The Problem of Evil, Messiah, and Wrath.

[dybmh]

Depends on what you mean by laws of nature. Do you mean the current laws of nature? A fantasy would have different, albeit similar, laws of nature.

Not if diversity of challenges is maximized. The only way to maximize it is to throw out any laws of nature. This would greatly increase the number of possible challenges while at the same time prohibit improvement. Thus would not describe a perfect world based on the current proposed values of the creator.

A fantasy world is not necessarily a completely chaotic world. Think of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, for example.

Yes, "A" singular fantasy world would not be chaos. We're talking about the sum total of all the possible fantasy worlds such that diversity of challenges is maximized. That would be chaos.

What I am referring as hell-like world would be a world where we, as in all of us, frequently experience major suffering. Earth has never been like that.

1) All that's necessary to fit the current model is improvement. The earth wouldn't need to be hell like you describe in order to improve.
2) If all of us, at some point in the past, experienced the same major suffering of a hell-like world, then that would not describe diversity in challenges. Everyone would have the same challenges at that time. Hell-like as I described it was a unique experience per individual.

How come?

Without a Hiltler, a genocidal dictator, ( or even without the potential for one ) humanity would be less flawed which would render less opportunity for improvement.

And it never will. It is impossible... unless you sacrifice human autonomy, and therefore room for improvement.

The improvement in this case is identifying the genocidal and isolating them before they do any harm. Yes, like all incarceration, this sacrifices human autonomy for the individual, but benefits the majority which is an improvement. Further, if the world can progress to the point of identification and isolation of these dangerous individuals ( as opposed to assassination ), that is an additional improvement, because the genocidal dictator has the opportunity to reform, rehabilitate, and potentially serve society from behind bars. Examples: Writing books, participating as the subject for research, etc.

Subjecting people to torture would provide them the opportunity to improve themselves since learning how to deal with harm is an improvement, right?

OK, maybe. But no one could be forced to be tortured because the hypothetical creator values freedom. The individual would need at least the two options, to submit to the torture or not. So the torture would not be proper unless the individual consents. If they consent, yes, the torturing could be a benefit, an improvement.

Allow me to disagree in a point that is probably irrelevant: There is no permanent pleasure of learning and understanding something. If there was, you would be feeling overjoyed every single moment of your life 'cause of the many things you have learned in your life. I don't think pleasure is the proper word you were looking for.

Well... we were talking about positive reinforcement and how when it competes with long term benefit, the positive reinforement is actually a detriment. Do you disagree that this occurs? Do you understand how a positive reinforcement can be a flaw in these cases, and the reinforcement is best avoided?

But if it is necessary to reach a better outcome, how can it be a flaw?

It's not necessary. The ideal outcome occurs when the flaw ( the thoughts and feelings leading to the less favorable outcome ) are diminished or ignored. If those thoughts and feelings do not exist in that person ( either through nature or nurture ) the ideal outcome is more likely. So the flaw can be non-existent, no problem.

Trying to anticipate your next objection: If they flaw is non-existent then that reduces the potential for improvement, so that would be counter to the established values of the hypothetical creator? No. All it means is that the process for improvement has already advanced for this person such that the flaw has already been mitigated, as I said, either from nature or nurture.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know.
You chatter on about philosophical stuff like @mikkel_the_dane
To me, it is all hypothetical, and has no benefit.

If you care about logical consistency in your worldview it most certainly has a benefit.

Quite obviously, God created THIS REALITY and no other.

It is not obvious that God created anything.

He has very good ressons why he is testing us. He wants us to learn something.

Some people just don't want to learn. They just want to find reasons why they can ignore it.
It is our loss. We carry on following our desires, whatever they may be, which eventually has the possibility of harm to us.

What are those good reasons? Why would he want to test us? What does he want us to learn?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What are those good reasons? Why would he want to test us? What does he want us to learn?

You've asked already, and I've told you.

Why do parents want their child to be successful, and learn?

 

[Koldo]

Not if diversity of challenges is maximized. The only way to maximize it is to throw out any laws of nature. This would greatly increase the number of possible challenges while at the same time prohibit improvement. Thus would not describe a perfect world based on the current proposed values of the creator.

Sure, but I am not talking about a world with maximized challenges. I am talking about fantasy worlds. In them there is higher diversity and improvement is preserved.

1) All that's necessary to fit the current model is improvement. The earth wouldn't need to be hell like you describe in order to improve.

