Hi Bluejay. As always great topic.
First, this is clearly a division fallacy. That humans are intelligent does not mean that human kidneys are also intelligent. Likewise, that the universe has a higher purpose does not mean that every facet of the universe also has a higher purpose." It's fully possible for the universe to simultaneously have a "higher purpose" and include lots of meaningless details.
I think since the term "higher purpose" is a bit vague in what it is describing - where as the intelligence of humans is perfectly described - it's not an equal arguement. But no biggy I guess.
I would say this though, if we ascibe purpose to the universe then clearly
we are not a meaningless detail, since without us the universe would lose it purpose value.(I say without out
us specifically because we don't know of any other sentient beings out there that can ascribe purpose to the universe).
The argument assumes that a higher purpose must be emotionally charged in order to serve the best interests of the beneficiary.
We tend to lose our concept of "purpose" when we view it as being independent of a human ascribed attribute.
It also assumes that the best interest of the beneficiary is to be protected from things they consider to be bad.
Man creates God, man demands protection from said God, seems only fair.
In order for benevolence to exist, a beneficiary must exist.
One can hardly be thought of as a beneficiary if one is not a distinct, independent individual.
Thus, benevolence requires individuality (free will).
I think I'm going with CS here, how do individuality and free will equal the same thing? - If you could, would you mind giving a brief description of what you believe to be free will?
Any attempt to restrict the amount of conflict that is allowed results in a decrease in the number of potential beneficiaries that can be served, because it limits the spectrum of opinions, and thus, the range of individuality, that can exist.
Thus, benevolence cannot exist unless conflicts also exist.
Initially I agreed when I read this. But, after reading it again I found a flaw in the premise. This assumes that opinions are an effect of free will, and while it would seem like they are, opinions are deterministic* and thus are not derived from an individuals free will but from the individuals experiences with it's world; cause and effect. Thus opinions are causal and not free willed.
*I'm using this definition of deterministic: the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
The argument that the existence of "bad" makes God an asshole implies that our personal best interest would be better served if we did not have free will. But, how can this be?
But this would require a universal agreement as to what is "bad". What might suck for you could totally be awesome for me - I'm sure you could think of many examples - so I think it remains opinionated and thus in no way reflective of our free will. As per my argument above about opinions being causal and not free willed.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
™ Version 4.2
