Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Benevolence and Conflict
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 59 (500267)
02-24-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Blue Jay
02-24-2009 9:08 AM


Re: Autonomy
quote:
This is the point: Stile proposed a "god filter," whereby god analyzes every decision somebody makes for its potential "evil" outcomes. In effect, every occurrence is then contingent upon god's approval, and not upon your free will.
So it is not actual interference but the potential for interference that takes away free will ? If so then surely we don't have free will anyway since God has the capability to interfere with our actions. If not then your objection is already answered - God won't intervene unless it is the best way to prevent a child's death.
And don't forget that according to Exodus, God interfered with the Pharoah's decisions just so that he could have a pretext to demonstrate his power by inflicting plagues on the Egyptians. Is that really more important than saving a child ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2009 9:08 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2009 10:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 47 of 59 (500269)
02-24-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Blue Jay
02-24-2009 10:06 AM


From the top
Bluejay writes:
I’ll try to express my argument better now. Your argument does not resolve the issue of conflicts: if god were to enforce any standard of "good," there would inevitably be people who still disagree with him. Thus, there would still be conflict, and god would still not be perfectly benevolent to absolutely everybody.
So, your scenario does not resolve the fundamental problem, and the argument that the existence of bad disproves that god is benevolent is still invalid.
I think something's gone terribly wrong. Maybe I'm not clear on what I'm explaining, maybe you're not clear on your definitions... most likely we're not using the same definitions for terms and it's really getting confusing. But something's very, very wrong. Because I'm not trying to say anything like this at all.
It would probably be best if you completely forgot about all of my previous posts. Trying to tie them in would likely be more confusing than helpful. I concede all previous analogies to be "too confusing to help" with whatever it is we're talking about now.
First, this part:
..the argument that the existence of bad disproves that god is benevolent is still invalid.
I would never say that the existence of "bad" disproves that god is benevolent. I am only saying that the existence of "bad" disproves that god is both omnipotent (nothing is "beyond His control") and absolutely benevolent. Which is different.
I totally agree that God can be "benevolent" and bad things can exist. In the same way that you and I can be benevolent and bad things still exist. Some things are beyond our control.
And now for the "issue of conflicts":
Your argument does not resolve the issue of conflicts: if god were to enforce any standard of "good," there would inevitably be people who still disagree with him. Thus, there would still be conflict, and god would still not be perfectly benevolent to absolutely everybody.
Basically, are you saying that God cannot act in a way to disrupt someone or He will remove free will?
What, exactly, is the difference between God acting and you or I acting?
That is, I'm trying to get to a definition of your "free will" that I understand.
Please answer this question:
If I act in a way to disrupt someone, do I remove their "free will"?
A few examples:
1. A man rapes a girl and she gets scared to talk to other men. Did the man remove her free will?
2. I stop a man from raping a girl. (Whoo! Go me!) Did I remove his free will?
There is no God involved in these two whatsoever.
I answer "a bit" to both of these questions, in the sense that some free will has been restricted in one way or the other. However, their "free will" as a whole is still entirely intact, in both cases.
But, if we take your definition of free will:
I must confess that I view free will as all-or-nothing, though.
Then I have to assume that you would answer that free will is removed above, and they are left as "Lego pirates?" That doesn't make sense to me. If that were true, every single person that has ever been forced to do anything by their parents at any stage in their life would be a "Lego pirate." In which case... we're all Lego-machines right now?
What I'm saying is that free will is not removed. Only restricted. And, I'm also saying that if God is "powerful" and also "benevolent", then He could act in such a way to restrict certain portions of people's free will (in the same way that police do here now) in order to protect the free will of innocent people. Such a thing would be benevolent.
God doesn't even have to be perfect. He may even make a few mistakes along the way (like our existing police forces). But... if He truly tried, He'd still definitely make more progress then our current police forces in the sense of the term "beneficial." Don't you think? I think God would certainly be a more-beneficial police force then regular-people police. Or is that beyond God's abilities?
However, this doesn't happen in our world (obviously). So, we have the following conclusions (given God exists):
1. God wants to do this, but he's not powerful enough (too busy, perhaps?).
2. God could do this, but doesn't... because he holds some other philosophy as higher then being benevolent enough to protect as many people who get hurt in this way as possible.
But, I prefer to stick to the conclusion that intervention adds unnecessary complications without resolving the fundamental issue of conflict.
If you're going to just say "I don't think an omnipotent God could handle the unnecessary complications anyway...", then what's the point in imagining an omnipotent God?
You seem to be admitting that God isn't omnipotent anyway. And, if so, then I agree completely that it's rather impossible for someone to judge all this stuff. But isn't this the whole idea? To think about "what if" God was smart enough, powerful enough and just enough? Like an omni-judicial system?
Whenever there is free will (of any degree), there will inevitably be conflict. Thus, if your argument is correct, we may very well already be living in a world where god has removed our ability to do the greatest of evils, along with our ability to even recognize that such evils could have been done otherwise. If this is the case, it only proves my point, because conflict still exists.
I'm not sure what your point is, or if I even disagree with it.
Because this would also prove my point. That if we're already restricted somewhat.. God could restrict us further to make things "less bad".. in which case God is either not powerful enough, or doesn't care to for whatever reason.
I hate reading long posts. It's a wonder, then, that I am continually writing long posts.
Reluctantly agreed, me too