The problem is: If what God values is diversity and improvement, then it follows that our world would have to be maximized for both of them to the extent this is possible. If overcoming evil and suffering provides room for improvement, a hell-like world would be better than our current world.

2) If all of us, at some point in the past, experienced the same major suffering of a hell-like world, then that would not describe diversity in challenges. Everyone would have the same challenges at that time. Hell-like as I described it was a unique experience per individual.

But we wouldn't have to experience the same sufferings in a hell-like world.

Without a Hiltler, a genocidal dictator, ( or even without the potential for one ) humanity would be less flawed which would render less opportunity for improvement.

The improvement in this case is identifying the genocidal and isolating them before they do any harm. Yes, like all incarceration, this sacrifices human autonomy for the individual, but benefits the majority which is an improvement. Further, if the world can progress to the point of identification and isolation of these dangerous individuals ( as opposed to assassination ), that is an additional improvement, because the genocidal dictator has the opportunity to reform, rehabilitate, and potentially serve society from behind bars. Examples: Writing books, participating as the subject for research, etc.

I meant you can't really count on the next Hitler showing up. It is not something that can be prevented indefinitely, unless we live in some kind of Minority Report world.

OK, maybe. But no one could be forced to be tortured because the hypothetical creator values freedom. The individual would need at least the two options, to submit to the torture or not. So the torture would not be proper unless the individual consents. If they consent, yes, the torturing could be a benefit, an improvement.

Then why is it possible to torture people without their consent right now?

Well... we were talking about positive reinforcement and how when it competes with long term benefit, the positive reinforement is actually a detriment. Do you disagree that this occurs? Do you understand how a positive reinforcement can be a flaw in these cases, and the reinforcement is best avoided?

I understand and agree with your general point, yes.

It's not necessary. The ideal outcome occurs when the flaw ( the thoughts and feelings leading to the less favorable outcome ) are diminished or ignored. If those thoughts and feelings do not exist in that person ( either through nature or nurture ) the ideal outcome is more likely. So the flaw can be non-existent, no problem.

Trying to anticipate your next objection: If they flaw is non-existent then that reduces the potential for improvement, so that would be counter to the established values of the hypothetical creator? No. All it means is that the process for improvement has already advanced for this person such that the flaw has already been mitigated, as I said, either from nature or nurture.

How has that flaw been mitigated exactly? Can you exemplify?

 

[Koldo]

You've asked already, and I've told you.

Why do parents want their child to be successful, and learn?

Because they want them to be happy?
For the same reason they would protect them if anyone tried to inflict pain and suffering upon them?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because they want them to be happy?
For the same reason they would protect them if anyone tried to inflict pain and suffering upon them?

Exactly.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly.

Except God doesn't prevent people from inflicting pain and and suffering upon others...
Therefore, the parallel between God and parents is not applicable.

 

[dybmh]

Sure, but I am not talking about a world with maximized challenges. I am talking about fantasy worlds. In them there is higher diversity and improvement is preserved.

I think, if you go back, you'll see we were, indeed, talking about maximized challenges. Otherwise the whole proposal about fantasy worlds is irrelevent. If only some challenge is needed, then the real world challenges we see on Earth already would satisfy the condition where the creator values diversity of challenges.

The problem is: If what God values is diversity and improvement, then it follows that our world would have to be maximized for both of them to the extent this is possible.

Yes. Now if you apply that to the idea of fantasy worlds, you'll see why I was maximizing the diversity of challenges and throwing out the laws of nature.

If overcoming evil and suffering provides room for improvement, a hell-like world would be better than our current world.

Yes, but hell-like as you described it would challenge all in the same extreme manner. In order for the value of diversity of challenges to be actualized, then hell-like would need to be significantly different for each person. That means hell-like would be more severe for some, less severe for others. So your description of hell-like does not meet the parameters setup so far.

But we wouldn't have to experience the same sufferings in a hell-like world.

OK, good. If the experience is different, then the severity for each individual would be different, that matches my description of hell-like. Per post #129, I said: "Hell-like is subjective. Can we agree that the past was more hell-like. Disease, starvation, slavery, child-brides, capital punishment, infant mortality, etc... by every conceivable metric, the past was more hell-like." So, yes, hopefully we agree now, that the past was hell-like to the extent that would meet the expectation of a creator which values improvement.

I meant you can't really count on the next Hitler showing up.

If it happened once, it would be an improvement to be prepared in case another Hitler is born.

