SimWorld without suffering

[Meow Mix]

Mu, the lost continent?

Mu means "the question itself is wrong."

I think it comes from Buddhist tradition... for instance if someone says, "Do you still beat your wife?" you could answer "Mu."

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

Not necessarily, I've been mostly describing physical sources of suffering like diseases, fires, catastrophes etc.

Even preventing rape is a physical thing. I'm talking about solving that stuff with different physical laws.

I don't think it'd be possible to stop the suffering caused by, say, unrequited love or whatever thought you had. But it's still a Problem of Evil in full force if God created a world with far more suffering than might be necessary.

 

[Midnight Pete]

A perfectly programmed Simworld without suffering is just that-- a Simworld. It does not make any kind of statement about the real world. Fundamentally perfect yet fundamentally unreal.

If the Sim people were aware of their own existence, given sentience, emotions, and an understanding of good and evil, wonder how long before the fall of Sim-Eden? How long before suffering appears?

 

[Meow Mix]

A perfectly programmed Simworld without suffering is just that-- a Simworld. It does not make any kind of statement about the real world. Fundamentally perfect yet fundamentally unreal.

If the Sim people were aware of their own existence, given sentience, emotions, and an understanding of good and evil, wonder how long before the fall of Sim-Eden? How long before suffering appears?

It couldn't by the rules of the world.

Maybe they'd be able to say mean things to one another or maybe someone will fall in love with someone who doesn't return the feeling.

But the fact would remain that no one could murder someone else, or rape them, or stab them, or succumb to tornadoes or old age or birth defects.

That's the question: why does a benevolent God create the capacity for those things I just mentioned?

 

[Willamena]

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

So, there's no natural events in the world you're describing. Because everything has the potential to create suffering in us.

 

[Willamena]

Mu means "the question itself is wrong."

I think it comes from Buddhist tradition... for instance if someone says, "Do you still beat your wife?" you could answer "Mu."

Ah.

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

Tsunami's don't vaporize people. Perhaps you're thinking of atomic bombs.

 

[Willamena]

Not necessarily, I've been mostly describing physical sources of suffering like diseases, fires, catastrophes etc.

Even preventing rape is a physical thing. I'm talking about solving that stuff with different physical laws.

I don't think it'd be possible to stop the suffering caused by, say, unrequited love or whatever thought you had. But it's still a Problem of Evil in full force if God created a world with far more suffering than might be necessary.

It's not possible to stop suffering, period, even if all the ugly, unpleasant, horrific things were removed from the world --because they are not the source of suffering.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It's not possible to stop suffering, period, even if all the ugly, unpleasant, horrific things were removed from the world --because they are not the source of suffering.

This is true. The only ways to not have suffering are to:

(a) not have sentience
(b) have sentience that is incapable of suffering
(c) have sentience that is capable of suffering but never does (suffering is prevented)

You're trying to simulate (c) but only preventing "physical" suffering (I put physical in quotes because I realize that emotions are also physical). Emotional suffering would still exist and that is often the worst kind.

The simple solution is (b) (or (a) of course ).

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Ok. Do you have any experience with omnipotent beings? No?

Have you ever experienced a world in which no suffering existed? No?

So, how do you know that an omnipotent being could create a world in which no suffering existed? You have no experience with either component.

You make that assumption purely based upon the definition of omnipotence: An omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible. A world devoid of suffering is logically possible, therefore, it is possible for an omnipotent being to create such a world.

Now, there is no difference between that argument and the one that theistic apologeticists make. Omnibenevolence means that the being would only act in such a way that maximizes the amount of good. It is logically possible that suffering maximizes the amount of good. Therefore, it is possible that an omnibenevolent being would allow suffering in order to mazimize the amount of good.

I do not need to know how this is possible. Just like you can say "an omnipotent being can create a suffering-free world in some unknown way", I can also say "an omnibenevolent being can maximze the amount of good through suffering in some unknown way". If you disagree, then explain exactly how you are not claiming special status for your own argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

So, there's no natural events in the world you're describing. Because everything has the potential to create suffering in us.

