• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SimWorld without suffering

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Evidence for suffering being necessary for the greatest amount of good?

If none, then it's special pleading.
What? We don't have any evidence for any of this. Why should only one aspect be subject to the "evidence" rule?

We are talking about the hypothetical abilities and the hypothetical characteristics of a hypthothetical being. How exactly is my hypothetical characteristic-- omnibenevolence-- any more fallacious than you claiming that this being is omnipotent? The only case of special pleading I'm seeing is you claiming that this counter-argument is special pleading.

If God is omnibenevolent, then suffering must serve some greater good. Just like "if God is omnipotent, evolution must be his plan for creating organisms."
 

Zadok

Zadok
But why would an omniscient being need to "test" anything?

If the test is for us to learn something rather than for God to learn something, why can't an omnipotent being just impart the knowledge to us directly and painlessly?

What is there to learn through pain if pain didn't exist? Consider for a moment that some arguments are correct, and that pain is there to teach: then consider that pain disapears shortly after. What could we have possibly learned from the pain that couldn't have been learned otherwise, or that isn't now completely extraneous? (For instance, "don't touch the hot stove" becomes completely extraneous in the absence of suffering!)

I see - you do not believe in G-d but you believe an omniscient G-d created pain. Let me go back a little - Pain and suffering is only what you think it is. We know from science that if our brain does not sense that our hand is being destroyed by something very hot - we will suffer no pain. Why blame G-d if it is our creation?

I have suggested in previous posts that there is something to be learned from pain and suffering - like touching something very hot will do damage to a hand. Pain will teach us to avoid such things. If we have no atomicity – if G-d forces us to know without learning we have no actual existence but are extensions of “the simulation”. But now that I remember that you do not believe you have any independent existence. Therefore, I submit that your argument, your interpretation and your opinion is all an illusion that does not matter. Even if you are correct there is nothing to be gained by such knowledge. But then there is nothing to be lost ether.

This all leaves me with one question – as I wonder about where evolution is moving – the answer within the paradigm is both obvious and meaningless. So the real questions to all your concerns is – So what does it matter? Why have these discussions? Because you want me to understand that the G-d you have defined does not, in reality exist. Hardly a rational exercise – I concluded that long ago.

Zadok
 
Last edited:

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
I see - you do not believe in G-d but you believe an omniscient G-d created pain. Let me go back a little - Pain and suffering is only what you think it is. We know from science that if our brain does not sense that our hand is being destroyed by something very hot - we will suffer no pain. Why blame G-d if it is our creation?

I have suggested in previous posts that there is something to be learned from pain and suffering - like touching something very hot will do damage to a hand. Pain will teach us to avoid such things. If we have no atomicity – if G-d forces us to know without learning we have no actual existence but are extensions of “the simulation”. But now that I remember that you do not believe you have any independent existence. Therefore, I submit that your argument, your interpretation and your opinion is all an illusion that does not matter. Even if you are correct there is nothing to be gained by such knowledge. But then there is nothing to be lost ether.

This all leaves me with one question – as I wonder about where evolution is moving – the answer within the paradigm is both obvious and meaningless. So the real questions to all your concerns is – So what does it matter? Why have these discussions? Because you want me to understand that the G-d you have defined does not, in reality exist. Hardly a rational exercise – I concluded that long ago.

Zadok
Zadok you are over complicating her main point. Babies born and then shortly die after living an excruciating life of pain, does in fact appear to be ruthless, if a God could have prevented that. SO unless your a liar, you would have to agree, if God could stop that, he should, if he is benevolent.
When you understand that, you understand Meow Mix's strongest point, of which it is a point that has been debated for dozens of years and beyond.

One which I have an answer for as well, be will be addressing it in another post with her.

Just my two cetns here...
 

Zadok

Zadok
What? We don't have any evidence for any of this. Why should only one aspect be subject to the "evidence" rule?