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2009 10:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2009 1:03 AM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 59 (500271)
02-24-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
02-24-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Autonomy
Hi, Paul
PaulK writes:
So it is not actual interference but the potential for interference that takes away free will? If so then surely we don't have free will anyway since God has the capability to interfere with our actions.
That's pretty much what my argument is. I think the key point is that the "god filter," and not the individual, is the actual decider of what the person "wills" in all cases, because each case must be screened individually for potential infractions.
I hesitated to go into what god "can" and "cannot" do, because it would add another side topic about God's omnipotence when I wanted to discuss the logic of free will and conflict in sort of "isolation," but I see now that my hesitance was probably a mistake.
It's very difficult to deal with the topics of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence without bringing them all in to play.
At any rate, I'm beginning to rethink this argument a little bit. The major point is that it doesn't resolve the issue of conflict, and I've kind of steered away from that point in my responses to Stile. Given Stile's argument, God may have already restricted the really great evils, but people are still killing each other over lesser evils.
That's the real weakness of his argument: that it doesn't really change anything.
-----
PaulK writes:
And don't forget that according to Exodus, God interfered with the Pharoah's decisions just so that he could have a pretext to demonstrate his power by inflicting plagues on the Egyptians. Is that really more important than saving a child ?
To quote Catholic Scientist, "Meh."
What the ancient Hebrews believe god did in Egypt doesn't matter much to me. I'm only interested in the core argument.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2009 10:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 02-24-2009 1:48 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 59 (500302)
02-24-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
02-24-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Autonomy
quote:
That's pretty much what my argument is. I think the key point is that the "god filter," and not the individual, is the actual decider of what the person "wills" in all cases, because each case must be screened individually for potential infractions.
Of course, the operation of the filter is a key point here. Say that in the case of unintentional deaths it always chooses the least intrusive option and for intentional killings it only prevents the act itself. Is that really so bad ?
Say, for instance God prompted one of the reviewers of Andrew Wakefield's notorious paper on MMR vaccine and autism to uncover the evidence of Wakefield's financial interests or some of the evidence of fraud that has since come to light. Can you honestly say that that would be wrong ?
Or how about prompting a parent to do something that would prevent a fatal accident ? How many parents would regard that as anything less than a blessing ? Is a simple reminder - all it would take in some cases - really too much ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2009 10:58 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 50 of 59 (500317)
02-24-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
02-24-2009 9:03 AM