Oh there certainly could be, they just couldn't cause suffering in people. There's nothing illogical about an omnipotent God making it so that as a tsunami rolls in to where people reside it just goes around them and doesn't hurt their crops and stuff either.

This is an OMNIPOTENT being we're talking about.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's not possible to stop suffering, period, even if all the ugly, unpleasant, horrific things were removed from the world --because they are not the source of suffering.

Sure there might still be some suffering such as "Oh I love Billy but he doesn't love me back."

But you wouldn't have leukemia kids and innocent victims anymore.

So the Problem of Evil stands, exactly as I've put it.

 

[Meow Mix]

You're trying to simulate (c) but only preventing "physical" suffering (I put physical in quotes because I realize that emotions are also physical). Emotional suffering would still exist and that is often the worst kind.

Let's drop by some cancer survivor message boards, parents with autistic children boards, cystic fibrosis boards, 9/11 survivor boards, tsunami survivor boards, and so on and see if they'll agree with you that "emotional suffering is often the worst kind."

Let's see if they'll understand why God would let that stuff exist because, well, if He can't stop emotional suffering then why bother stopping this other suffering (even though He can)?

Sarcasm not intended to be mean, I always thinks the rolling eyes smiley looks mean. Not trying to be, just indicating clear sarcasm.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is logically possible that suffering maximizes the amount of good.

Actually, this is exactly what's in question and why anyone who asserts that it is possible must provide evidence or rightly be called out on special pleading.

I've justified my assertion that a world without the types of suffering I've described is completely logically possible. I've done my job, so I'm not special pleading.

Anyone who wants to assert that suffering might "actually" maximize the amount of good needs to justify or else they're special pleading, since suffering is NORMALLY equivalent to evil, not good.

I do not need to know how this is possible.

Yes you do, or you can't say that it's "logically possible." See?

Just like you can say "an omnipotent being can create a suffering-free world in some unknown way", I can also say "an omnibenevolent being can maximze the amount of good through suffering in some unknown way". If you disagree, then explain exactly how you are not claiming special status for your own argument.

I'm not saying "an omnipotent being can create a suffering-free world in some unknown way."

I've gone into a great deal of effort by describing exactly in which ways it could be done.

That's the difference. That's why I'm not special pleading, but arguing that "evil is good" is special pleading without justification.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Let's drop by some cancer survivor message boards, parents with autistic children boards, cystic fibrosis boards, 9/11 survivor boards, tsunami survivor boards, and so on and see if they'll agree with you that "emotional suffering is often the worst kind."

Ok, let's drop by some message boards, those who are considering suicide, and see if they agree with me. Some might and others might not; it's subjective. Emotional suffering drives hundreds to suicide every day, so don't try and patronize it.

Let's see if they'll understand why God would let that stuff exist because, well, if He can't stop emotional suffering then why bother stopping this other suffering (even though He can)?

When did I make that argument? Your approach is insufficient; that's all I'm pointing out. (a) and (b) of the options I listed are not only simpler, but they actually get rid of suffering and your simulation does not.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ok, let's drop by some message boards, those who are considering suicide, and see if they agree with me. Some might and others might not; it's subjective. Emotional suffering drives hundreds to suicide every day, so don't try and patronize it.

Touche, and I wasn't trying to patronize emotional suffering, either.

When did I make that argument? Your approach is insufficient; that's all I'm pointing out. (a) and (b) of the options I listed are not only simpler, but they actually get rid of suffering and your simulation does not.

You weren't necessarily, I was just using sarcasm.

How many people would have emotional suffering without all the physical suffering around, though, I wonder?

It's still a better world the way I'm describing it than this world, and that's all that's sufficient for the Problem of Evil to have force. That's all my goal is: to demonstrate the force of the Problem of Evil. I'm an atheist, I don't think a suffering-free world is possible without a god or at least insanely advanced technology.