It is not something that can be prevented indefinitely, unless we live in some kind of Minority Report world.

I'm not well versed in history; however, as I understand it there were indicators in Germany that the country was moving towards a genocidal dictatorship. Those indicators could be studied and used for prevention of another genocidal dictator coming to power. In addition to that, I would expect that technology and psychology would continue to improve such that the next potential genocidal dictator is identified in their youth. Of course, I'm making some assumptions, primary among them is that a challenge would not be given without the means to succesfully mitigate it.

Then why is it possible to torture people without their consent right now?

Well, as I said before, there's at least one special case ( the ticking time bomb ) where torture without consent is still an improvement. For the other cases when torture is improper, it exists as challenge to be eliminated at some time in the future... improvement is valued.

I understand and agree with your general point, yes.

WooHoo!

How has that flaw been mitigated exactly? Can you exemplify?

It depends on the specific pleasurable feeling that is experienced while doing the improper thing. One which is easy to analyze would be over-eating. Mitigating the immediate pleasure/reward from over-eating can be accomplished by habit. A person gets accustomed to how much to eat by counting calories. Their stomach shrinks, their desire for food tapers off at the appropriate time, before too long instead of feeling the reward from over-eating they now feel too full and over stuffed. For cheating on a test, it might be exhilirating in the moment, and it might be fun to be sneaky, but a person can intellectually recognize that this is a temporary 'high'. They can intellectually understand the consequences of being caught, which would diminish the excitement and pleasure experienced. They can also intellectually understand that by cheating they are deprived of the knowledge that comes from studying for the test. So by using their mind, a person can counter-act and diminish the positive reinforcement they feel when cheating on an exam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Except God doesn't prevent people from inflicting pain and and suffering upon others...
Therefore, the parallel between God and parents is not applicable.

That is false logic.
Almighty God has sent us prophets with guidance, in order to create a society that minimises harm to everybody.
For those who accept the guidance, they minimise harm to themselves, and they are obliged to stop others from doing harm.

The whole point, is that God has given US the authority .. but we have proved to be foolish.
However, God's plan cannot fail.
He is aware of all things.

This world could disappaer in a fraction of a second, if He so willed.
That would not affect the situation, in that our souls would still exist, and we still have to answer for how we behave right now.

 

[Koldo]

That is false logic.
Almighty God has sent us prophets with guidance, in order to create a society that minimises harm to everybody.
For those who accept the guidance, they minimise harm to themselves, and they are obliged to stop others from doing harm.

The whole point, is that God has given US the authority .. but we have proved to be foolish.
However, God's plan cannot fail.
He is aware of all things.

This world could disappaer in a fraction of a second, if He so willed.
That would not affect the situation, in that our souls would still exist, and we still have to answer for how we behave right now.

It is not false logic.
Let's apply your rationale to parents.
Imagine your parents decided to teach people around the world how to behave...
Would your parents watch you being raped? Or would they intervene to prevent it from happening?
Would the fact that someone decided to misbehave, acting in a manner contrary to their teachings, be sufficient to make them merely watch you being raped, rather than saving you from such an awful experience?

Not at all, right?
So yeah... you can't compare God to parents.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is not false logic.
Let's apply your rationale to parents.
Imagine your parents decided to teach people around the world how to behave...

No .. you have ignored what I said.

God is like a parent.
He tells us what is good for us.
If we don't listen, then there is a problem.

It's got nothing to do with what God must or mustn't do.
He has given all the authority to us. It is our responsibility.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Almighty God has sent us prophets with guidance, in order to create a society that minimizes harm to everybody.
For those who accept the guidance, they minimize harm to themselves, and they are obliged to stop others from doing harm.

The whole point, is that God has given US the authority .. but we have proved to be foolish.
However, God's plan cannot fail. He is aware of all things.

This world could disappear in a fraction of a second, if He so willed.
That would not affect the situation, in that our souls would still exist, and we still have to answer for how we behave right now.

Is there any evidence for all or any of what you say?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's more or less what I said.
You prefer philosophy to theology.

You didn't quote it correctly.

 

[Koldo]

No .. you have ignored what I said.

God is like a parent.

I am afraid you are the one that is ignoring what I have said...

He tells us what is good for us.
If we don't listen, then there is a problem.

It's got nothing to do with what God must or mustn't do.
He has given all the authority to us. It is our responsibility.

But this is not what about God must do. I have not mentioned any 'must'.
Parents don't save their children from harm because they must, but rather because they love them and don't want them to suffer. The comparison between God and parents is not proper.

