Benevolence and Conflict

quote:

---

Any attempt to restrict the amount of conflict that is allowed results in a decrease in the number of potential benefactors that can be served, because it limits the spectrum of opinions, and thus, the range of individuality, that can exist.

---

This does not make sense to me. Preventing a would-be mass murderer from striking would serve all those who would have been his victims, as well as all those who care for them or depend on them, while only restricting a single individual - the murderer.

quote:

---

We would expect that a god would always have a better idea of what the greater good is than we do. So, god could always make better decisions than we could. So, if the goal is to maximize good and minimize bad, we would do well to let god choose everything for us.

​

But, letting god make our decisions for our greater good renders us effectively non-existent. Instead, there would only be god playing with his Legos.

---

As with all things, there is a balance to be considered. Excessive restrictions might do more harm than good. But can we really say that what we see represents a good balance ? Even considering purely human behaviour there seems to be a lot we could do without.But that's not all. We have to deal with nature, too. Earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases. Would it be so bad is Hurricane Katrina had missed New Orleans or hit it with less force ? Or if AIDS never existed ?

quote:

---

If god is able to prevent these things in the cases where a child dies from them, what mechanism prevents god from doing it in other cases?

---

Could you shoot a man to save a child's life ? If so what mechanism stops you from going out and shooting all your neighbours ?Even if your answer is no, I don't doubt that there is some hypothetical situation where you would do something you normally considered to be wrong to save a child's life. Yet you don't go out and do it routinely just because you could.If you don't need a mechanism to stop you, then why would God ?

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 ?

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 ?