvious "laws" of the chess universe real quick: bishops move diagonally, rooks move horizontally, queens both, etc.

However once certain conditions are met, they'll observe something that seems to break the "laws of chess." For instance, after noting the above laws, they decide to try their luck against someone who empties part of their back row during some turns, perfectly obeying the apparent "laws of chess." But then something strange happens -- the opponent moves their king and their rook at the same time, with the pieces passing through one another! (Castling)

Were the laws of chess broken? Of course not, our observer just didn't understand ALL the rules of chess -- yet.

So, likewise, in a universe where there are special rules to protect sentient beings from physical suffering, it might be confusing at first but over time those rules can be learned and made predictable, too. I see nothing wrong with that scenario. An omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being could do such a thing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Does omnimalevolence trump omnibenevolence? Surely if "God" is malevolent at all, it is omnimalevolent.

God wouldn't necessarily have to be omnimalevolent if He is malevolent at all, no. Nor does He have to be omnibenevolent if He is benevolent at all.

These are just propositional traits. Most beings are both benevolent and malevolent, but it was the theologians who suggested that God might be omnibenevolent; and so provide ammunition to the PoE against their particular belief.

There is no contradiction if God is capable of being malevolent.

Granted, it sort of raises more questions but many of those questions are subjective; they don't have the logical force of PoE.

 

[Willamena]

Also, it isn't a big deal to set up laws such that they cause no physical harm to sentient life.

Oh, really? How does that work?

 

[Willamena]

God wouldn't necessarily have to be omnimalevolent if He is malevolent at all, no. Nor does He have to be omnibenevolent if He is benevolent at all.

These are just propositional traits. Most beings are both benevolent and malevolent, but it was the theologians who suggested that God might be omnibenevolent; and so provide ammunition to the PoE against their particular belief.

There is no contradiction if God is capable of being malevolent.

Granted, it sort of raises more questions but many of those questions are subjective; they don't have the logical force of PoE.

No argument there.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh, really? How does that work?

Counterfactual conditionals. They already exist in reality.

For instance there are groups of mesons that have an asymmetry in their fields: their fields, under the right circumstances, will always curl clockwise.

However, if it's antimatter of the same mesons, they will always curl counterclockwise.

This is essentially a counterfactual (if/then/else statement) in the reality we already have: if matter curl clockwise, else curl counterclockwise.

All God has to do is set up physical laws -- which are contingent, and can be otherwise without logical contradiction -- to incorporate more counterfactual conditionals.

"If sharp edge is cutting sentient flesh, remove inertia. Else, keep the same" for instance. You'd still be able to cut an onion but if you tried to cut a person on accident or on purpose, the physical law would prevent the knife from cutting or harming them.

All physical suffering can be prevented with such counterfactuals, and they can be in principle predictable (though granted, it would be a lot more rules for scientists to learn in describing the physical laws of the universe).

What I'm describing is completely logically possible, thus an omnipotent being can do it and an omniscient being would know how to do it exhaustively (such that nothing is forgotten or left out from being "fixed").

 

[Zadok]

Counterfactual conditionals. They already exist in reality.

For instance there are groups of mesons that have an asymmetry in their fields: their fields, under the right circumstances, will always curl clockwise.

However, if it's antimatter of the same mesons, they will always curl counterclockwise.

This is essentially a counterfactual (if/then/else statement) in the reality we already have: if matter curl clockwise, else curl counterclockwise.

All God has to do is set up physical laws -- which are contingent, and can be otherwise without logical contradiction -- to incorporate more counterfactual conditionals.

"If sharp edge is cutting sentient flesh, remove inertia. Else, keep the same" for instance. You'd still be able to cut an onion but if you tried to cut a person on accident or on purpose, the physical law would prevent the knife from cutting or harming them.

All physical suffering can be prevented with such counterfactuals, and they can be in principle predictable (though granted, it would be a lot more rules for scientists to learn in describing the physical laws of the universe).

What I'm describing is completely logically possible, thus an omnipotent being can do it and an omniscient being would know how to do it exhaustively (such that nothing is forgotten or left out from being "fixed").

There is a problem that comes from the fallout of the uncertainty principle. If counterfactuals (both) do not exist (are never both present) then there can be no metric of differentiation and thus neither can be observed.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

There is a problem that comes from the fallout of the uncertainty principle. If counterfactuals (both) do not exist (are never both present) then there can be no metric of differentiation and thus neither can be observed.

Zadok

The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and the counterfactual conditionals I'm speaking of could definitely be observed.

 

[Thief]

Counterfactual conditionals. They already exist in reality.

For instance there are groups of mesons that have an asymmetry in their fields: their fields, under the right circumstances, will always curl clockwise.

However, if it's antimatter of the same mesons, they will always curl counterclockwise.

This is essentially a counterfactual (if/then/else statement) in the reality we already have: if matter curl clockwise, else curl counterclockwise.