Atheists don't have a "Logical Problem of Evil." Some theists do, though, and I'm demonstrating that it's not easily sweeped under the rug as has happened since Epicurus.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, this is exactly what's in question and why anyone who asserts that it is possible must provide evidence or rightly be called out on special pleading.

There's is nothing inconsistant with the concept, so it's logically possible.

You have no proof or evidence that a suffering-free world could exist either. You just have an imaginative concept of one. I have an imaginative concept of suffering creating the maximal amount of good.

I've justified my assertion that a world without the types of suffering I've described is completely logically possible. I've done my job, so I'm not special pleading.

You have merely stated that a suffering free world could exist. You have never seen one in action. You've never tested it. You couldn't test it even if you wanted to. How is that justification?

Anyone who wants to assert that suffering might "actually" maximize the amount of good needs to justify or else they're special pleading, since suffering is NORMALLY equivalent to evil, not good.

"Normally equivalent" should have no bearing, since the Christian concept of God is normally thought of as omnibenevolent. If we are going with how things are normally conceived, then the omnibenevolence of God couldn't even be debated.

Yes you do, or you can't say that it's "logically possible." See?

I meant "logically possible" in the barest bone sense possible, as in, "there is no logical contradiction".

Additionally, you don't know the mechanism by which an omnipotent God performs his will. How exactly does omnipotence work?

Analogy time: Rocket scientists build rockets. I don't know how they build rockets. But, if they are rocket scientists, it is safe to assume that they can build rockets, despite the fact that I don't know how they do it. Likewise, if we define God as omnibenevolent, we can assume that he is acting in ways to maximize the greatest amount of good, despite the fact that we don't know how he does it.

I'm not saying "an omnipotent being can create a suffering-free world in some unknown way."

I've gone into a great deal of effort by describing exactly in which ways it could be done.

That's the difference. That's why I'm not special pleading, but arguing that "evil is good" is special pleading without justification.

Oh, so creating imaginative scenarios, which have no basis in experimentation or reality, somehow justifies your argument?

So, in other words, my argument fails simply because I'm not imaginative enough?

Or perhaps my problem is just harder to solve than yours.

 

[Meow Mix]

There's is nothing inconsistant with the concept, so it's logically possible.

Well, how are you defining "benevolence?" I've been using benevolence as the notion of never deliberately causing harm and that the ends don't justify the means.

It certainly is inconsistent to say that a man who burns a school of children for assassination money to use to feed all of Africa is somehow "benevolent."

That's what's essentially being done in your argument; it goes against the normal definition of "benevolent" as I understand it. Maybe you're just using a different definition of benevolent?

Do you think the ends justify the means, and that regardless of the means if the end is good enough then a person is "benevolent?"

You have no proof or evidence that a suffering-free world could exist either. You just have an imaginative concept of one. I have an imaginative concept of suffering creating the maximal amount of good.

No you don't.

I can describe my concept of a world where physical suffering isn't possible and answer any potential questions about it.

Can you describe a world where leukemia kids is somehow good, where it wouldn't have been better if the leukemia (or all physical suffering) wasn't there in the first place?

You have merely stated that a suffering free world could exist. You have never seen one in action. You've never tested it. You couldn't test it even if you wanted to. How is that justification?

We eradicated smallpox just fine and I didn't notice God being really ****** or the world getting even worse. When we improve medicine the world seems to get a little bit better. Take that to its natural conclusion.

If what you're saying is true, we should notice something negative about eradicating diseases or minimizing suffering. If suffering REALLY DOES maximize good somehow, that would be the case. But we notice the opposite: things get better.

"Normally equivalent" should have no bearing, since the Christian concept of God is normally thought of as omnibenevolent. If we are going with how things are normally conceived, then the omnibenevolence of God couldn't even be debated.

Take another gander at the definition of special pleading. What's "normally equivalent" is of utmost importance to the fallacy. Special pleading is when you say some norm or other is broken in an unknowable way. That's exactly what you're arguing for. You're arguing with special pleading fallacy.