 

[Koldo]

I think, if you go back, you'll see we were, indeed, talking about maximized challenges. Otherwise the whole proposal about fantasy worlds is irrelevent. If only some challenge is needed, then the real world challenges we see on Earth already would satisfy the condition where the creator values diversity of challenges.

A fantasy world has more diversity of challenges than our world. This is why I am talking about it. Is diversity of challenges valued or not?

This is the problem: We have more than two challenges in the world. So, a little bit of diversity is not sufficient, it must be much higher if diversity is valued. Are you going to argue that a specific (unknown) number of diversities is valued thus making Earth the ideal planet? If so, why?

Yes, but hell-like as you described it would challenge all in the same extreme manner. In order for the value of diversity of challenges to be actualized, then hell-like would need to be significantly different for each person. That means hell-like would be more severe for some, less severe for others. So your description of hell-like does not meet the parameters setup so far.

No, a hell-like world wouldn't challenge all in the same manner. But everyone would experience some kind of extreme suffering.
Can you elaborate on how my description of a hell-like world doesn't meet the parameters set so far?

OK, good. If the experience is different, then the severity for each individual would be different, that matches my description of hell-like. Per post #129, I said: "Hell-like is subjective. Can we agree that the past was more hell-like. Disease, starvation, slavery, child-brides, capital punishment, infant mortality, etc... by every conceivable metric, the past was more hell-like." So, yes, hopefully we agree now, that the past was hell-like to the extent that would meet the expectation of a creator which values improvement.

Nope. I don't agree. Our past would have been much much much harsher. A LOT of people in our past experienced alright-ish lives with barely any hardship. And even those who did experienced hardships didn't have it so bad. This is the exact opposite of what would be expected from a creation that is supposed to foster challenges.

If it happened once, it would be an improvement to be prepared in case another Hitler is born.

I'm not well versed in history; however, as I understand it there were indicators in Germany that the country was moving towards a genocidal dictatorship. Those indicators could be studied and used for prevention of another genocidal dictator coming to power. In addition to that, I would expect that technology and psychology would continue to improve such that the next potential genocidal dictator is identified in their youth. Of course, I'm making some assumptions, primary among them is that a challenge would not be given without the means to succesfully mitigate it.

But what about the individuals though?
I think the overall trend in your rationale completely disregards individuals. Why would God would care about the collective?
For instance, there is a hardship of having missing limbs. We might eventually solve this problem, but what about the individuals that had to face this challenge? Why are challenges collective endeavors rather individual's?

Well, as I said before, there's at least one special case ( the ticking time bomb ) where torture without consent is still an improvement. For the other cases when torture is improper, it exists as challenge to be eliminated at some time in the future... improvement is valued.

But what about the individual challenge?
Is torture an opportunity of improvement for the individual that underwent the torture?

It depends on the specific pleasurable feeling that is experienced while doing the improper thing. One which is easy to analyze would be over-eating. Mitigating the immediate pleasure/reward from over-eating can be accomplished by habit. A person gets accustomed to how much to eat by counting calories. Their stomach shrinks, their desire for food tapers off at the appropriate time, before too long instead of feeling the reward from over-eating they now feel too full and over stuffed.

They still feel good from over-eating though, but not for as long since they need less food to feel stuffed.

For cheating on a test, it might be exhilirating in the moment, and it might be fun to be sneaky, but a person can intellectually recognize that this is a temporary 'high'. They can intellectually understand the consequences of being caught, which would diminish the excitement and pleasure experienced. They can also intellectually understand that by cheating they are deprived of the knowledge that comes from studying for the test. So by using their mind, a person can counter-act and diminish the positive reinforcement they feel when cheating on an exam.

Actually, the experience of pleasure would still be pretty similar, the only distinction here is whether the person decides to cheat or not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is there any evidence for all or any of what you say?

Yes..
Are mankind responsible for world affairs, or not?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Parents don't save their children from harm because they must, but rather because they love them and don't want them to suffer. The comparison between God and parents is not proper.

I don't agree.
I am a parent, and if an outcome for my children would be better for them if they suffered, I would rather see them suffer in the short term in order from them to achieve success.

Regards G-d allowing attrocities, that is God's decree. He expects us to look after ourselves.
G-d presumably thinks that overall, it is better for mankind as a whole, rather than mollycoddling us.