All God has to do is set up physical laws -- which are contingent, and can be otherwise without logical contradiction -- to incorporate more counterfactual conditionals.

"If sharp edge is cutting sentient flesh, remove inertia. Else, keep the same" for instance. You'd still be able to cut an onion but if you tried to cut a person on accident or on purpose, the physical law would prevent the knife from cutting or harming them.

All physical suffering can be prevented with such counterfactuals, and they can be in principle predictable (though granted, it would be a lot more rules for scientists to learn in describing the physical laws of the universe).

What I'm describing is completely logically possible, thus an omnipotent being can do it and an omniscient being would know how to do it exhaustively (such that nothing is forgotten or left out from being "fixed").

So you what God to be your body guard?

And this 'physical law' applies to whom?
Bad guys breaking into your house in the middle of the night?
No weapon could stop them.

And physical law would be contrary when applies to living things?
Like cows?...no more hamburgers....no more deer hunting....
Like green plants?....or maybe they have no feelings?
(life has resistance to dying....but death is essential)

Life and death ARE 'counterfactual'.

 

[Willamena]

Counterfactual conditionals. They already exist in reality.

For instance there are groups of mesons that have an asymmetry in their fields: their fields, under the right circumstances, will always curl clockwise.

However, if it's antimatter of the same mesons, they will always curl counterclockwise.

This is essentially a counterfactual (if/then/else statement) in the reality we already have: if matter curl clockwise, else curl counterclockwise.

All God has to do is set up physical laws -- which are contingent, and can be otherwise without logical contradiction -- to incorporate more counterfactual conditionals.

"If sharp edge is cutting sentient flesh, remove inertia. Else, keep the same" for instance. You'd still be able to cut an onion but if you tried to cut a person on accident or on purpose, the physical law would prevent the knife from cutting or harming them.

All physical suffering can be prevented with such counterfactuals, and they can be in principle predictable (though granted, it would be a lot more rules for scientists to learn in describing the physical laws of the universe).

What I'm describing is completely logically possible, thus an omnipotent being can do it and an omniscient being would know how to do it exhaustively (such that nothing is forgotten or left out from being "fixed").

I have no idea what you're talking about, but anyway, I do not see you supporting your claim that this would "not be a big deal" for God to do. Sounds rather big to me.

Edit: Wikipedia says the counterfactual conditionals are conditionals that are not necessarily true. Are you suggesting that God could arrange it so that when a knife is set to cut it would not necessarily cut? What would that do to logic, if a premise and conclusion did not necessarily have to be true?

Edit: I really don't get the meson curling example, but then I'm not learned in particle physics: in what way can we say the mesons are not behaving as they should?

 

[PolyHedral]

I do not see you supporting your claim that this would "not be a big deal" for God to do.

God is infinitely intelligent. Any solvable problem is trivial for Him.

 

[Willamena]

God is infinitely intelligent. Any solvable problem is trivial for Him.

Ah, another new trait.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, infinite intelligence is part of "omnipotence."

 

[Willamena]

Well, infinite intelligence is part of "omnipotence."

As in, "intelligence is the power of thought"?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Strike, there is such a thing as assuming premises of your opponent's in order to demonstrate a contradiction in them.

Of course there is. If I have assumed incorrectly, then correct my assumptions.

But, for the sake of argument answer me this: How did you come to realize that this simworld without suffering would be better than what we have now?

 

[PolyHedral]

As in, "intelligence is the power of thought"?

I don't know, but since intelligence is obviously logically possible, an omnipotent being can do it.

 

[Willamena]

I don't know, but since intelligence is obviously logically possible, an omnipotent being can do it.

And that's a decent argument. But stupidity is also logically possible.

 

[Quagmire]

=Blackdog22;2221859]
No. As i said pain and suffering can be a consequence of evil but in and of itself it is not right or wrong. Just a process of damage trying to mend itself and nature coming back to balance.

Why is the outcome the part that was evil? It is the result of a caused action.
I value human life and find killing or harming someone evil. It is not the pain that the one who was harmed is feeling that is evil but the act that caused the pain that would be considered evil.It is the damage that was done and not the pain and suffering which is part of recovery.
If someone hits you and it hurts. the pain is just signaling to the brain,"Hey don't let that happen again!"It is a good thing and lets you know damage is being done.

Thank you, Walkntune. That's basically what was I trying to say (and I'm going to get out of the way and let you handle this part of the argument if you don't mind. You seem to have more patience than I do).

 

[Meow Mix]

So, leukemia kids' bodies are telling them not to do that (get leukemia) again?

My eyes are open

In seriousness, though, this objection totally and utterly misses the point of PoE.

 

[Willamena]

So, leukemia kids' bodies are telling them not to do that (get leukemia) again?

My eyes are open

In seriousness, though, this objection totally and utterly misses the point of PoE.

Talk about missing the point.