Re: Autonomy
bluejay writes:
But, god must allow free will if he is to be benevolent, because there can be no benevolence without a beneficiary, and there can be no beneficiaries without independence. And, conflict is an unavoidable side effect of independence.
And this makes me wonder: what constitutes "God's benevolence"? What does that amount to, really? And whatever that might be, what good is it to me, in terms of getting me through my day-to-day existence, given that it clearly does not amount to anything that will reliably produce effects that I would consider beneficial?
Perhaps my wife and/or I will die in a car accident caused by some other driver whose free will led him to get drunk and then drive. Is that the sort of thing we're talking about? Obviously, it's the sort of thing that happens a lot in the real world, and it seems as though you're trying to provide some perspective on God whereby that can sensibly be viewed as an aspect of God's benevolence, or at least as something that does not negate the concept of a benevolent God.
Sorry, I just don't get it. I do appreciate your ability to provide and maintain a focus in the discussion, and this has helped me to clarify things in my own mind -- it's just that the particular perspective you seem to be proposing is something that seems quite unclear to me now. At least, it's unclear to me why any effort should be spent trying to make some sort of presentable case for this supernatural entity.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2009 9:03 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 59 (500355)
02-25-2009 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
02-24-2009 10:39 AM


Re: From the top
Hi, Stile.
Holy crap! I didn't even notice that you'd sneaked a post in between my earlier posts.
Stile writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, your scenario does not resolve the fundamental problem, and the argument that the existence of bad disproves that god is benevolent is still invalid.
I think something's gone terribly wrong. Maybe I'm not clear on what I'm explaining, maybe you're not clear on your definitions... most likely we're not using the same definitions for terms and it's really getting confusing. But something's very, very wrong. Because I'm not trying to say anything like this at all.
Crap again!
That wasn't your argument: it was the argument that provoked me into starting this thread in the first place---that the existence of "bad" is inconsistent with a benevolent god. My contention here was that your argument didn't resolve the issue that I took with that argument.
-----
Stile writes:
If I act in a way to disrupt someone, do I remove their "free will"?
No. You do not.
Free will is only exercised at the moment of action. So, once the trigger has been squeezed or the football leaves the quarterback’s hand, free will has already run its course, and any further disruption (like a gust of wind or a defender) only effects the outcome of the action, and not the action itself. Since free will has nothing to do with outcomes anyway, disruption after the action changes nothing about free will.
In your second example (you stopping a man from raping a woman), you have not removed his free will, because there is nothing in his having free will that guarantees his success (outcome). So, he exercises his free will in grabbing the woman, and pushing her around (I’ll cut off here for the sake of our underage readers). But, even after this, there remain variables. For one, the woman may be strong enough that his pushing does little to move her in his intended direction. Or, if he blunders upon an Ottoman by mistake, or if Stile catches him and bashes his face in before he can perform the deed, his free will still has not been taken, because these things are all outcomes, and not actions that he initiates on his own.
So, perhaps free will is best thought of as being exercised at the moment of initiation, or, at the moment of the attempt. A cowboy tries to shoot a cattle thief, but his gun jams: he exercised his free will in pulling the trigger, not in making the bullet exit the gun; thus, the failure of his weapon is not a restriction on his free will. A paraplegic tries to walk, but falls on his face: he exercised his free will in sending a neural impulse, but the non-responsiveness of the nerves in his legs prevented his action from succeeding (admittedly, this one may be taking it too far, but it’s very illustrative of the concept).
Your first example (girl traumatized into dysfunction by rape) is a bit trickier. I have personally experienced major psychological trauma resulting from a hereditary psychological disorder and very unpleasant social circumstances (nothing quite as bad as rape, though). My personal experience leads me to reject the notion that free will is in any way compromised by such trauma, but I don’t believe my experience is unimpeachable. Due to my hereditary disorder, I have often wondered whether I am a fully functional human being at times (and whether this would constitute a get-into-heaven-free card ), but I have concluded, after long hours of careful introspection, that my ability to decide on and initiate my own course of action was always intact, even though I had convinced myself otherwise in many cases.
-----
Stile writes:
Because this would also prove my point. That if we're already restricted somewhat.. God could restrict us further to make things "less bad".. in which case God is either not powerful enough, or doesn't care to for whatever reason.
or that he has already reached the optimal compromise between free will and good things.
Which would prove my point that conflicts still exist in the case of an optimal compromise, and that people still say, if god were really benevolent, he would _______.
Do you think this debate that we're having would be any different if god were to prevent infanticide? If infanticide was not an option, would people just agree that god is benevolent?
In fact, I’d be willing to wager a substantial amount of whatever-you-want that we would instead be saying things like, if god were really benevolent, he would prevent all murder," because now, since infanticide is not possible, something else must take it's place as the "epitome" of evil.
And, if he were to prevent that, we would then say something like, if god were really benevolent, he would prevent all death.
At what point do you think this would end and people would finally agree that god really is benevolent?
I argue that this would never happen, not until god was preventing all decisions and causing everybody to agree with him and with one another in all circumstances. And, that’s where the Lego pirates come in. But, until we get to Lego pirates, we have the existence of disagreements, conflicts and bad.
And, if X is the worst, most heinous evil that we can conceive of, no matter how bad we think X is, it’s pretty safe to assume that we are bound to consider something to have that level of "badness," so preventing what we perceive to be the worst, most heinous evil is strictly impossible.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 02-24-2009 10:39 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 02-25-2009 8:48 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 52 of 59 (500388)
02-25-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
02-25-2009 1:03 AM