We are talking about the hypothetical abilities and the hypothetical characteristics of a hypthothetical being. How exactly is my hypothetical characteristic-- omnibenevolence-- any more fallacious than you claiming that this being is omnipotent? The only case of special pleading I'm seeing is you claiming that this counter-argument is special pleading.

If God is omnibenevolent, then suffering must serve some greater good. Just like "if God is omnipotent, evolution must be his plan for creating organisms."

Interesting

Zadok
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Meow Mix, I do have one other thought for this thread.
Can I not challenge you to justify comparing a program to human consciousness.

It seems very irresponsible to wield this analogy of a thread around, when we are so very far from recreating human consciousness in reality. I would demand the evidence that any program we might create could create enough of a realm that we might test human consciousness or the creation thereof.

Thanks...
 

Zadok

Zadok
Zadok you are over complicating her main point. Babies born and then shortly die after living an excruciating life of pain, does in fact appear to be ruthless, if a God could have prevented that. SO unless your a liar, you would have to agree, if God could stop that, he should, if he is benevolent.
When you understand that, you understand Meow Mix's strongest point, of which it is a point that has been debated for dozens of years and beyond.

One which I have an answer for as well, be will be addressing it in another post with her.

Just my two cetns here...

You are assuming many things which may or may not be true but your conclusion is only based on your limited assumptions. The truth is that we will all die. What you have assumed is that there is nothing to be gained by life - which in that case you are correct.

I pointed out before that the relative time of even the longest life is very short in the grand scheme of things. This all reminds me of the logic of one of my chain smoking friends when he said, “Good health is the slowest most prolonged known way to die.” The point here is if suffering is such a bad thing to be avoided at all costs – then it is the baby in your scenario that suffers the least and to which G-d is the most merciful and kind.

Zadok
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
– then it is the baby in your scenario that suffers the least and to which G-d is the most merciful and kind.

Zadok
Unfortunately, Meow Mix will be correct to reply to this point in saying If God is all powerful, could he have prevented the suffering in the baby? If he could, then it is malevolent, even if the suffering is for 3 days.
Because, God chose not to avoid the suffering of the baby, and rather to let it suffer, shows God uses pain and suffering to achieve some goal. That is malevolent if it could have been avoided.

YOUR JOB here, is to explain why God had no choice. It is the only way out of the box Meow Mix has, and to be honest it is an honest and justified box she is creating.

So far, you haven't offered a reason why God could not avoid doing this, but have said that maybe it is part of a greater good. If you REALLY think about that statement, you will naturally conclude it is a lazy one. So, please keep trying, because it is important.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Can I not challenge you to justify comparing a program to human consciousness.
Molecules interact through the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Since these forces are nigh-perfectly understood, any system of molecules can thus be simulated, given a sufficiently powerful computer. (or enough time) Since the brain must be made of molecules, as all other matter in the universe is, it must simulatable. Thus, it must be possible to produce consciousness on a sufficiently large computer.

A true artificial intelligence would not be running on the molecular level, but the same principle applies to the more complex structures in the brain, like neurons.

Of course, the way out of this is to assert that the brain has something more to it than molecules, but I haven't seen anyone back that up.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
What? We don't have any evidence for any of this. Why should only one aspect be subject to the "evidence" rule?

We are talking about the hypothetical abilities and the hypothetical characteristics of a hypthothetical being. How exactly is my hypothetical characteristic-- omnibenevolence-- any more fallacious than you claiming that this being is omnipotent? The only case of special pleading I'm seeing is you claiming that this counter-argument is special pleading.

If God is omnibenevolent, then suffering must serve some greater good. Just like "if God is omnipotent, evolution must be his plan for creating organisms."

But that's the point. IF God is to be omnibenevolent then there must be an explanation for suffering. None is forthcoming. Just saying "It's possible that in some inexplicable way the suffering is actually good" is special pleading.