Suffering is NORMALLY linked to evil/bad/undesirable. You're saying it's inexplicably good/desirable (to exist). That's special pleading unless you explain how that could be the case. I encourage you to read over:

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll even post an excerpt and highlight the super important part:

"Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."

I meant "logically possible" in the barest bone sense possible, as in, "there is no logical contradiction".

There actually may be, if benevolence disallows the principle of "the ends justify the means."

Do ends justify the means? Am I benevolent if I murder a child for money (say, from a disgruntled father who didn't win custody) and use the money to feed the homeless, for instance?

If you agree that they do not, then you may be agreeing that there are indications of logical contradiction in the assertion that the existence of suffering somehow maximizes good. It's always better to play it safe anyway: when there are even indications of the possibility, someone had better be justifying the assertion.

I've justified my assertion pretty thoroughly. Now it's up to anyone who argues "bad is good" to justify it or rightly be called on special pleading.

Additionally, you don't know the mechanism by which an omnipotent God performs his will. How exactly does omnipotence work?

I have no idea but that isn't what's in question here, nor can I see how it'd be relevant.

Analogy time: Rocket scientists build rockets. I don't know how they build rockets. But, if they are rocket scientists, it is safe to assume that they can build rockets, despite the fact that I don't know how they do it. Likewise, if we define God as omnibenevolent, we can assume that he is acting in ways to maximize the greatest amount of good, despite the fact that we don't know how he does it.

Sure but there are no blatant logical problems there. Now if you took a rocket scientist and put them in a room that only had some wood, barbed wire and post-it notes and they put something together and told you it was a rocket, the "It's a rocket scientist, so that must be a rocket" doesn't really work because of what we know about wood, barbed wire and post-it notes: it would be special pleading unless there was justification on how that thing they put together is a "rocket."

 

[Willamena]

Oh there certainly could be, they just couldn't cause suffering in people. There's nothing illogical about an omnipotent God making it so that as a tsunami rolls in to where people reside it just goes around them and doesn't hurt their crops and stuff either.

This is an OMNIPOTENT being we're talking about.

So "God done it" is a logical argument. I knew it!

Sure there might still be some suffering such as "Oh I love Billy but he doesn't love me back."

But you wouldn't have leukemia kids and innocent victims anymore.

So the Problem of Evil stands, exactly as I've put it.

So it's only some suffering that we need to allieve, not all. Who gets to choose? Whose aesthetics does God get to please, the altruist or the sadist? I know --God can tailor reality so that one person experiences a lovely mountain meadow, singing The Sound of Music, while a person standing in proximity experiences sitting at home eating an ice cream cone. And everyone's happy.

 

[Meow Mix]

So "God done it" is a logical argument. I knew it!

Only when we're talking about logical possibility, and when "God can do it" is the question. Otherwise you're missing that point, unless you were just being silly... which I fully appreciate, as a silly person myself

So it's only some suffering that we need to allieve, not all. Who gets to choose? Whose aesthetics does God get to please, the altruist or the sadist? I know --God can tailor reality so that one person experiences a lovely mountain meadow, singing The Sound of Music, while a person standing in proximity experiences sitting at home eating an ice cream cone. And everyone's happy.

All it takes for the Problem of Evil to have force is to establish that it's logically possible for God to have made things in such a way where there was less (hopefully much less) suffering.

My arguments are in direct response to certain theodicies to show them fruitless, and that the logical Problem of Evil still exists. That's all.

 

[Willamena]

Only when we're talking about logical possibility, and when "God can do it" is the question. Otherwise you're missing that point, unless you were just being silly... which I fully appreciate, as a silly person myself



All it takes for the Problem of Evil to have force is to establish that it's logically possible for God to have made things in such a way where there was less (hopefully much less) suffering.

My arguments are in direct response to certain theodicies to show them fruitless, and that the logical Problem of Evil still exists. That's all.

The whole "Problem of Evil" argument is silly, and always has me pulling my hair out every time it comes up. And to ignore the interconnectedness of things, and treat one bit of the world, suffering, like it exists in isolation, is unrealistic.

But carry on.