Re: From the top
Bluejay writes:
Crap again!
That wasn't your argument: it was the argument that provoked me into starting this thread in the first place---that the existence of "bad" is inconsistent with a benevolent god. My contention here was that your argument didn't resolve the issue that I took with that argument.
Ah, I see. My fault. I sometimes (a lot of times?) take things very personally just because the post is "replied to me." Even when I should be taking what's said in more of a general sense. It often gets in my way of figuring out the real issue and just causes confusion. It's something I'm trying to work on, but I'm still not very good at it yet
Bluejay writes:
So, perhaps free will is best thought of as being exercised at the moment of initiation, or, at the moment of the attempt. A cowboy tries to shoot a cattle thief, but his gun jams: he exercised his free will in pulling the trigger, not in making the bullet exit the gun; thus, the failure of his weapon is not a restriction on his free will. A paraplegic tries to walk, but falls on his face: he exercised his free will in sending a neural impulse, but the non-responsiveness of the nerves in his legs prevented his action from succeeding (admittedly, this one may be taking it too far, but it’s very illustrative of the concept).
I understand what you're saying. And I agree that the "moment of initiation" is a vital part of free will. However, I think the extension of your idea gets into confusing situations.
Example:
1. According to your above idea, a prisoner in a cell still has free will? He can initiate all the impulses he likes... but he can't leave the cell or really do anything. I'd say that whoever put him in the cell has restricted his free will. You would not say so?
2. In the same vein as above... a slave still has free will? That is, someone who is treated as a slave, and forced to do whatever the "owner" wants... still has free will? I mean, technically, they can still initiate any impulse they want... but they're restricted from doing anything "they want" by the owner... and forced to do whatever the owner wants instead.
I think that if you still call those scenarios as "having free will", then there is some mis-alignment with what you call "free will" and what the general population calls "free will." Perhaps you have made a distinction between "free will" and "freedom"? I certainly think that what you're talking about is a distinction... I just think the words chosen to represent that distinction are kind of already used for not-so-distinct things (as seen by the general population). Which is what breeds confusion.
However... this doesn't really have anything to do with the actual issue.
In fact, I'm starting to think that we agree on the general idea of "the issue", but we're describing it in different ways that have been easily confused with something else.
At what point do you think this would end and people would finally agree that god really is benevolent?
I argue that this would never happen, not until god was preventing all decisions and causing everybody to agree with him and with one another in all circumstances. And, that’s where the Lego pirates come in. But, until we get to Lego pirates, we have the existence of disagreements, conflicts and bad.
I think the problem is with the phrase "God really is benevolent."
That is, if we take "really benevolent" as a totally seperate issue, and not include something like "totally omnipotent as well," then I certainly agree with you. The system we have in reality right now may very well be "the best possible balance" between benevolence and free-will and God's abilities.
Another problem is with the phrase "existence of disagreements". You see, the idea I was proposing (with no bad, but still a varying degree of very good, kinda good and even neutral) still very much has disagreements. Conflict on the whole isn't entirely wiped out, and I certainly agree that disagreement/conflict (or, at least, the possibility of disagreement/conflict) is required in some capacity for free will to exist. I was merely talking about restricting such disagreement/conflict to things which do not harm other people. Things like disagreement over God being benevolent, or disagreement over what car is better to drive. Those kinds of disagreements would certainly still exist. So free will would still exist. But if they escalated to the point of causing actual harm to another person... the "omni-police" God I'm thinking of would be able to prevent such.
And, if X is the worst, most heinous evil that we can conceive of, no matter how bad we think X is, it’s pretty safe to assume that we are bound to consider something to have that level of "badness," so preventing what we perceive to be the worst, most heinous evil is strictly impossible.
Quite true. I agree. All I'm saying is that it's also quite possible for the world to be "better" than it is right now. And that such a thing should be within a God's power. Therefore, if God isn't doing such a thing, He either cannot or will not. Perhaps quite reasonably so, but "reasonably" doesn't include being omnipotent and absolutely benevolent at the same time.
So, I think we've ended up talking about the same thing, and perhaps we even started out doing so? Such ideas just tend to be confusing because everyone has their own idea of what "free will", "conflict", "disagreement" or "good/bad" and such entail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2009 1:03 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2009 2:20 AM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 59 (500415)
02-26-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
02-25-2009 8:48 AM