For instance, let's say that we come upon a square. I say "This is actually a circle," even though all indications show that it's a square. When you ask why, I just say "Well leprechauns can make circles look like squares in an inexplicable way." That isn't an answer, that isn't a suggestion, that isn't a rational possibility -- that's special pleading.

Maybe leprechauns DO have the power to do that if they exist, but if I can't say how or provide any evidence for it then I have no business uttering it when the plain facts are that it is a square.

Likewise, the plain facts are that if a being has all power and all knowledge within logical limits and suffering exists, then that being cannot be benevolent. Saying that it IS benevolent in some unknown way is special pleading.

The problem of evil demands an answer, and special pleading isn't an answer. Now, if you can find a way in which to demonstrate how suffering is actually good, then that would NOT be special pleading: that would be an argument.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Molecules interact through the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Since these forces are nigh-perfectly understood, any system of molecules can thus be simulated, given a sufficiently powerful computer. (or enough time) Since the brain must be made of molecules, as all other matter in the universe is, it must simulatable. Thus, it must be possible to produce consciousness on a sufficiently large computer.

A true artificial intelligence would not be running on the molecular level, but the same principle applies to the more complex structures in the brain, like neurons.

Of course, the way out of this is to assert that the brain has something more to it than molecules, but I haven't seen anyone back that up.
Great! So now we reduce the discussion to molecules. OK, so let's do that for a moment.

You are making a HUGE leap of faith to say we can recreate the brain and what it is capable of, emotions, calculating decisions 5 years down the road, deciding what morals are correct (today) based on the color of the sky perhaps, etc...

Just because you can make an assertion, does not mean it is possible. Just as I can assert God can create a square circle, it doesn't mean it will ever happen.

So, if creating a collection of human beings, as we are today in a program was possible, I might be willing to have that discussion, but we are no where near that, therefor this OP, if insisting upon such a thing, reduces to wishful thinking.

So now we are all staring at each other pointing a finger saying "wishful thinking"! Now it's a party!

Seriously though, my point is the OP asserts quite strongly that we can sufficiently create a SIM world as to compare it to what challenges God might have had when creating this universe. I just don't get it.
Again God, is all powerful, but that doesn't mean God has no limits...
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
You are making a HUGE leap of faith to say we can recreate the brain and what it is capable of,
I never made that assertion. I was careful to always use the conditional with a sufficiently powerful computer. That computer could be the size of the universe,(and indeed, might have to be) and my point would still hold.

There's also a slightly more complicated argument that says that either the brain is simulatable, or it can compute an infinite amount of data in finite time. Would you like me to go into that?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I see - you do not believe in G-d but you believe an omniscient G-d created pain. Let me go back a little - Pain and suffering is only what you think it is. We know from science that if our brain does not sense that our hand is being destroyed by something very hot - we will suffer no pain. Why blame G-d if it is our creation?


You're stopping too short. The question isn't "Why do we feel pain when we put our hands on hot burners," the question is "Why are there hot burners that can damage our hands?"

See? Pain isn't the problem of suffering, it's a symptom. The problem of suffering is that the state of the world is such that there exists the capacity for suffering.

I have suggested in previous posts that there is something to be learned from pain and suffering - like touching something very hot will do damage to a hand. Pain will teach us to avoid such things.

Pain doesn't have to teach us to avoid hot burners if hot burners don't damage us.

Likewise I get the argument all the time that pain is necessary to, say, inoculate against polio. The person who makes this argument isn't "getting" my argument. My argument isn't "Why do we have to feel the pain of an injection" but rather "Why does polio exist in the first place?"

Yes, some suffering leads to a greater good: a pinprick is a hell of a lot better than having polio. The "greater good" is to then be immune to polio. But can't you see how this "greater good" isn't the greatest good -- that of the absence of polio altogether? All such "greater goods" that come through suffering are only "good" in that they alleviate or prevent future suffering -- which becomes irrelevant in the nonexistence of suffering. That is the crux of my argument: the greatest good is the absence of even the capacity for suffering. You don't need inoculations for diseases that don't exist. You don't need heroes like firefighters to save people from something that doesn't exist.