Having said that, nothing happens without God allowing it to happen.
..so prayer is not futile.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. Are mankind responsible for world affairs, or not?

To some extent, yes. But everything does not depend on mankind. Nature takes its own course.

Having said that, nothing happens without God allowing it to happen. .. so prayer is not futile.

True, prayers removed the blight of Corona-19.

 

[Koldo]

I don't agree.
I am a parent, and if an outcome for my children would be better for them if they suffered, I would rather see them suffer in the short term in order from them to achieve success.

Regards G-d allowing attrocities, that is God's decree. He expects us to look after ourselves.
G-d presumably thinks that overall, it is better for mankind as a whole, rather than mollycoddling us.

Having said that, nothing happens without God allowing it to happen.
..so prayer is not futile.

Ok. Imagine yourself being an omnipotent father, what outcome for your children would be better for them if they suffered?

 

[dybmh]

A fantasy world has more diversity of challenges than our world. This is why I am talking about it. Is diversity of challenges valued or not?

In this hypothethical, yes, diversty of challenges is valued along with improvement. But including all the permutations available in fantasy has unintended negative consequences interfering with improvement. The scientific method would be compromised; people would be limited to random, trial-and-error attempts to solve problems.

This is the problem: We have more than two challenges in the world. So, a little bit of diversity is not sufficient, it must be much higher if diversity is valued. Are you going to argue that a specific (unknown) number of diversities is valued thus making Earth the ideal planet? If so, why?

The current reality has a lot of diversity in challenges. Everyone has their own struggles.

What I'm arguing is that fantasy world challenges cannot be included in the perfect creation where the creator values improvement.

No, a hell-like world wouldn't challenge all in the same manner. But everyone would experience some kind of extreme suffering.

An evaluation of extreme suffering is subjective. The intensity of the experience is greaty influenced by prior suffering and trauma. This means that there are many possible hell-like scenarios in the past and present. I'm not sure how you can confidently exclude these possibilities.

Can you elaborate on how my description of a hell-like world doesn't meet the parameters set so far?

If the definition of hell-like is rigid, everyone experiences extreme suffering per your standards, then in my mind, that renders identical challenges. This would violate the parameter. But you disagree. I'm guessing we will need to skip over this point since we both are speculating on the experience of past generations and there's no way to really come to a reliable conclusion.

Nope. I don't agree. Our past would have been much much much harsher. A LOT of people in our past experienced alright-ish lives with barely any hardship. And even those who did experienced hardships didn't have it so bad. This is the exact opposite of what would be expected from a creation that is supposed to foster challenges.

Speculation.

The experience of suffering is subjective and the intensity is greatly influenced by past suffering. For all we know, the intensity of suffering experienced by a fortunate family who at some point is deprived of food for a long time due to a drought, is approx the same as a less fortunate family who has lost many children and recently lost another. This is because the less fortunate family has adjusted to their reality where children often do not survive, but the more fortunate family has not adjusted to famine. I propose that if the intensity of the suffering is approx. the same then challenge is essentially the same eventhough the details of each experience is vastly different.

But what about the individuals though?
I think the overall trend in your rationale completely disregards individuals. Why would God would care about the collective?
For instance, there is a hardship of having missing limbs. We might eventually solve this problem, but what about the individuals that had to face this challenge? Why are challenges collective endeavors rather individual's?

The individual sacrifice which benefits many is an improvement. If the individual prospers and the collective degrades, that's not improvement. Therefore improvement of the collective is prioritized.

But what about the individual challenge?
Is torture an opportunity of improvement for the individual that underwent the torture?

Yes, but when isolated to the individual, the ends do not justify the means. The only way to reconcile an individual innocent tortured with a perfect creator is to consider the effect on the collective. If that is not rational/acceptable to you, I cannot fault your reasoning. If I was tortured and permanently disfigured and disabled I may not be able to rise above it. My family may not be able to rise above it. But that doesn't mean that no one, no family could improve as a result of it. When confronted with extreme hardship, it's natural ( at the very least ) to reassess priorities. That is ( at least ) a small improvement.

They still feel good from over-eating though, but not for as long since they need less food to feel stuffed

Until the guilt settles in. And the guilt lasts longer than the good feeling from over-eating.

Actually, the experience of pleasure would still be pretty similar, the only distinction here is whether the person decides to cheat or not.

No, I disagree. The 'high' from cheating on a test, in real time, would be diminshed when a person considers "what if i get caught". The same would be true in anticipation of cheating.