Re: From the top
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
However, I think the extension of your idea gets into confusing situations.
I'm tempted to say, "So what?"
-----
Stile writes:
According to your above idea, a prisoner in a cell still has free will? He can initiate all the impulses he likes... but he can't leave the cell or really do anything. I'd say that whoever put him in the cell has restricted his free will. You would not say so?
No, I wouldn't.
Why do you think free will would grant him the ability to leave the cell?
-----
Stile writes:
In the same vein as above... a slave still has free will? That is, someone who is treated as a slave, and forced to do whatever the "owner" wants... still has free will? I mean, technically, they can still initiate any impulse they want... but they're restricted from doing anything "they want" by the owner... and forced to do whatever the owner wants instead.
Can slaves disobey their masters?
The fact that they'll get punished if they're caught doesn't change the fact that they can do it. Remember, they can't choose the outcome.
-----
Stile writes:
I was merely talking about restricting such disagreement/conflict to things which do not harm other people.
I know. I know what you're talking about.
"Harming people" is one form of "bad" that we see in the world.
But, what if, like you suggest, god made it impossible to harm other people?
Would "bad" disappear, and leave only "good," "kinda good" and "neutral," as you are suggesting? Or would we simply find something else to call "bad"?
Wouldn't "neutral" then become "bad," and "kinda good," "neutral"?
If we started calling something else "bad," why couldn't people in this hypothetical universe make the same argument you're making, except, instead of using "harming people," they would use whatever it is that they think of as "bad"?
Would their argument be any less valid than yours? Why?
Could you ever reach a point where your argument could no longer be legitimately applied to something?