Heroes are a good thing, but they're only a good thing if suffering exists. If no dragons exist you don't need a dragon slayer. So, people who say "Oh but without suffering we wouldn't have the greater good of compassion and heroism" aren't getting my argument either. Dragons don't exist, is our world somehow less good than a world with dragons and therefore dragon slayers? Is the absence of dragon slayers in our world diminishing the goodness of our world? NO! If suffering doesn't exist, heroism isn't required -- and wouldn't be missed!

This all leaves me with one question – as I wonder about where evolution is moving – the answer within the paradigm is both obvious and meaningless. So the real questions to all your concerns is – So what does it matter? Why have these discussions? Because you want me to understand that the G-d you have defined does not, in reality exist. Hardly a rational exercise – I concluded that long ago.

The point of the excercise is just to make apparent to those who haven't considered all the ramifications that they may perhaps believe in something irrational. I'd rather not believe in irrational things, so I'm grateful when anyone points out to me that something I believe is irrational so I can change my belief. Whether or not people change their beliefs is up to them, but at least it can help them think about it.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Meow Mix, I do have one other thought for this thread.
Can I not challenge you to justify comparing a program to human consciousness.

It seems very irresponsible to wield this analogy of a thread around, when we are so very far from recreating human consciousness in reality. I would demand the evidence that any program we might create could create enough of a realm that we might test human consciousness or the creation thereof.

Thanks...

It's sort of irrelevant whether we're able to program consciousness in a program or not. Say we make the program and God works his voodoo magic and turns the avatars into sentient beings for all I care; what's the difference?

It isn't about the consciousness of the beings (unless we're focusing on suffering caused from a sentient being to another, which is not what I'm concentrating on right now) but rather the physical laws of the program/universe.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
YOUR JOB here, is to explain why God had no choice. It is the only way out of the box Meow Mix has, and to be honest it is an honest and justified box she is creating.

Yep, that would be a solution to the Problem of Evil. That's true.

So far, you haven't offered a reason why God could not avoid doing this, but have said that maybe it is part of a greater good. If you REALLY think about that statement, you will naturally conclude it is a lazy one. So, please keep trying, because it is important.

It's a lazy one because it's special pleading. Fallacies are never worth the time they even take to utter.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
But a world without compassion because there's no suffering is a wonderful world.

...
Ultimately, the existence of compassion is a bad thing. It means suffering exists at all. And please, nobody take that out of context. Compassion is good IF suffering exists.
Okay, let's say someone falls and bangs their knee in a busy square. No one moves to help, because the person who was injured didn't suffer. Then a tsunami sweeps through the square and drowns 100,000 people. Again, no relief efforts from anywhere, because after all, no one suffered.

Is that a good thing?
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Mu. The tsunami instantly vaporizes those 100,000 people (who are a self-contained community) without touching the surrounding infrastructure, etc?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
See? Pain isn't the problem of suffering, it's a symptom. The problem of suffering is that the state of the world is such that there exists the capacity for suffering.
I think we can agree that events that cause suffering are not in themselves the suffering. The latter happens in the mind. So again, I colided with a thought this morning that caused me to suffer. Are you going to rid the world of all such thoughts, too, in order to paint a picture of a world without suffering?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
There's also a slightly more complicated argument that says that either the brain is simulatable, or it can compute an infinite amount of data in finite time. Would you like me to go into that?

I think I've heard that, but yes please. I've always had a deep interest in the simulatability of the mind.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Okay, let's say someone falls and bangs their knee in a busy square. No one moves to help, because the person who was injured didn't suffer. Then a tsunami sweeps through the square and drowns 100,000 people. Again, no relief efforts from anywhere, because after all, no one suffered.

Is that a good thing?

Why would there be scraped knees, tsunamis and drowning in the world I'm describing? :confused:
 
Top