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 02-25-2009 8:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 8:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 54 of 59 (500429)
02-26-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
02-26-2009 2:20 AM


Bad things... that actually harm others
Bluejay writes:
Stile writes:
According to your above idea, a prisoner in a cell still has free will? He can initiate all the impulses he likes... but he can't leave the cell or really do anything. I'd say that whoever put him in the cell has restricted his free will. You would not say so?
No, I wouldn't.
Why do you think free will would grant him the ability to leave the cell?
I suppose my point is that the actual distinction between "having free will" and "being able to exercise that free will (having freedom)" is irrelevent when discussing anything in practical terms.
That is, you may say this prisioner "has free will", but what good is that if he doesn't have any freedom to exercise that free will?
Example 1: Man A wants to hurt a woman, but another man B doesn't like that idea so he locks man A in a cell. Thus, man A is prevented from hurting the woman.
You're telling me that Man A's free will is not being removed or restricted?
Example 2: Man A wants to hurt a woman, but God doesn't like that idea so He locks man A in a cell. Thus, man A is prevented from hurting the woman.
And now, all of a sudden, man A has lost his free will? What's the difference? This is the confusion I'm talking about. Why can a person prevent another person from doing bad... and free will remains intact. But if God prevents a person from doing bad... free will is removed? This doesn't seem consistent to me.
ABE: Wait... we may have already gotten past this "God removes free will" part... I'm not sure. If we are, just forget this bit above.
I would also suggest that when most people talk about free will, they include an unmentioned assumption that the person also has the freedom to exercise that free will.
If that is the case, placing a distinction between the two and expecting others to understand the distinction you're making is going to cause nothing but confusion.
Bluejay writes:
I'm tempted to say, "So what?"
If you don't care about adding confusion into the discussion you join... what are you here for? I'm under the impression that the goal of these discussions is to learn and/or uncover "the truth" as much as we can. Confusion is not helpful in achieving such a goal. It's quite possible that you have a different goal, but I hope not, because I don't... and if you do, then I'm wasting my time.
Bluejay writes:
"Harming people" is one form of "bad" that we see in the world.
But, what if, like you suggest, god made it impossible to harm other people?
Would "bad" disappear, and leave only "good," "kinda good" and "neutral," as you are suggesting? Or would we simply find something else to call "bad"?
Wouldn't "neutral" then become "bad," and "kinda good," "neutral"?
I agree that people would likely shift and call it "bad," and "kinda good," and "neutral", as you suggest. But, renaming things that don't harm people doesn't create more things that actually harm people. If God did make it impossible to hurt other people, then it is impossible to hurt other people. Sure we can rename the other things.. but what difference does that make? I never said God was removing "anything anyone called bad", I said God was removing those bad things "that harmed other people."
If we started calling something else "bad," why couldn't people in this hypothetical universe make the same argument you're making, except, instead of using "harming people," they would use whatever it is that they think of as "bad"?
To answer your question, those people certainly could use the same form of argument that I used, but they most certainly could not use the same arguement. If God has already removed "the bad things that harm other people" then no one can argue that "bad things that harm other people" still exist. They certainly are free to call other things "bad" if they want... but if "harming other people" doesn't exist... it can't be removed again... that doesn't make sense.
Would their argument be any less valid than yours? Why?
Yes. Because it's no longer about bad things that harm other people. It would be about bad things that don't harm other people. Maybe about things people simply don't approve of in their personal opinion. Such things are less valid on the "good/bad" scale then things that actually harm others.
Could you ever reach a point where your argument could no longer be legitimately applied to something?
Yes. That point would be exactly after my actual arguement was used. I was never talking about God removing all things that anyone calls bad. I agree that such a thing could quickly and easily spiral out of control. That's why I never said such a thing.
Harming another person is objective. Or, in the very least, we could even (for the sake of this arguement) restrict "harming another person" to be those things which are easily, obviously objective... like breaking an arm or leg when the victim didn't want such a thing. Preventing such objective harm to others would produce a "better" universe than the one we currently live in. A God should be able to do such a thing. Since (currently) God is not doing so, God is (currently) either not powerful enough, or holds higher priorities.
Edited by Stile, : Did we already clear that up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2009 2:20 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2009 1:46 AM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 55 of 59 (500528)
02-27-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Stile
02-26-2009 8:57 AM


Re: Bad things... that actually harm others
Stile writes:
Example 1: Man A wants to hurt a woman, but another man B doesn't like that idea so he locks man A in a cell. Thus, man A is prevented from hurting the woman.
You're telling me that Man A's free will is not being removed or restricted?
Yes, that’s what I’m telling you. In this example, neither the man’s free will nor his ability to exercise his free will are compromised in any way.
Scenario 1: you are in a prison cell, and you want to get out. You try to open the door.
Action: You hit the latch and push on the door.
Outcome: The door opens.
Scenario 2: you are in a prison cell, and you want to get out. You try to open the door.
Action: You hit the latch and push on the door.
Outcome: The door does not open.
You are able to do exactly the same things in both scenarios. The only difference is the outcome, which is outside the jurisdiction of your free will anyway.
Free will only acts in the present. The present is always defined by a certain set of circumstances. And every set of circumstances has its own restrictions on what you can and can’t do.
For instance, while I am driving my car on the Interstate, I am restricted from posting a message on EvC because my computer is at home.
So, would you argue that, while I am in the car, my free will is restricted?
If so, could you please provide me an example of a time when free will is not being restricted in some way?
-----
Stile writes:
Example 2: Man A wants to hurt a woman, but God doesn't like that idea so He locks man A in a cell. Thus, man A is prevented from hurting the woman.
And now, all of a sudden, man A has lost his free will? What's the difference? This is the confusion I'm talking about. Why can a person prevent another person from doing bad... and free will remains intact. But if God prevents a person from doing bad... free will is removed? This doesn't seem consistent to me.
What are you talking about here?
Are you saying god actually, literally puts someone in jail?
Or is this a metaphor for god’s interfering with the actions that we are capable of performing?
There is a difference between preventing success and preventing an attempt. Sure, god could go around dropping cages on top of people to prevent their harming others.
But, you still have to define harm.
-----
Stile writes:
I never said God was removing "anything anyone called bad", I said God was removing those bad things "that harmed other people.
Why do you think harming other people should be avoided?
Is it not because you view harming other people as bad?
-----
Stile writes:
was never talking about God removing all things that anyone calls bad. I agree that such a thing could quickly and easily spiral out of control. That's why I never said such a thing.
I’m saying that your harm others argument will also spiral out of control.
Harm is no better defined than bad.
Do bruises count as harm?
Do hurt feelings count as harm?
Where are you drawing your specific line? Why couldn’t somebody draw another line a few steps beyond yours?
And, the big one: who gets to decide when somebody has been harmed?
Edited by Bluejay, : superfluous commas

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 8:57 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 02-27-2009 7:45 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 56 of 59 (500545)
02-27-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Blue Jay
02-27-2009 1:46 AM


Harm is the opposite of benevolence
Bluejay writes:
So, would you argue that, while I am in the car, my free will is restricted?
Yes.
If so, could you please provide me an example of a time when free will is not being restricted in some way?
Never. I don't see a problem with this. Sometimes it's restricted more than other times. Sometimes it's restricted so much (like being in a cell) that we don't think it's "right."
If we just say that everyone has free will all the time, no matter what restrictions are placed on them... the term loses it's meaning.
There is a difference between preventing success and preventing an attempt. Sure, god could go around dropping cages on top of people to prevent their harming others.
I'm glad we now agree.
But, you still have to define harm.
I did, in the message you just replied to:
Stile writes:
Harming another person is objective. Or, in the very least, we could even (for the sake of this arguement) restrict "harming another person" to be those things which are easily, obviously objective... like breaking an arm or leg when the victim didn't want such a thing. Preventing such objective harm to others would produce a "better" universe than the one we currently live in. A God should be able to do such a thing. Since (currently) God is not doing so, God is (currently) either not powerful enough, or holds higher priorities.
Bluejay writes:
And, the big one: who gets to decide when somebody has been harmed?
If your arguement is going to turn into "harm is undefinable because no one will ever agree on what is good and what is bad" then your original arguement is nulled as well.
If you're going to claim that "harm" is undefinable, then to stay consistent you must also accept that "benevolent" is undefinable. In which case... you're whole issue disappears because "benevolence" no longer exists anyway. Really, you're the one who said we're able to identify things along the good/bad scale when you started off talking about God's benevolence. Harm is simply the other end of the scale. If you don't like the actual word "harm", I'll use any other you'd prefer to mean "the opposite of benevolence."
But if you're going to claim that such a term doesn't exist... then benevolence itself no longer exists either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2009 1:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2009 2:36 PM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 59 (500631)
02-28-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
02-27-2009 7:45 AM


Re: Harm is the opposite of benevolence
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
Bluejay writes:
But, you still have to define harm.
I did, in the message you just replied to...
You sure did. And, I even remember reading it before. It must have escaped my mind on my second attempt (it was very early in the morning).
I apologize for being stupid.
-----
Stile writes:
If you're going to claim that "harm" is undefinable, then to stay consistent you must also accept that "benevolent" is undefinable
If you don't like the actual word "harm", I'll use any other you'd prefer to mean "the opposite of benevolence."
I really do enjoy debating with you, but somehow we always end up arguing about what words mean, even though both of us are adamant that we hate this. I don’t know how to continue this debate without arguing definitions.
Perhaps it’s my fault. I apologize again.
-----
I will suggest this little thought, though:
If harm and benevolence are meant to be opposites, can one exist without the other?
I argue that they cannot.
If I'm right, then the tradeoff would be between "maximizing good" and "minimizing bad," neither one of which makes god malevolent.
Either way, the original argument that I made is correct: the existence of suffering is not evidence against a benevolent god.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 02-27-2009 7:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 03-02-2009 7:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 58 of 59 (500727)
03-02-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Blue Jay
02-28-2009 2:36 PM


Personal Summary
Bluejay writes:
I really do enjoy debating with you, but somehow we always end up arguing about what words mean...
Always fun talking with you too.
But yeah, it does seem to end up this way. I like to think that in some way, this means we have somehow come to an agreement on the large-scale issues (of whatever we're talking about), and we're now just down to the nitty-gritty. Which is sometimes important... and sometimes not. Hopefully, regardless of how we've left each other, we have provided some decent reading material and thought-provoking text for "the lurkers."
Or, in other words: meh
Bluejay writes:
If harm and benevolence are meant to be opposites, can one exist without the other?
I argue that they cannot.
I agree.
If I'm right, then the tradeoff would be between "maximizing good" and "minimizing bad," neither one of which makes god malevolent.
Again, agreed.
Either way, the original argument that I made is correct: the existence of suffering is not evidence against a benevolent god.
That sentence in and of itself... I agree. I'm just not comfortable with terms like "absolute" or "omnipotence" being assumed as well.
Perhaps the subjective, undefine-able nature of good/bad or harm/benevolence in and of itself disproves any "absolute" or "omnipotent" being. Because then the questions begin again: Absolute according to who's virtures? Omnipotent as approved by whom?
One person's absolute paragon is another's omnipotent fool?
Good hunting... see you at the next discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2009 2:36 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 03-02-2009 9:18 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 59 of 59 (500734)
03-02-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Stile
03-02-2009 7:26 AM


Meh.
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
I'm just not comfortable with terms like "absolute" or "omnipotence" being assumed as well.
I'm in full agreement here.
I always find myself in a peculiar situation when it comes to this type of argument. Atheists usually think I'm insane because of my apologetics approach, and theists usually think I'm a heretic because I don't come to any conclusions that they particularly like, either.
I rest my belief in a non-omnipotent god who, whether "benevolent" or not, generally keeps its fingers out of people's personal lives. Whether or not that belief is vindicated, I suppose I may find out someday. But, until then, I supposed I'll just remain in uncertainty.
That's not nearly as scary to me now as it once was.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. See you at the next one.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 03-02-2009 7:26 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024